Instant runoff voting

[defendandprotect]

Instant runoff voting
Such an electoral system saves time and money, and ensures a majority winner.

By Blair Bobier
December 10, 2008

Now that our country has elected a 21st century president, we should reconsider our 18th century electoral system.

Two examples from the seemingly never-ending 2008 election showcase the system's flaws. More than a month after election day, we still don't know who won Minnesota's Senate race. In Georgia's U.S. Senate contest, it took two elections and tens of millions of dollars to produce a winner. Both races could have been resolved quickly and with less expense using instant runoff voting. Because the Constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how to elect their senators and presidential electors, instant runoff voting could be used at all levels of government.

Instant runoff voting is worth learning about -- not just because it saves time and money and is more democratic than our current methods, but because you may find yourself using it before too long. The Los Angeles City Council has created a task force to determine the feasibility of using it for local elections. It already has been used for several election cycles in San Francisco and has been approved for use in a number of Bay Area municipalities.

With instant runoff voting, voters indicate their first, second and third choices among candidates on the ballot. If a candidate wins a majority of first-choice rankings, that candidate is elected. If no candidate receives an initial majority of first-choice rankings, the candidate with the fewest first-choice rankings is eliminated and that candidate's supporters have their votes count for their second choice. The process repeats until a candidate emerges with majority support.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-bobier10-2008dec10,0,4934879.story

[thereismore]

1. Yes, absolutely yes. It's also a fave peeve of Thom Hartmann. nt

[defendandprotect]

2. Where's the rest of DU ...????

Hartmann gets it --

[defendandprotect]

3. kick

[defendandprotect]

4. Where are all the DU'ers who say Nader -- not Bush -- stole 2000 election ...????

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I prefer other forms of ranked or approval voting because of the spoiler

effect that still exists in IRV, but yeah we definitely need to get away from the plurality nonsense we use now.

[defendandprotect]

9. Want to explain that--???

And, yes we need not only to account for majority ...

we also need to account for minority ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Here ya go

"The Problem with IRV"
http://web.archive.org/web/20020605150214/electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm

Approval voting:
http://www.approvalvoting.org/faq.html

There are some other voting methods here, but some of the links need to be updated: http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=1

[defendandprotect]

15. Looked at the links ...

The concept works -- under any of the options --

Needless to say, I don't agree with the "danger" the link suggests re IRV --

Proportional representation is also more than interesting --

We have a rigged system now with many changes required --

The two parties are cooperating in making elections private affairs in their hands --

Meanwhile, the steals didn't begin in 2000, but in the mid-1960's ...

That's when the large computer counters used by media began to come in --

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm



Meanwhile: See the note I'll add re Jimmy Carter --

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Yes, I would prefer to do something with proportional representation. It's

the best chance smaller parties have.

[defendandprotect]

18. Do you understand steals likely go back to late '50's ... ??

and certainly by mid-60's ...???

Then Jim walked through the glass doors into the offices of the

Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Office Building. He

found the office of Larry O'Brien, the head of the DNC, and left a

Votescam packet on his desk.*



* A few weeks later, on June 17, 1972, a second break-in by "plumbers" at the

DNC resulted in their arrest for what Richard Nixon later called "a third-rate

burglary." At this stage of the game, we hadn't the slightest inkling that what

took place on June 17th could possibly relate to our investigation. Only

Justice Department documents we found years later while rummaging through

the system would suggest a connection between Watergate and Votescam.

And ...

But as years passed, old-timers began wondering aloud on the early

talk radio programs if something fishy hadn't occurred back in 1959

when Metro was voted in. In 1971, a caller mentioned a group known

as "the warehouse gang" as the ones most likely to be behind the

original Metro election victory.



The caller hinted mysteriously of a cadre of "good old boys" who had

long been in charge of the county's voting machines, which were stored

between elections at a warehouse in Opa Locka, Dade's most rural

backwater municipality located on the edge of the Everglades.



There, it was rumored, a flourishing criminal enterprise had evolved

over the years. The manipulators in county politics came to depend on

the voting machine mechanics to guarantee the outcome of multimillion

dollar bond issues and other controversial measures. It was common

knowledge, one informant told us, that, "Those guys can make a

mechanical voting machine whistle Dixie."



Frank Vickery, a big, old, taciturn "cracker," was in charge of the

warehouse. He didn't have much to do out in the swamp all day and he

was bored. So he was happy to accept the court order we handed him

giving us permission to examine documents. He liked to talk and show

people around. So he led and we listened.



Inside the hangar were 1,648 gray-green voting machines with levers,

plus a lot of extras, all lined up in rows. They were made by the

Automatic Voting Machine Company of Jamestown, New York..



"Can you show us the candidate counters and the wheels inside?" Jim

asked.



He led us to a nearby machine and opened up the back with a key.

There were a lot of plastic, wheels, three-digit counters underneath a

black grid. The insides looked pretty simple.



"How can you rig this thing?" Ken asked.



"One of the best ways," Frank chuckled, "is to put decals over the

counters so that when you see them in the morning it says "000" but

underneath it says maybe "090," which in any precinct is a pretty good

bonus."



"What else?"



"There's such a thing as a predetermined counter. It's already set up

before the election... by shaving the plastic wheel inside so that it slips

ahead 100 or 200 or 300 votes. Any good mechanic can do it with a

razor blade" He took us to his office and reached into his desk,

bringing out one of the counter wheels in his big rough hands.



"This is a shaved predetermined counter," he said.



"Can we keep one?"



"Sure, take it."



Jim put the wheel in his pocket.



"Who works on these machines?"



"They're worked on by the mechanics for Wometco. They have

vending machines and movie houses. They can make those suckers

sing."



We shook hands with Frank and said goodbye. Ken walked outside

whistling the tune to:



"Way down south in the land of cotton,

good times there are not forgotten...

Lookaway! Lookaway! Lookaway

Dixieland."

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam04.txt

[depakid]

6. Australia uses an instant runoff system

and smaller parties often make deals with larger ones (or each other) for preferences in return for various policy concessions and such:

Preferential voting (or preference voting) is a type of ballot structure used in several electoral systems in which voters rank a list or group of candidates in order of preference. For example, the voter may write a '1' beside their first choice, a '2' beside their second preference, and so on. This contrasts with ballots used by methods which do not allow more than two-valued ranking of candidates (Yes or No, often with No assumed unless Yes is marked), such as Plurality voting or Approval voting.

Australia uses preferential ballots in two different ways: instant-runoff voting and the single transferable vote system, although neither of these names are commonly used in Australia.

Instant-runoff voting is used in electing candidates to single-member electorates such as the Australian Federal House of Representatives, state legislative assemblies and local government municipalities.

Single Transferable Vote systems are used in electing candidates to multi-member electorates such as the Australian Senate, State upper houses, Tasmania's State legislative assembly, the Australian Capital Territory's legislative assembly, and some local government municipalities.

Ballot papers are counted according to prescribed set of rules which prescribe the method used in the counting of the ballots and the distribution of preferences. Voters' preferences are now data-entered into computer systems, which then process the recorded votes to determine the results of the election. Copies of the transcribed date file used in the counting of the elections are published and made available for public inspection and scrutiny.

Supporters of the parties and individual candidates hand out "How to Vote" cards (HTVs) at the entrance to polling stations or distributed with election material sent in the post, advising voters how to fill in their ballots to support that party or candidate. The information published on a how to vote card is a recommendation only and no voter is obliged to vote as published, but up to 80% of voters follow the recommendations of their preferred party or candidate. The proportion of voters that choose not to follow their preferred candidate's recommendations is called the "preference leakage"<2>.

The STV systems of some jurisdictions in Australia (e.g. the Senate) allow group voting tickets or "above the line voting" where a voter can with a single mark indicate support for a predefined set of preferences. This reduces the burden on voters, especially where there are large numbers of candidates and when a complete preference list is required to make a vote valid, so about 95% of voters use this option. Voters not wishing to use the "above-the-line-voting" option maintain the entitlement to indicate preferences for individual candidates; this is referred to as below-the-line voting. The allocation of predefined and individual voter preferences are important in determining the results of the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting

[Selatius]

7. The only problem with IRV is that it makes it easier for third party candidates to win.

In the US, third parties are seen as "spoilers" simply because of Duverger's Law as far as SMDP voting goes, the system the US has. By requiring a majority to win a seat, the dynamics of an election would change drastically.

With Al Franken, what this means is that there would no longer be an argument in voting for Franken simply because the third party candidate is a "spoiler" on the left. People would be liberated to vote their preference, not vote based on the fear of losing the seat to the conservative.

Now, if you are an "institutionalized party" like the Democrats or the Republicans, then obviously, IRV is something you do not want, simply because your goal is to attain and hold power, not enact laws or reforms that may actually weaken your grip on power in the long-term.

If you are a reformer and want more options at the ballot box without fear of being punished for voting third party by having the conservative win your seat, then IRV would only help you.

[defendandprotect]

11. You could also say ...

it permits the better candidate/party to win --

and eliminates the "lesser evil" aspect of voting we have now --

Now, if you are an "institutionalized party" like the Democrats or the Republicans, then obviously, IRV is something you do not want, simply because your goal is to attain and hold power, not enact laws or reforms that may actually weaken your grip on power in the long-term.

Good that you are open about that reality --

but the two party-system thereby prevents challenge and choice for the voter --

while still being able too blame a "spoiler" ...

And while GOP/DEMS keep a lock on power -- it keeps us from having leverage over them.

IMO - Constitution, freedom. law, honest economy -- small "d" democracy is what we

have to protect first. When DEMS are moving for progressive change, they'll get elected.

[Dr. Strange]

8. I'd prefer something like approval voting or Condorcet voting.

But if you think the hand count in Minnesota is taking a long time, just wait until election judges have to determine voter intent for order of preference between several candidates. :crazy:

[defendandprotect]

12. I think the "time" angle is a sham ...

and used as an excuse to hasten it all with computer voting --

Large computer counters used by media began to come in right after

coup on JFK/people's government.

The 2000 steal was by no means the first ...

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[CK_John]

10. All you need to do is convince 50 states to adopt this procedure and it will happen. Lots of luck.

[defendandprotect]

13. We need Repugs and Dems to support it -- CHANGE ....

[defendandprotect]

16. Jimmy Carter on US Elections ...

Quote --

US elections could not be "ibserved because they lack three necessary

criteria ---

1) Voters must be able to understand the ballot procedures and the

ballot, themselves --

2) Voters must have equal rights to have their votes counted --

3) A central Commission in the country to resolve election disputes --

None of these conditions exist in US --

Florida violated ALL of these --

Unquote