Full Version: Instant Runoff Voting
I've had several people PM me to start this topic in the General Debate forum. Currently it's a topic in the 3rd Party forum, link here.
IRV has a lot of advantages:
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/whatis2.htm
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
There are a lot of advantages for 3rd parties to support IRV, but I've felt the Democrats and Republicans would be afraid that they would lose their monopoly of the left and right as the 3rd parties would most likely grow from this type of voting system.
Questions to Debate:
1) Would you support IRV, why or why not?
2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections?
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
IRV has a lot of advantages:
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/whatis2.htm
QUOTE
Instant runoff voting allows for better voter choice and wider voter participation by accommodating multiple candidates in single seat races and assuring that a "spoiler"-effect will not result in undemocratic outcomes. Instant runoff voting allows all voters to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of helping elect their least favorite candidate, and it ensures that the winner enjoys true support from a majority of the voters.
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
QUOTE
The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1,2,3, etc. (hence, the motto, "it's as easy as 1-2-3."). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until 1 winner emerges with a majority of the vote.
snip (benefits)
*When there are more than 2 candidates, it ensures the winner has a majority. Without IRV, the winner can win with less than 50% of the vote. How do we really know they have a mandate?
*It will allow more candidates, including independents and third-parties, to get involved in a race, without being accused of "spoiling" the elections. Even if your favorite candidate comes in last, at least IRV allows your next favorite candidate to be counted. No more wasting your vote, and no more spoilers.
*It will decrease negative campaigning. To win, candidates need to get some 2nd and 3rd place votes, as well as 1st place votes. They'll be less likely to "go negative" if they need their opponent's voters, too.
*IRV saves money. Some states and local elections hold runoffs weeks later to pick the winner. IRV holds the runoff all in one election--saving money.
snip (benefits)
*When there are more than 2 candidates, it ensures the winner has a majority. Without IRV, the winner can win with less than 50% of the vote. How do we really know they have a mandate?
*It will allow more candidates, including independents and third-parties, to get involved in a race, without being accused of "spoiling" the elections. Even if your favorite candidate comes in last, at least IRV allows your next favorite candidate to be counted. No more wasting your vote, and no more spoilers.
*It will decrease negative campaigning. To win, candidates need to get some 2nd and 3rd place votes, as well as 1st place votes. They'll be less likely to "go negative" if they need their opponent's voters, too.
*IRV saves money. Some states and local elections hold runoffs weeks later to pick the winner. IRV holds the runoff all in one election--saving money.
There are a lot of advantages for 3rd parties to support IRV, but I've felt the Democrats and Republicans would be afraid that they would lose their monopoly of the left and right as the 3rd parties would most likely grow from this type of voting system.
Questions to Debate:
1) Would you support IRV, why or why not?
2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections?
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
1) Would you support IRV, why or why not?
2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections?
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
I think I would support the IRV. While I do favor the electoral college for President it seems that under this proposal each state would still have its weight so my biggest concern has been alleviated. I have never voted for a candidate that I truly believed in and this might help foster some good competition. Candidates might actually have to take a stand rather then try to pretend they are towing the party line. Perhaps even the Dem's and Rep's can finally join together and accept the fact that they aren't much different and those parties that truly are different could actually have a chance.
I think there would need to be massive demand from the people to their legislative reps. Is there enough will or knowledge to make such a demand? I tend to think not but perhaps with enough education and publicity it might happen... Maybe.
2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections?
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
I think I would support the IRV. While I do favor the electoral college for President it seems that under this proposal each state would still have its weight so my biggest concern has been alleviated. I have never voted for a candidate that I truly believed in and this might help foster some good competition. Candidates might actually have to take a stand rather then try to pretend they are towing the party line. Perhaps even the Dem's and Rep's can finally join together and accept the fact that they aren't much different and those parties that truly are different could actually have a chance.
I think there would need to be massive demand from the people to their legislative reps. Is there enough will or knowledge to make such a demand? I tend to think not but perhaps with enough education and publicity it might happen... Maybe.
1) Yes. it would allow more voter choice, but I would add a binding None of the Above option.
2)
Laws in all Fifty states.
But the Presidency...constitutional amendment, and such an amendment ought to curtail regionalism.
2)
QUOTE(Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1)
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Laws in all Fifty states.
But the Presidency...constitutional amendment, and such an amendment ought to curtail regionalism.
1) Would you support IRV, why or why not?
Absolutely, for all the resons listed in the article. We'd actually have democratic elections where politicians would have to appeal to a broad swath of people, not just a few large demographics and some special interest groups. But most importantly, it would be a major step in eliminiating the two party system.
2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections?
I think it would have to be successfully implemented via state laws in several states and then we'd have to pass a constitutional ammendment to change the election of the president.
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
I would hope that it does make the two party system obsolete. These days there aren't very many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyway. The few differences there are sway me from one group or another. I would wholeheartedly welcome more political viewpoints being brought into play. That is the only way that our country as a whole could ever be moved from it's right-of-center position.
Absolutely, for all the resons listed in the article. We'd actually have democratic elections where politicians would have to appeal to a broad swath of people, not just a few large demographics and some special interest groups. But most importantly, it would be a major step in eliminiating the two party system.
2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections?
I think it would have to be successfully implemented via state laws in several states and then we'd have to pass a constitutional ammendment to change the election of the president.
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
I would hope that it does make the two party system obsolete. These days there aren't very many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyway. The few differences there are sway me from one group or another. I would wholeheartedly welcome more political viewpoints being brought into play. That is the only way that our country as a whole could ever be moved from it's right-of-center position.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 25 2004, 06:20 PM)
I would hope that it does make the two party system obsolete.
IRV is good in many ways. I will admit that third party candidates face a daunting task of being included in debates, raising money(hence my public financing thread) as well as generating support at the grassroots level. I don't think the third party candidates would completely win in an IRV election. I doubt Bednarik or Cobb(isn't he the green?) would survive the first round anyways.
1) No, because if I'm going to support electoral change, I'm going to support a form that offers more proportional representation (PR)....unless you are only talking about the Presidential Election. Then, OK, i'll support it. I'd even support it for Senate elections. I'd like to see Mixed - Member Proportional Voting for Congressional elections.
2. I agree with CubeJockey
3. I'm not sure that I qualify to answer this question, but I doubt IRV or PR would make the two current parties obsolete. It might cause them to change their platform and policies, and it will cause them to lose some of their members, neither of which I see as a problem. IRV favors a majority system and would probably continue to elect candidates from the two existing majority parties. Hopefully it would make one or both parties more palatable to my tastes. Even the truly PR systems tend to result in two majority parties, and 3 or so minority parties getting elected. Probably Greens, Libertarians, and some Right-wing group, each with a very small representation, but more effect on the Majority parties.
EDITED: Now that I think of it, It would probably result in a centrist Republican President for the next few elections, as the Democratic Party seems to have a more fractured and diverse group. However, members of the DP would be better represented in Congress.
2. I agree with CubeJockey
3. I'm not sure that I qualify to answer this question, but I doubt IRV or PR would make the two current parties obsolete. It might cause them to change their platform and policies, and it will cause them to lose some of their members, neither of which I see as a problem. IRV favors a majority system and would probably continue to elect candidates from the two existing majority parties. Hopefully it would make one or both parties more palatable to my tastes. Even the truly PR systems tend to result in two majority parties, and 3 or so minority parties getting elected. Probably Greens, Libertarians, and some Right-wing group, each with a very small representation, but more effect on the Majority parties.
EDITED: Now that I think of it, It would probably result in a centrist Republican President for the next few elections, as the Democratic Party seems to have a more fractured and diverse group. However, members of the DP would be better represented in Congress.
I am excited that people from across the political spectrum have expressed enthusiasm for this system.
I did some further research on the subject online, and found a great site called DemoChoice. You can visit this site and take an online poll about your favorite ice cream flavors. The poll demonstrates quite well how easy IRV is to use and how efficiently works (in theory).
I also learned a lot from the Center for Voting and Democracy's IRV Page. Reading this page, I was heartened to discover that IRV enjoys support not only from Ralph Nader, but also from Democrats and Republicans alike, such as John McCain and Howard Dean.
I agree with Cube Jockey that it would require too much work to start lobbying for this at the top with the Presidential Elections. But we all come from all over the United States, so here is something we can all do to get this movement going at its rightful starting point, the local and statewide level.
Go to this page on the Center for Voting and Democracy's site, and download their IRV Activist Kit. You can also go to Yahoo! or Google and type in 'Instant Run-Off Voting' along with your State Name, and see what groups are already working for IRV in your area.
Look at the different people posting on this thread. Look at their political leanings. We come from all over. We all have different points of view. But all of those posting here agree on this issue (even SWM28WDC, to a certain extent). Some of us spend hours on this board, voicing our opinions. That's great, but what if we all spent that kind of time working on something we believe in? I know I'm being preachy, but I honestly feel that this is where we idealists could make a difference.
Jefferson Smith
PS: Thank you, SWM28WDC, for your input about Mixed-Member Proportional Voting. That is also interesting. Maybe someone should start a new thread about that system as well. I'd love to hear the pros and cons.
I did some further research on the subject online, and found a great site called DemoChoice. You can visit this site and take an online poll about your favorite ice cream flavors. The poll demonstrates quite well how easy IRV is to use and how efficiently works (in theory).
I also learned a lot from the Center for Voting and Democracy's IRV Page. Reading this page, I was heartened to discover that IRV enjoys support not only from Ralph Nader, but also from Democrats and Republicans alike, such as John McCain and Howard Dean.
QUOTE
I think it would have to be successfully implemented via state laws in several states and then we'd have to pass a constitutional ammendment to change the election of the president.
I agree with Cube Jockey that it would require too much work to start lobbying for this at the top with the Presidential Elections. But we all come from all over the United States, so here is something we can all do to get this movement going at its rightful starting point, the local and statewide level.
Go to this page on the Center for Voting and Democracy's site, and download their IRV Activist Kit. You can also go to Yahoo! or Google and type in 'Instant Run-Off Voting' along with your State Name, and see what groups are already working for IRV in your area.
Look at the different people posting on this thread. Look at their political leanings. We come from all over. We all have different points of view. But all of those posting here agree on this issue (even SWM28WDC, to a certain extent). Some of us spend hours on this board, voicing our opinions. That's great, but what if we all spent that kind of time working on something we believe in? I know I'm being preachy, but I honestly feel that this is where we idealists could make a difference.
Jefferson Smith
PS: Thank you, SWM28WDC, for your input about Mixed-Member Proportional Voting. That is also interesting. Maybe someone should start a new thread about that system as well. I'd love to hear the pros and cons.
1) Would you support IRV, why or why not?
Absolutely.
2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections?
Cube Jockey nailed this one for me. I believe, however, it would have to start with a grassroots movement...petitions, letters to members of congress on both a state and national level, etc...
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
I don't consider myself one or the other, but I believe it would most certainly give third party canidates a better chance...it would also create the impression that each individuals vote actually counts...but I don't see real change happening until we disband the electorial college.
Absolutely.
2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections?
Cube Jockey nailed this one for me. I believe, however, it would have to start with a grassroots movement...petitions, letters to members of congress on both a state and national level, etc...
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
I don't consider myself one or the other, but I believe it would most certainly give third party canidates a better chance...it would also create the impression that each individuals vote actually counts...but I don't see real change happening until we disband the electorial college.
I was reading the FAQ from the instantrunoff.com site that jenreiautter linked to and found something that bothered me about this whole concept. I was hoping I could post it here & maybe someone could tell me if I'm reading it right & if so, does it change your mind about this concept?
I emphasized my concern in red. It seems to me that with IRV one of my votes could be transferred to someone else. If I am reading this right, I do not like that concept at all. I DO NOT want my ballot transferred. That is a very disturbing concept.
Like I said, I could be reading this wrong, so I'd really like to hear from you. I'm still out on this debate because of this hangup.
Edited for subject/verb agreement.
QUOTE
How does it work?
If anyone receives a majority of the first choice votes, that candidate is elected. If not, the last place candidate is defeated, just as in a runoff election, and all ballots are counted again. This time each ballot cast for the defeated candidate counts for the next choice candidate listed on the ballot. The process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.
If anyone receives a majority of the first choice votes, that candidate is elected. If not, the last place candidate is defeated, just as in a runoff election, and all ballots are counted again. This time each ballot cast for the defeated candidate counts for the next choice candidate listed on the ballot. The process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.
I emphasized my concern in red. It seems to me that with IRV one of my votes could be transferred to someone else. If I am reading this right, I do not like that concept at all. I DO NOT want my ballot transferred. That is a very disturbing concept.
Like I said, I could be reading this wrong, so I'd really like to hear from you. I'm still out on this debate because of this hangup.
Edited for subject/verb agreement.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Jun 27 2004, 09:14 AM)
I emphasized my concern in red. It seems to me that with IRV one of my votes could be transferred to someone else. If I am reading this right, I do not like that concept at all. I DO NOT want my ballot transferred. That is a very disturbing concept.
Hmm, now the way that I read that was:
If you voted for the last choice candidate, then when the ballots are recounted your ballot is not thrown in the waste basket. Instead, the person you picked as your second choice, gets your votes.
I don't know if that is correct, that just happens to be how I understood it. Can anyone confirm or deny that interpretation?
SWM28DC
I guess I see IRV and PR as single, separate parts of a whole. If you implement one, it isn't as if you can't have the other by any means. I think if you sat down elected officials at any level and asked them which one they would prefer to implement immediately, IRV would win hands-down. PR is important, but I don't believe that many Americans are comfortable with it.
Jaime
Well, if your first preference is eliminated in the first round, then your second preference receives his/her vote. I'm not certain what you're problem with that is. Could you try and repost on that? You are taking issue with your second preference receiving their vote in the second round of voting? Be sure and check out the awesome Muppet IRV voting simulation.
On a different level, I have found this anti-IRV website and I can't for the life of me, understand how they feel it's such a bad thing-perhaps you people could help me out here. The underlined portion of their text is supposedly what's "wrong" with IRV, but I just see it as someone's preferences not making it, which is something that IRV does not pretend to fix.
http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm
Any takers on this observation?
QUOTE
1) No, because if I'm going to support electoral change, I'm going to support a form that offers more proportional representation (PR)....unless you are only talking about the Presidential Election. Then, OK, i'll support it. I'd even support it for Senate elections. I'd like to see Mixed - Member Proportional Voting for Congressional elections.
I guess I see IRV and PR as single, separate parts of a whole. If you implement one, it isn't as if you can't have the other by any means. I think if you sat down elected officials at any level and asked them which one they would prefer to implement immediately, IRV would win hands-down. PR is important, but I don't believe that many Americans are comfortable with it.
Jaime
QUOTE
I emphasized my concern in red. It seems to me that with IRV one of my votes could be transferred to someone else. If I am reading this right, I do not like that concept at all. I DO NOT want my ballot transferred. That is a very disturbing concept.
Like I said, I could be reading this wrong, so I'd really like to hear from you. I'm still out on this debate because of this hangup.
Like I said, I could be reading this wrong, so I'd really like to hear from you. I'm still out on this debate because of this hangup.
Well, if your first preference is eliminated in the first round, then your second preference receives his/her vote. I'm not certain what you're problem with that is. Could you try and repost on that? You are taking issue with your second preference receiving their vote in the second round of voting? Be sure and check out the awesome Muppet IRV voting simulation.
On a different level, I have found this anti-IRV website and I can't for the life of me, understand how they feel it's such a bad thing-perhaps you people could help me out here. The underlined portion of their text is supposedly what's "wrong" with IRV, but I just see it as someone's preferences not making it, which is something that IRV does not pretend to fix.
QUOTE
Suppose my true preference is for the Libertarian first and the Republican second. Suppose further that the Libertarians are the strongest "minor" party. At some round of the IRV counting process, all the candidates will be eliminated except the Republican, the Democrat, and the Libertarian. If the Libertarian then has the fewest first-choice votes, he or she will be eliminated and my vote will transfer to the Republican, just as I wanted. But what if the Republican is eliminated before the Libertarian? Unless all the Republican votes transfer to the Libertarian, which is extremely unlikely, the Democrat might then beat the Libertarian. If so, I will have helped the Democrat win by not strategically ranking the Republican first. But that's the same situation I'm in now if I vote my true preference for the Libertarian!
What happened in the above example is that IRV essentially ignored one of my key preferences. By voting (Libertarian, Republican, ..., Democrat), I increase the chances that the Republican will be eliminated before the Libertarian. If that then happens, my preference for the Republican over the Democrat is essentially discarded or ignored. This is the fundamental problem with IRV. The only preference that is sure to be counted is my first choice. The problem gets worse as the number of candidates increases. The outcome of the election can depend in a very quirky way on the order in which candidates are eliminated for having the fewest top-choice votes. The only way a voter can be assured of not wasting his or her vote is to rank one of the two major parties as their first choice, which is precisely what happens now under plurality voting. The example is hardly contrived. The "lesser of two evils" problem is almost guaranteed to rear its ugly head again under IRV. Until a minor party is strong enough to win, a first-choice vote for them is essentially only symbolic. After a minor party is strong enough to win, on the other hand, a vote for them could have the same spoiler effect that it could have under the current plurality system. Hence, if IRV is ever actually adopted, we will likely remain stuck in the old two-party system, just as Australia
What happened in the above example is that IRV essentially ignored one of my key preferences. By voting (Libertarian, Republican, ..., Democrat), I increase the chances that the Republican will be eliminated before the Libertarian. If that then happens, my preference for the Republican over the Democrat is essentially discarded or ignored. This is the fundamental problem with IRV. The only preference that is sure to be counted is my first choice. The problem gets worse as the number of candidates increases. The outcome of the election can depend in a very quirky way on the order in which candidates are eliminated for having the fewest top-choice votes. The only way a voter can be assured of not wasting his or her vote is to rank one of the two major parties as their first choice, which is precisely what happens now under plurality voting. The example is hardly contrived. The "lesser of two evils" problem is almost guaranteed to rear its ugly head again under IRV. Until a minor party is strong enough to win, a first-choice vote for them is essentially only symbolic. After a minor party is strong enough to win, on the other hand, a vote for them could have the same spoiler effect that it could have under the current plurality system. Hence, if IRV is ever actually adopted, we will likely remain stuck in the old two-party system, just as Australia
http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm
Any takers on this observation?
Jaime,
The way I understand it, if your first choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice.
If you don't want your vote going to a second choice, all you have to do is rank a first choice only.
My example for 2004 might go like this:
1) David Cobb -- Green Party
2) Ralph Nader -- Independent
3) None of the above
4) John Kerry
If there is no clear majority when the votes are added up, the person with the fewest votes gets eliminated, but the people who voted for the eliminated person will have their 2nd choice added.
So let's say that my first choice, David Cobb gets the least amount of votes. My vote then goes to Ralph Nader. The votes are added up again. If there is no clear majority, than the next person with the lowest vote total is eliminated and then the 3rd place votes of the eliminated ballots would then be added and so on until one person receives a clear majority.
The advantages to third parties are very helpful. It allows people to vote their conscience instead of playing the lesser of two evils game. They could always put the "lesser of two evils" as their second choice.
Hope this helps.
The way I understand it, if your first choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice.
If you don't want your vote going to a second choice, all you have to do is rank a first choice only.
My example for 2004 might go like this:
1) David Cobb -- Green Party
2) Ralph Nader -- Independent
3) None of the above
4) John Kerry
If there is no clear majority when the votes are added up, the person with the fewest votes gets eliminated, but the people who voted for the eliminated person will have their 2nd choice added.
So let's say that my first choice, David Cobb gets the least amount of votes. My vote then goes to Ralph Nader. The votes are added up again. If there is no clear majority, than the next person with the lowest vote total is eliminated and then the 3rd place votes of the eliminated ballots would then be added and so on until one person receives a clear majority.
The advantages to third parties are very helpful. It allows people to vote their conscience instead of playing the lesser of two evils game. They could always put the "lesser of two evils" as their second choice.
Hope this helps.
Regarding the quote from nebraska29's post:
Although not a perfect argument to me, the above quote does raise the first legitimate point I have seen against the IRV system. This dissenting argument demonstrates fairly well why the 'spoiler' factor might remain to a certain extent with IRV. But at least a candidate would never be elected without a majority being against them. If the first count showed a plurality, I think the eventual victor would be considered a legitimate compromise by all voters.
In each of the last three Presidential Elections (1992, 1996 and 2000), in which the President was elected by plurality, the man entering office would have known that more people were willing to have him lead them than any other candidate, and therefore would have had a much clearer mandate than was given by the actual results. And so I still say that the proposed system, though not necessarily perfect, would still be a great improvement on the system we have now.
Regarding the perceived need for a Constitutional Amendment to get IRV in Presidential Elections, the following is from the Center for Voting and Democracy's IRV Activist kit, available here:
So it looks like we don't even need a Constitutional Amendment. We would just have to get our home states behind this, one by one.
It should still be tried at the local and statewide level first. I urge all of you to find out who your representatives are (Municipal, State and Congressional), and write to them asking them their stances on this issue. As I said in a previous post, go to Yahoo! or Google, and look up any organizations for Electoral Reform in your home state or region.
Those of you in my home state of California can go to the California IRV Coalition page, or to Californians for Electoral Reform. You'll see on the latter page that there is already a bill in the State Senate that includes IRV as part of broader statewide Electoral Reform. So you can see that this movement has already started. To those of you who agree with it, let's try to help it along!
QUOTE
By voting (Libertarian, Republican, ..., Democrat), I increase the chances that the Republican will be eliminated before the Libertarian. If that then happens, my preference for the Republican over the Democrat is essentially discarded or ignored. This is the fundamental problem with IRV. The only preference that is sure to be counted is my first choice. The problem gets worse as the number of candidates increases. The outcome of the election can depend in a very quirky way on the order in which candidates are eliminated for having the fewest top-choice votes. The only way a voter can be assured of not wasting his or her vote is to rank one of the two major parties as their first choice, which is precisely what happens now under plurality voting. The example is hardly contrived. The "lesser of two evils" problem is almost guaranteed to rear its ugly head again under IRV. Until a minor party is strong enough to win, a first-choice vote for them is essentially only symbolic. After a minor party is strong enough to win, on the other hand, a vote for them could have the same spoiler effect that it could have under the current plurality system. Hence, if IRV is ever actually adopted, we will likely remain stuck in the old two-party system, just as Australia
Although not a perfect argument to me, the above quote does raise the first legitimate point I have seen against the IRV system. This dissenting argument demonstrates fairly well why the 'spoiler' factor might remain to a certain extent with IRV. But at least a candidate would never be elected without a majority being against them. If the first count showed a plurality, I think the eventual victor would be considered a legitimate compromise by all voters.
In each of the last three Presidential Elections (1992, 1996 and 2000), in which the President was elected by plurality, the man entering office would have known that more people were willing to have him lead them than any other candidate, and therefore would have had a much clearer mandate than was given by the actual results. And so I still say that the proposed system, though not necessarily perfect, would still be a great improvement on the system we have now.
Regarding the perceived need for a Constitutional Amendment to get IRV in Presidential Elections, the following is from the Center for Voting and Democracy's IRV Activist kit, available here:
QUOTE
Q. Is instant runoff voting constitutional?
A. Absolutely. In fact, any state right now can adopt IRV for selecting U.S. presidential electors by a mere state law – there is no need for a federal constitutional amendment. The U.S. constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how to conduct their elections. In some states, it would be necessary to amend the state constitution, but in others, the state legislature could simply pass a bill.
A. Absolutely. In fact, any state right now can adopt IRV for selecting U.S. presidential electors by a mere state law – there is no need for a federal constitutional amendment. The U.S. constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how to conduct their elections. In some states, it would be necessary to amend the state constitution, but in others, the state legislature could simply pass a bill.
So it looks like we don't even need a Constitutional Amendment. We would just have to get our home states behind this, one by one.
It should still be tried at the local and statewide level first. I urge all of you to find out who your representatives are (Municipal, State and Congressional), and write to them asking them their stances on this issue. As I said in a previous post, go to Yahoo! or Google, and look up any organizations for Electoral Reform in your home state or region.
Those of you in my home state of California can go to the California IRV Coalition page, or to Californians for Electoral Reform. You'll see on the latter page that there is already a bill in the State Senate that includes IRV as part of broader statewide Electoral Reform. So you can see that this movement has already started. To those of you who agree with it, let's try to help it along!
Good to hear from you Jefferson! Upon further reflection of the underlined text that I provided, I have come to the conclusion that it is a rather flawed one. The person gave the example of voting for a libertarian candidate first(who would be the "protest" vote if the Republican was a moderate) followed by the republican candidate in a race against a democrat under IRV conditions. The person said that the republican would not win unless all of the people who voted for the "protest" candidacy also voted republican. they doubted whether or not this would really occur. In real life, I think it would! The same thing would apply if a person voted Green & Democrat respectively. It's fair to conclude that the votes would transfer at a rate of almost 95%. I'd bet the farm on it. 
1) Would you support IRV, why or why not?
Yes I would. This was the system under which I voted in Ireland for fifteen years and it seems to work remarkably well. In fact, during the time I lived there, I saw the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) evolve from a two-party system - Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - to a three-party system (those two plus Labour) - with another three fairly viable parties (the Progressive Democrats, the Green Party, and Sinn Féin) having seats in the Dáil. A seventh party, Democratic Left, which also had a number of representatives, eventually merged with the Labour Party. The Socialist Party also has a seat at the moment. None of this might have happened without IRV. This system is used in several parliamentary democracies in Europe and I've never heard of it creating any electoral problems anywhere. The key word here is "representative". Under this system, quite simply, more voices are heard. And, interestingly, a lot more people get involved in the democratic process.
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
I'm neither, but YES! Please yes - let's get rid of the two-party system by any means possible! This seems to be about the most likely way of going about it.
Yes I would. This was the system under which I voted in Ireland for fifteen years and it seems to work remarkably well. In fact, during the time I lived there, I saw the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) evolve from a two-party system - Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - to a three-party system (those two plus Labour) - with another three fairly viable parties (the Progressive Democrats, the Green Party, and Sinn Féin) having seats in the Dáil. A seventh party, Democratic Left, which also had a number of representatives, eventually merged with the Labour Party. The Socialist Party also has a seat at the moment. None of this might have happened without IRV. This system is used in several parliamentary democracies in Europe and I've never heard of it creating any electoral problems anywhere. The key word here is "representative". Under this system, quite simply, more voices are heard. And, interestingly, a lot more people get involved in the democratic process.
3) If you are a Democrat or Republican, would you be afraid that IRV might make the two party system obsolete? Why or why not?
I'm neither, but YES! Please yes - let's get rid of the two-party system by any means possible! This seems to be about the most likely way of going about it.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 25 2004, 04:20 PM)
2) What would it take to get the US to use IRV for national elections?
I think it would have to be successfully implemented via state laws in several states and then we'd have to pass a constitutional ammendment to change the election of the president.of-center position.
I think it would have to be successfully implemented via state laws in several states and then we'd have to pass a constitutional ammendment to change the election of the president.of-center position.
We may be taking the first steps here, San Francisco will implement IRV this November for all of the local elections.
I'm not aware of this being used anywhere else in the US, so this could prove to be an interesting first test.
In Australia this system is called preferential voting, because it involves ranking the candidates in order of preference. It is a much better system that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system that exists in the US and the UK. FPTP is a very blunt electoral instrument which does not provide an avenue for the expression of the nuances and complexities of the electorate's wishes.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.