The more I read about Instant Runoff Voting the more advantages it seems to have. All parties can benefit from it’s implementation. Smaller parties will actually have a real chance and it helps to eliminate the “spoiler candidate” effect that can plague the larger parties. Most of all the American public will benefit as it allows us more voting options w/o wasting our vote. Plus the candidate who is elected will always have the majority of the votes.
Any thoughts?
Zep,
Can you explain this in more detail?
Maybe post a link. I would like to learn about this.
Thanks,
JeffR
JeffR:
I heard about this during the 3rd party debates. They were held on October 6th. C-Span aired them. You can probably watch these debates on an archived section of C-Span’s website. I highly recommend it! I think if you just typed in Instant Voter Runoff into a search engine you would find out more about the IRV process. Sorry I don’t have a link. I’m just guessing here, but I suspect that the Republocrats may be against it as it could seriously challenge their power. Any way check it out.
JeffR
There’s this thing called Google, it’s one of those websites on the Internets.
Of course sometimes it’s nice to not have to use google b/c an informed person is happy to pass along the knowledge! Anyway, here’s the deal:
On your vote, you rank your top three candidates. So say 1=X, 2=Y and 3=Z. After the vote is done, they count all the #1 votes. If anyone gets %50 of the vote, boom, they win. If not, the person with the least votes is dropped. So, in your case, say candidate Z was dropped - well, it wouldn’t affect your vote, it’s still for X. But if candidate X was dropped, your vote would now be counted for candidate Y and so on and so forth until someone gets 50% of the vote. If people are so split that still no one gets 50% after two rounds, then, well, I dunno! lol
I prefer the system where you rank the candidates again, but instead of the IRV, each candidate gets points based on how high they are ranked e.g. X would get 3 pts, Y 2 pts…and then they add up the points to see who wins. In theory it makes the most people happy. For instance, if you guys down there had a third candidate the everyone respected and liked, but no one would vote for him or her because they couldn’t throw away their vote, didn’t want to leave their party, were afraid of other guy etc. If everyone ranked him number 2, he might end up on top, so both the elephants and donkeys get someone in office that they both are OK with, instead of a guaranteed 1/2 of the pop’n loathing the winner!
Anyway, I love this topic, but I gotta get some work done!
JeffR: I’m not sure where Bob423 is getting the number 3 in relation to selection of canidates. The number I’ve been hearing and seeing is 5. Go to www.instantrunoff.com and it will explain the process better than Bob423 has.
Interesting, but it seems like it overweights the value of a given third party.
Example: I can’t think of a 3rd party candidate I would even remotely consider. Giving someone 3rd place on my ballot when I don’t even think they are worthy of the office gives them undue importance.
One of two things would happen:
People would feel inclined to fill out all three spots on their ballot just for the sake of it, which erroneously inflates the importance of the 3rd candidate
People (like me) would skip the 3rd choice because they are completely uninterested in a fringe candidate, and that would completely ruin the point of the system.
Either way, I don’t think the system is all that useful. There are other things - redistricting, in my view - that can improve the current state of elections.
But third parties desperately want more influence in a system that freezes them out, so I fully understand why they want it.
3, 5, 20, it doesn’t matter how many spots are on the ballot, the idea is the same.
thunderbolt23:
Your arguements against IRV don’t make much sense from the standpoint of liberty and choice. You even allude to this yourself as evidenced by your last statement.
Now if their is any system that OVER-INFLATES the value of a particular party it is certainly our current one. Plenty of people who would vote for a third party candidate don’t because they’re afraid their party doesn’t have a fighting chance under the current system and it’s “laws”. So they vote out of fear(lesser of 2 evils) rather than for the person who truly represents their hopes.
Also, you have the option not to vote in a preferential manner but just because YOU don’t want to why should others be deprived of that choice? And further more how does that negate the system? You didn’t give a solid answer you just stated that because some people wouldn’t pick more than one candidate it somehow doesn’t work. Please explain!
If I remeber correctly you are a Bush supporter. Are you telling me that you would rather have Kerry as President than the candidate from The Constitution Party, Libertarian Party or even Pat Buchanon? I’m sure most Kerry supporters would rather have a Green or Socialist candidate in office as oppossed to Bush. Well with IRV you will have that chance.
Not to mention that whoever is elected under IRV will have to have a majority of the votes to win the election. That person will be closer to having a true mandate from the people. As most know the last 3 elections were won with less than a majority vote. IRV helps to alleviate this.
All in all I can’t see how you think this is un-useful.
Lumpy:
Whaha you are killing me: “internets.”
IRV will never happen. People are not honest enough to actually ‘rank’ their choices. If, say, a Kerry supporter gets in the booth and marks his ballot he would naturally put the closest competitor to his candidate further down the list.
Just like Thunder said - it would inflate the importance of a third party. I don’t think the framers of the constitution envisioned this type of system, where who you are voting agaisnt carries comparable weight to who you are voting for.
We’ve had the current electoral college system for over 200 years, and it has served us well. Why, now does it need to be changed? Could the 2000 election have anything to do with it?
The same thing could happen again this year, only the dems could win the electoral college, and the repubs the popular vote. Would the left still be looking for ways to disregard the wishes of ‘Fly-over’ country?
We have a two party system - not a 20 party system. For christ’s sake, we’re not Afghanistan.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
IRV will never happen.
Your arguements are weak. First IRV can happen and is happening within a few areas of this country. San Fransisco is one of them.
People are not honest enough to actually ‘rank’ their choices.
So the people of this country can’t be trusted but somehow the politicians can? You actually believe that non-sense. That is very telling of your political position. However I bet you believe just about everything the corporate right says about this current war despite the mountain of evidence that this administration lied.
If, say, a Kerry supporter gets in the booth and marks his ballot he would naturally put the closest competitor to his candidate further down the list.
If I understand you correctly you are saying a Kerry supporter would place Bush last. If so then, no shit! Of course he would because that is the candidate whose views are farthest away from his own. A Bush supporter would naturally do the same thing.
Just like Thunder said - it would inflate the importance of a third party.
Actually it inflates the importance of the two corporate parties and keeps their iron-grip on power. With IRV the public(people you don’t trust) have more choice and the freedom to exercise it under the IRV system.
I don’t think the framers of the constitution envisioned this type of system, where who you are voting agaisnt carries comparable weight to who you are voting for.
I’m not discounting everything the framers thought but they also believed slavery was okay so does that make it right?
We’ve had the current electoral college system for over 200 years, and it has served us well.
It is an antiquated system in which we are the only industialized nation to use it.
Why, now does it need to be changed?
It dramatically limits choice and liberty
Could the 2000 election have anything to do with it?
The last election is only an aspect of the overall problem. IRV has been around for quite sometime before the last election.
The same thing could happen again this year, only the dems could win the electoral college, and the repubs the popular vote. Would the left still be looking for ways to disregard the wishes of ‘Fly-over’ country?
First off it’s about fairness and freedom of choice not about the left or the right. Most of the PEOPLE(not the corporatists) on the left believe it to be a preferential system as it helps expand democracy. I would think most of the PEOPLE on the right feel the same way. The Libertarian Party fully backs the idea.
We have a two party system - not a 20 party system. For christ’s sake, we’re not Afghanistan.
Austrailia uses IRV, are they Afghanistan?
[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
IRV will never happen.
Your arguements are weak. First IRV can happen and is happening within a few areas of this country. San Fransisco is one of them.
People are not honest enough to actually ‘rank’ their choices.
So the people of this country can’t be trusted but somehow the politicians can? You actually believe that non-sense. That is very telling of your political position. However I bet you believe just about everything the corporate right says about this current war despite the mountain of evidence that this administration lied.
If, say, a Kerry supporter gets in the booth and marks his ballot he would naturally put the closest competitor to his candidate further down the list.
If I understand you correctly you are saying a Kerry supporter would place Bush last. If so then, no shit! Of course he would because that is the candidate whose views are farthest away from his own. A Bush supporter would naturally do the same thing.
Just like Thunder said - it would inflate the importance of a third party.
Actually it inflates the importance of the two corporate parties and keeps their iron-grip on power. With IRV the public(people you don’t trust) have more choice and the freedom to exercise it under the IRV system.
I don’t think the framers of the constitution envisioned this type of system, where who you are voting agaisnt carries comparable weight to who you are voting for.
I’m not discounting everything the framers thought but they also believed slavery was okay so does that make it right?
We’ve had the current electoral college system for over 200 years, and it has served us well.
It is an antiquated system in which we are the only industialized nation to use it.
Why, now does it need to be changed?
It dramatically limits choice and liberty
Could the 2000 election have anything to do with it?
The last election is only an aspect of the overall problem. IRV has been around for quite sometime before the last election.
The same thing could happen again this year, only the dems could win the electoral college, and the repubs the popular vote. Would the left still be looking for ways to disregard the wishes of ‘Fly-over’ country?
First off it’s about fairness and freedom of choice not about the left or the right. Most of the PEOPLE(not the corporatists) on the left believe it to be a preferential system as it helps expand democracy. I would think most of the PEOPLE on the right feel the same way. The Libertarian Party fully backs the idea.
We have a two party system - not a 20 party system. For christ’s sake, we’re not Afghanistan.
Austrailia uses IRV, are they Afghanistan?
[/quote]
First off - dude, learn how to use the quotey thingies.
IRV may be fine for local and state elections, but in a presidential election it would never come to pass.
I’m no lawyer, but I would bet that, even if it gains popularity and staes started using IRV, there would be some constitutional issues that would have to be addressed.
Your vote goes to elect members to an electoral college - not a President. It’s been that way for every presidential election we’ve had.
It’s a winner take all competition. There are no points for second place - nor should there be.
The democrats had more than enough dead people voting last time. Why should they be allowed to give dead people even more choices in how to undermine the democratic process.
I can see why people in the populus states would be in favor of IRV - but it would eat away at the diminishing small voice the small states have.
Oh - and by the way? we’re not Australia, either.
Zep,
“Your arguements against IRV don’t make much sense from the standpoint of liberty and choice. You even allude to this yourself as evidenced by your last statement.”
No one’s choice is limited in the standard format. Vote for anyone you want, including a write-in vote. You can’t get more ‘liberty and choice’ than that.
“Now if their is any system that OVER-INFLATES the value of a particular party it is certainly our current one. Plenty of people who would vote for a third party candidate don’t because they’re afraid their party doesn’t have a fighting chance under the current system and it’s “laws”. So they vote out of fear(lesser of 2 evils) rather than for the person who truly represents their hopes.”
It’s called moderation, and the system is designed to pull this off.
“Also, you have the option not to vote in a preferential manner but just because YOU don’t want to why should others be deprived of that choice?”
You’re not deprived of anything, vote for whoever you want. Third parties have to get traction the old-fashioned way.
“And further more how does that negate the system? You didn’t give a solid answer you just stated that because some people wouldn’t pick more than one candidate it somehow doesn’t work. Please explain!”
Not sure what you’re asking here.
“If I remeber correctly you are a Bush supporter. Are you telling me that you would rather have Kerry as President than the candidate from The Constitution Party, Libertarian Party or even Pat Buchanon?”
Absolutely. I don’t want some drunk anarchist or rigid extremist in the Presidency. I’d take Kerry over the Libertarian candidate. That may not be true of all conservatives, but I believe the fringe candidates have little value. So this avenue to convince me is useless.
“I’m sure most Kerry supporters would rather have a Green or Socialist candidate in office as oppossed to Bush. Well with IRV you will have that chance.”
Good for them - if true, they should vote accordingly. As for me, I don’t believe what you posited. I don’t believe that most Kerry supporters are actually that extreme Left and that most Bush supporters are that extreme Right.
“Not to mention that whoever is elected under IRV will have to have a majority of the votes to win the election. That person will be closer to having a true mandate from the people. As most know the last 3 elections were won with less than a majority vote. IRV helps to alleviate this.”
You have a mandate by virtue of being elected, no matter what the percentages. This nebulous concept of ‘mandate’ is silly - it presupposes that a President that doesn’t get a majority vote should halfass his job because the vote was a mixed bag. Hogwash.
“All in all I can’t see how you think this is un-useful.”
It’s un-useful is my mind because it defies the importance of our current system and tries to essentially backdoor a Parliamentary platform. While a Parliamentary system isn’t bad, I prefer the Electoral College, winner-take-all system.
This proposal is essentially an attempt by third parties to ‘punch above their weight’ in a system that is very hard for them to crack. No dice. Libertarian and Green parties can’t capture mainstream attention, and it’s not the fault of the party duopoly - it’s the fault of their ideas being out-of-step with America. When that changes, they can emerge as substantial challengers.
Till then, I don’t see the utility in trying to rig the system to give them undue importance.
rainjack: Sorry about the “quotey thingies”.
You may be right about the Constitutional issue you’ve raised but it has been amended before so…
You also talk about undermining the democratic process with political shenanigans. This stuff happens on both sides of the major parties. And if anything accomplishes the task of strangling democracy, our duoploy system certainly fits the bill.
Voter apathy runs very high in a country that should not take it’s freedoms for granted. I believe this is attributable to the inadequacy of our current election method. With another system we could increase voter rights and expand democracy for all.
I don’t know if there are any industrialized nations that even use the electoral college besides us. I mentioned Austrailia as an example of another country who uses IRV. Ireland would be another. I think the state of Utah uses it as well. I’m not saying that IRV is the best system out there but it is an improvement over our current one. Another system I’ve looked at is Condorcet Voting. It. I believe, is superior to the IRV system.
Basically I think that the right to vote is the cornerstone of democracy and a simple expansion of voting rights could improve the democratic process dramatically.
thunderbolt23:
So this system is designed to pull off moderation by inducing people to vote out of fear instead of voting for their hopes. You know you actually make a good point and all the more reason we need an obvious change.
Have you watched the third party debates on C-Span and heard the candidates speak? I have and they certainly don’t sound like "drunk anarchists to me! Don’t you think the public can make their own determination as to whether third party candidates are “too radical”?
You say,…we are not deprived of anything…" Really! What about election laws that are designed to keep third parties off the ballot box? What about not letting them in for the debates? How about the anti-democratic Electorial College?
Y’know it would be an absolute joy to watch these third party candidates in a debate with the two corporate parties. Not only would Americans be able to hear an actual difference among the candidates but it could help to light a spark to bring about meaningful change in our country. I think the two corporate parties know this and it is one of the major reasons as to why they’ll go to any lengths to see that it won’t happen.
Why do you think third parties have litle value? The Founding Fathers were on the fringe at one time.
While the concept of a mandate isn’t the be all to end all it certainly isn’t “silly”. The majority of Americans did not want the policies of the last 3 presidents.
The fact that third parties don’t have a chance has nothing to do with their ideas. The Dems and Reps certainly don’t have the best ones. It has alot to do with what I stated above.
If the Electorial College was abolished and voters rights extended via electoral reform democracy would be sure to expand and that is a great thing.
Zep,
“So this system is designed to pull off moderation by inducing people to vote out of fear instead of voting for their hopes. You know you actually make a good point and all the more reason we need an obvious change.”
Your phrase about voting for ‘fears’ is an empty catchphrase - what does it mean? People vote for all sorts of reasons - fear and hope, often in the same vote.
And moderation provides steady, consistent, conservative progress - exactly what we want.
“Have you watched the third party debates on C-Span and heard the candidates speak?”
Yes.
“Don’t you think the public can make their own determination as to whether third party candidates are “too radical”?”
Sure they can - and they already do. If there is enough support, the candidate can get on the ballot. But there must be a threshold - you can’t let every moron with an idea on the ballot. If the candidate didn’t get enough traction to reach that threshold, rest assured that the public has decided he is ‘too radical’ and he doesn’t deserve a shot.
This system works fine - and no one is being deprived of anything, especially since you can write in whomever you choose.
Just look at Ross Perot - he got support and found himself on a stage with Bush and Clinton - and damn near won.
“You say,…we are not deprived of anything…” Really! What about election laws that are designed to keep third parties off the ballot box?"
Efficiency. You can’t possible let every person on a Presidential ballot that decided to run - or it would look like California’s recall vote.
“How about the anti-democratic Electorial College?”
The Electoral College is one the great features that protects the republic. It is designed so that states elect a President, not major urban areas. Is the Electoral College anti-democratic? No, popular votes typically determine how a state votes in the college. Is it anti-direct democracy - you bet, and thankfully so.
“Y’know it would be an absolute joy to watch these third party candidates in a debate with the two corporate parties. Not only would Americans be able to hear an actual difference among the candidates but it could help to light a spark to bring about meaningful change in our country.”
I don’t think so. Watching two mainstream candidates try to stay focused on mainstream issues while fringe candidates champion privatization of the air or the benefits of being able to marry your dinette set would not be terribly effective.
After all, what line do you draw for third parties? What about a fourth or fifth party? Who should be invited to a debate and who should not? Someone is going to get left out. Let’s suppose Nader - the most powerful of the third party guys - got an invite to a debate. What would the Libertarian, Natural Law, Constitution, and Socialist parties have to say? Why not them?
“I think the two corporate parties know this and it is one of the major reasons as to why they’ll go to any lengths to see that it won’t happen.”
Parties have come and gone - the Reform party almost made a run of it back in the early 90’s.
“Why do you think third parties have litle value? The Founding Fathers were on the fringe at one time.”
I don’t think third parties, generally speaking, have little value. But they have to get support that old-fashioned way. The current crop of third parties, in my view, have little to offer.
And were the Founding Fathers fringe? Not exactly - try the French Revolution.
“While the concept of a mandate isn’t the be all to end all it certainly isn’t “silly”. The majority of Americans did not want the policies of the last 3 presidents.”
Nonsense. Prove it.
“The fact that third parties don’t have a chance has nothing to do with their ideas.”
It has everything to do with it. Greens and Libertarians don’t even have significant positions at the local level. They aren’t winning people over at the most basic level of public service, let alone for the most powerful office in the world.
“The Dems and Reps certainly don’t have the best ones.”
By and large, the US is doing quite well.
“If the Electorial College was abolished and voters rights extended via electoral reform democracy would be sure to expand and that is a great thing.”
The abolition of the Electoral College would put the bulk of the electoral power in the hands of large urban areas. I prefer a nation of states.
Secondly, you’ve got the full package of ‘voters’ rights’ now - vote for whoever you want. Just because there is a powerful party duopoly doesn’t mean you are being denied your voting rights - it simply means your party, whatever it might be, is not a winner. That could easily change. Till then, whining about having your voting rights denied is wasted time.
rainjack: Alot of people (especially the ABBC) are voting out of fear. It’s not that Kerry comes close to representing their hopes and ideas. It’s because they are fearful of another 4 years of the Bush Administration.
If you are calling modern American politics progress then I’m completely stupified!
When you watched the 3rd party debates who were the “drunken extremists” you talked about? And the idea that they don’t talk about the same issues as the two corporate parties is absolutely false. Did you really watch those 3rd party debates?
The idea that the election laws are put in place for efficiency purposes only is a ruse to keep the status quo in power.
I believe you do make a good point in saying that the Founding Fathers weren’t that “fringe”. I think they were more for the elite than the common man. Hamilton considered placing a monarch during our country’s beginings. John Jay basically said that the country ought to be governed by those who own it. This wasn’t a reference to the public but to the aristocracy from which he came. Although men like Jefferson, Franklin and Thomas Paine were sympathetic to the cause of the Frnch Revolution and most likely more democratic than the others.
A majority of the people did not vote for the last three Presidents and their policies. Now you prove to me that they did vote for their policies!
In some areas the U.S. is doing well. In others not so, education, healthcare, and gargantuan government spending with a simultaneous erosion of civil liberties.
You’ve basically gave your defense of the Electoral College as not trusting the public - at least a specific public - to directly vote for the President. Why is it okay to directly vote for our Senators but not our President? Or would you like to re-enact the Electoral College to vote for our Senators as well?
Is this your main reason for keeping the EC system in place? If not I’d like to hear your defense of this system.