Instant Runoff Voting is pretty exciting for those of us in 3rd parties and it makes a lot of sense.

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/whatis2.htm


http://www.instantrunoff.com/


The second benefit would be a great bonus to third parties.

IRV is used in some state primary elections, some other countries, and awards like the Academy Awards and Heisman Trophy. Why not in our elections?

Questions to debate (members of 3rd parties):

1) Do you support IRV, why or why not?

2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections? What strategies could we use as 3rd parties to change our voting system to IRV?

I like the idea a lot, and fully support it. The main reason would be that it takes away from the idea that a voter can only favor one candidate.

Getting it accepted in the United States seems like a uphill battle. First of all, there's just plain intertia, on the part of those in charge of setting the rules for elections. Secondly, I think that such a system would be a little more difficult for voters, and require a little more thought. It would discourage a few people from voting at all, I would think, by making it a little more complex. Also, many of the people most likely to vote are only interested in voting for Smith or against Jones, and would probably not be very likely to rank the other candidates.

I'm just pointing out the difficulties in adapting a system that has a lot of good points.

I agree with this. The two major parties have a lot to lose (while the rest of us have a lot to gain) with this system.

I kind of think it's similar to alternative energy -- it's obvious that alternative energy is better for the world and in the long run for our pocket books, but the those that control the oil industry have enough power and influence to keep us from pursuing a better way.

I agree that some people might not vote with the new system, but I would like to argue that people who are disenfranchised by the "voting for the lesser evil" system would come back to the polls, and I believe this would more than offset those that stop voting. I believe this is one way to combat what appears to be "voter apathy"

One of the other things I like about IRV is that "none of the above" can be one of the choices.

I can still vote against a candidate using IRV.

An example of how this could work in the 2004 election if I could rank 4 candidates:

1) Green Party Candidate (David Cobb?)
2) Ralph Nader
3) John Kerry
4) None of the above.

As you can see, I can still use IRV to vote against a candidate -- in this case Bush. For those who enjoy voting against a candidate, this would give them more than one way to vote against them! Very therapeutic . . .

I believe that you don't even have to rank all the candidates -- you can rank two of them or even just vote for one like it is now.

I like this idea very much.
How about putting this thread in the open political forum.
Lets hear what the declared think since they are the ones who will get it killed off.
I wanna hear the excuses now to head them off at the pass later.

It is a foregone conclusion that that IRV is the best way to choose a candidate. It prevents hijacking of an election by a majority or strong minority or 'media blitzes'. It should also lead to a better informed electorate, but to put it bluntly, this notion puts the fear of God into the Washington power brokers. With the liberty to do so, people might actually choose their candidate second!

And most people just don't understand it; they never will. Requires too much thought. At least not as many as there are needed to amend the constitution; and if it did by some miracle find its way on a national referendum, it would get spun upside down and sideways (by whoever was in power at the time). The major parties will never go for it, for it robs them of a 'spoiler' fulcrum.

I believe this was on the table at the founding of this country (I will do some research). Even the founders felt that the electorate just couldn't make an informed choice this way. At the time it was a foregone conclusion that Washington should be Optimus Prime of our cute little republic. With a clear idea in mind of who has the charisma and ability to lead a nation at its founding, the paradigms that gave rise to the Constitution are somewhat flavored. Problem is, with no clear idea in mind the process is probably worse (may I present the paradoxical document that is taking shape in Iraq they are calling a constitution?) Perhaps they were right about the electorate. Then again, maybe it was just a self fulfilling prophecy...

It all comes down to the fact that people want entertainment, like the Scott Petersen case. Maybe we should elect the Scott Petersen case for president. I find Ralph Nader entertaining (with his nonchalant(sp?) shredding of the concentration of corporate power, while blinking his lazy eye - ever notice how his eyes never blink together?) as I find many other third party candidates. But I am in the minority on this fact (assessment of entertainment value) and will be discriminated against accordingly.

Of course I support IRV, and I don't think that the two parties have as much to fear as they may think.

The sad truth is that even with IRV, the Democrats and Republicans have the best-known, best-organized and farthest-reaching parties in the country. They can raise money more efficiently than any of our third parties, and they each have a core of followers who will vote for them without their ever having to spend a dime on publicity. I'm sure you all have friends who wanted Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee, who couldn't find a good thing to say about John Kerry, but who suddenly had a profound change of heart as soon as the dust settled in Iowa. Kerry didn't need to convert any of the millions of former Deaniacs who now stump for Kerry as rabidly as they did for their previous Messiah. This is what we third party supporters are up against.

Another aspect of IRV that intrigues me is that it may pull the two parties away from their centrist leanings, and open up a whole new class of swing voters. If both parties acted under the new system as they do today, taking similar stands on most major issues, swing voters torn between those two parties might be inclined to vote first for the Democratic candidate and then (ironically) for his Republican rival, or vice versa. After all, their platforms aren't too far apart. These swing votes would likely cancel each other out in a Run-Off.

Therefore, the centrist swing vote would lose its importance, while the two major candidates might court third party followers for their crucial 'second votes.' A John Kerry might go more liberal, while a George W. Bush might take up some true conservative principles, and suddenly there would be a clearer choice between the two major parties (which I believe is as it should be).

I believe that the IRV system would really benefit third parties and independent candidates, if only over the long run. But at the outset of such a system, while those parties take needed time to grow after suffocating so long under the crushing boot of the current two-party system, we might see a more dynamic Democratic and Republican party, making each of them more palatable as our second or third choice.

By the way, voter confusion doesn't count as a legitimate argument in an election. Such an argument insults the electorate's intelligence. The Democrats tried that exact line of attack in the California Recall campaign, saying that voters wouldn't be able to find their candidate on a 135-person ballot that wasn't in alphabetical order. Voters here responded to that criticism by zeroing in quite handily on Arnold Schwarzenegger's name.



I don't know the answer to this question, and I would love to hear anyone's input. Is this really something that must be taken up on the federal level, or do the various states each have their own rules regarding the voting process in a Presidential Election? Maybe we should start at a local level, working to get IRV in municipal and/or statewide elections, thereby having an existing framework which would serve as an example to skeptics.

As far as convincing Democrats and Republicans, I think that the best argument to win over Dems is that Gore may have won in 2000 under IRV, as so many Green voters would likely have put his name second on the ballot. And he would have had a mandate, knowing that over 50% of the public was behind him.

I agree that this subject should be posted on the main board, so that more people can be made aware of an obscure proposal. Perhaps one of the more seasoned posters among you might put it up for debate, so it garners more serious attention.

Jefferson Smith

Edited to add: Coincidentally, Ralph Nader just posted an editorial on his website regarding this very subject, with several links of interest at the bottom. It looks like the local level is the place to start this system.

Also, I just read above these posts that I should not be posting on this board, as I am not affiliated with any third party. I apologize, and I will not post here again. Please put this subject on the main board, so that I and others may respond to it!