Instant Runoff Voting - a democratic solution to Nader/Kerry infighting

[ConsAreLiars]

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

Much has been made of the fact that Gore received more votes than the impostor, and about the Judicial coup and voter disenfranchisement, but also the fact that the Gore+(some)Nader vote combined would have overwhelmed the FundiCon alliance.

Basically the winner-take-all system means third party efforts reduce the vote of the candidate they are closest to and "winners" often end up with support of less than half the voters. This is the opposite to the result that most third party voters would have wanted, and thus inherently undemocratic.

This method, used in many places, allows voters to simply rank their preferences, and if no one gets a majority the second-place votes of losing candidates are added in until a majority is achieved. Assuming most Nader voters preferred Gore, the election would have been decided that way. (The same system would have presumably yielded a Con victory in 1992, so it is not partisan or a guarantee that elections yield good outcomes - but it is at least an truer reflection of the beliefs of those going to the polls.)

Thus I could pick Nader, or Santa Claus, as my first choice and "the lesser of two evils" as my second, and be assured that even if the best outcome does not result in my fondest dreams, at least my worst nightmare is not partly due to my vote.

[Shoedogg]

1. This will never happen here...

...IRV would basically insure that we'd never have another Republican president. (IMO, of course)

That won't be allowed to happen.

[ConsAreLiars]

2. Maybe. Maybe not.

This past weekend I signed a petition to make this happen in my state. It may not win, but it's worth a try. This can be accomplished on a city by city basis, or state by state. Incrementally. One step at a time, and worth the effort regardless of the odds.

[Andy_Stephenson]

6. I am a big proponent of IRV...

I have talked to election officials and they say it would be a logistical nightmare. I think it could be accomplished but until we have a reliable voting system in place, IRV is not my top priority. If we implemented the Australian, , then IRV could well be a reality.

IRV allows people to vote their hopes and not their fears. It definitely expands democracy which I am all for. I applaud you Bumbler for signing the petition...

[kiahzero]

7. Bullshit

IRV is horrible... how can you honestly say that?

IRV allows people to vote their hopes and not their fears.

Um, no. It gives people who want to keep their conscience clean the ability to log a pretend vote for a minority candidate. Should there ever come a time when three parties are in serious competition, IRV returns incomprehensible results.

It fails the most basic of tests - ranking a candidate higher can result in lessening the chances of that candidate winning, and vice versa. Imagine having putting Bush on the top of your list to reduce his chances of winning - yeah, it would happen.

If you're going to implement a ranked voting system, Condorcet is vastly superior to IRV. As one of the sites I mentioned below put it, Acceptance voting is a reliable hand tool, Condorcet is a deluxe automatic machine, and IRV is a defective, shoddy automatic machine.

[ibegurpard]

3. It's a good idea but it's only a bandaid

for the REAL problem of private money financing our political system.

[ConsAreLiars]

4. I agree. It is only a tool we can use.

Corporatism is anti-democratic to the core. This is just one way to make individual votes count, and it helps to negate one form of the "divide-and-conquer" tactic that has been so effective in perpetuating the plutocracy.

[kiahzero]

5. Nope

IRV is plagued by problems; it's a bad voting system, and is actually one of the only ones worse than our current system.

If you're going to propose a change in electoral method, how about a change for the better? Condorcet, or at the very least, Acceptance voting.

On edit: Read and learn:
http://www.electionmethods.org/index.htm

Also, take a look at the statistics:
http://bolson.org/voting/essay.html

As you can see, Ranked, Acceptance, and Condorcet are vastly superior to other methods in terms of picking the ideal democratic winner with honest votes. Condorcet has the additional benefit of being largely immune to strategic votes (something you claim to want to eliminate).

[ConsAreLiars]

8. Thanks for the information.

The argument at the first site was a bit flawed. The argument was that if enough people swapped their first and second choices the results would change, not necessarily to their liking, since their second choice would then be considered in the final outcome. Also that "symbolic" first-place votes may inadvertently pot that candidate into the top two. The situation now is worse. Although there are limitations, I don't see IRV as anything but a half step. Truly representative gov't is a long way off.

From the second site the pairing and ranking systems seem most likely to yield "true" preferences. Paired comparisons (Condorcet) are the easiest for the ordinary person to use - much less difficult than ordinal or scoring based ratings, but the number of comparisons goes up exponentially with number of candidates. (And the idea that a photo should be included in the rating system seems like a brain-fart by the author.)

It's not an easy problem. And the problems with voting systems go far beyond tallying methods. Right now IRV is being on the table as an improvement, and it is that. Right now the choice between "good enough" and "better" is ignored, so that those who choose "better" end up effectively voting for "worse." So I see IRV as progress.

[Nikki Stone 1]

9. I like the idea of a Santa Claus administration. :)

Quoted:

"Thus I could pick Nader, or Santa Claus, as my first choice and "the lesser of two evils" as my second, and be assured that even if the best outcome does not result in my fondest dreams, at least my worst nightmare is not partly due to my vote."


__________

Then again, Mickey Mouse always gets 500 votes or so in California elections. Would a Mickey Mouse win mean that the Disney board would move into the White House?