What if we skipped the Primaries and had an IRV election?

[rucky]

With ABB being the main common ground here at DU and beyond - Bush would undoubtedly be french toast in an IRV election.

For anybody who doesn't know, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a way to prevent 1) primaries from alienating candidates & voters 2) gives third parties a viable chance without becoming "spoilers" 3) Is just plain more democratic.

more info here: http://www.fairvote.org/

How it works: Instead of casting one vote on a ballot, you tick off whomever you would support in the election. If you're Dean or nothing, for example, you just vote for Dean. Anybody but Bush? Vote for, well, EVERYBODY but Bush. If you're torn between Clark & Kerry, vote for them both.

In the end, the tallies are made for each candidate selected. The one with the most votes wins.

It would also increase turnout, because "your guy" will still be in.

The only downside I see is the money factor. If we run 9 and they run one, the one has concentrated resources. Conversly, money is less of an issue, from the candidates' perspective - nobody would have to drop out. Also, in an IRV situation, I think Bush would have some challengers on the Right as well.

I wonder what kinds of different debates we'd be having if we moved to an IRV system?

[KittyWampus]

1. IRV Would Be Great- One For Primary & One For General

gets my endorsement... but there's probably too much money involved in the current system.

[rucky]

2. Why would we need a primary?

and talk about the $ we'd save from just holding one election.

[KittyWampus]

4. To Prevent The Problem You Cited In Your Original Post

Suppose you had 9 Democrats and only 1 Republican....

There would be much backroom politicking going on prior to the Election on the Democratic Side to reduce the number of nominees... without input from the party electorate- it would be less democratic.

[rucky]

14. Okay...I see. (some sort of) IRV in the Primary would be a fix

And I would make a prediction that Clark would come out on top in that type of scenario. Kucinich & maybe Sharpton would fare better, as well. It would hurt Dean & the middle of the pack, tho.

I think we'd have to do it nationwide, on a single day. There's no reason for a staggered primary in today's information age.

Is next Tuesday good for you?

:freak:

[olacan]

3. Where

does the Electoral College come into play here. I do not want to the president elected by the most populated states.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

6. huh?

Electoral College is outdated mode of representation in elections. It needs to be abilished. I don't understand how it would come into play here. One vote per person in this information age that we live in is perfectly fine.


TWL

[olacan]

8. Which

state do you live in? I am in the Midwest. The Electoral College does tend to even things out between the states that have large population vs. those smaller states(in population).

[ThirdWheelLegend]

10. question is..

what does it even out? What is there to even out?

Why should anyone's vote count more than the other?

TWL

[rucky]

7. Who needs the electoral college?

to hell with it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. There are valid cases for and against it

Right now I am leaning towards reforming somehow it rather than abolishing it.

[Ketcham]

5. IRV has too many problems

IRV introduces too many new problems. Approval Voting is probably the best voting method that can be easily implemented in the U.S.

[rucky]

9. That would work. You catch my drift....

just a little brainstorming here

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Approval voting has issues too

Namely it's too easy for a number of candidates to wind up with the same percentage of votes. But I do agree it would be good for selecting candidates for primaries, though. It narrows the field down at least.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Irv is one way to go

There are other variations on ranked voting, though. It's not the only, and possibly not the best choice depending on the situation you are in. (I've got links to other types of ranked voting on my website.)