Posted on 10/26/2006 6:37:55 AM PDT by ruffedgrouse
Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a voting reform that asks the voter to rank the candidates in order of preference. It is simple, common-sense reform that will greatly improve our democratic process.
IRV has many benefits including giving voters a wider range of choices, eliminating the spoiler factor with third-party candidates, saving taxpayer money, and decreasing negative campaigning.
We need to continue educating more Americans about this simple, practical reform. Click the links above to learn more about IRV and what you can do to help.
Now is the time to implement IRV across the country!
(Excerpt) Read more at instantrunoff.com ...
"A growing number of jurisdictions have come to see that the diminished costs of elections and the inevitable attrition of voter interest in a second election make IRV a thoroughly practical means of assuring voters that their will can be carried out in a single election. It is a reform that enhances the right of democratic choice in a common sense way."
John B. Anderson, nine-term member of Congress, 1980 Independent candidate for President of the United States, law professor.
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. The animated links to the left can help clarify this simple process, but let's talk about why it's a superior voting system, first:
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.
IBTZ
Doesn't (or didn't) Ireland use this sort of system?
I could be wrong - I heard it years ago and the memory's getting foggy.
Yes. In America, elected officials are chosen through a winner take all system. Ireland, however, has a very different system that many say better represents the will of the voters. Voters from each of the various Irish counties rates each of the candidates in order from most favored to least. In doing this, people are more willing to show their support for a lesser known politician.
This opens up the political debate to ideas that might not have been considered otherwise, strengthening the democratic process. This style of voting would be beneficial for voters in the United States as well. Too often the winner take all system of voting in the United States forces both politicians and the public to vote for views that that they don't really support for fear of "throwing away" their vote. System's such as Ireland's paint a more accurate picture of what the public's mandate truly is, and thus
What does IBTZ mean?
Sounds sort of like eliminating the Electoral College to me. I would never be in favor of that. The EC is the only thing that assures small states equal representation.
"Sounds sort of like eliminating the Electoral College to me"
I wouldn't eliminate the EC either. A nationwide popular vote would be messy, among other things. I would, however, PROPORTIONALIZE it. This at least gives republicans in states like MA and RI reason to get out of bed on election day (in presidential years).
In before the zot.
"In before the zot."
Why should the post be gotten rid of? It doesn't attack conservatism, nor do I. I think that by enable true conservative parties like the Constitution party into the mix, it enhances conservatism.
Yes, something to allow for some sort of representation would be good.
Yeah, just add runoff elections, and blow off the electoral college. - that will certainly simplify elections in America. /s
A proportional EC would empower other parties, even if they didn't garner many EVs. Imagine the Constitution party getting 10EVs in a proportional EC; neither one of the "demopublicans" gets the magic 270. The Constitution candidate can offer his EVs to the Republican, but only if he agrees to tack to the right on major issues. As Martha Stewart would say, "it's a good thing."
"blow off the electoral college."
I'm not advocating that--see post 7.
...and post 12
The advantages to a two-party system can best be appreciated by looking at Europe. There, fringe candidates can be elected, but parliaments are frequently deadlocked because there is not a majority party. Coalitions of sometimes very tiny parties form and break up, leading to disarray.
A two-party system tends to lead to moderation since each party must attract a sufficient core of middle voters while holding the extremes.
Worst of all is proportional voting. In certain elections in France, parties run slates of candidates, and the elected posts are allocated on the basis of the proportion of the vote that a party receives. This leads to a party having parliamentary seats despite the fact that NOWHERE in the country did they receive a majority.
If you want to see what happens to a government when you empower multiple tiny, extremist parties, just look at Italy.
Ergo, it'll never happen and anyone suggesting it will be roundly denounced as some kind of agitator or troll...
Sad state of affairs.
--A two-party system tends to lead to moderation since each party must attract a sufficient core of middle voters while holding the extremes.--
It also leads to ideological stagnation, lack of new ideas, and a sense of entitlement--which leads to corruption.
The only time I have heard about IRV until now was from
a hard-core bitter 1960's leftist who strongly supported the idea.
Welcome to FR. Ain't going to happen, neither party would go for this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.