instant-runoff voting
Submitted by Erik_Geib on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 05:10I just posted this as a comment on a different thread, but after doing so thought it might be nice to have a general discussion on the topic.
When doing my presidential homework (i.e. reading every candidate's website and positions in their own words in the interest of fairness), I came across a neat little thing that Kucinich (hear me out) is advocating that could greatly aid both the Ron Paul Republicans AND the Libertarian Party. Anyone else ever heard of instant runoff voting? It's pretty much amazing.
Essentially, IRV works like this:
When you vote, you rank your candidates (either first to last or top 3, depending on the administration and locale of the ballot, i.e. Ireland, Australia, etc.) according to preference.
Next, the votes are tallied strictly on the basis of your first-ranked vote. If nobody reaches a majority, then the lowest ranked candidate is eliminated and everyone who's vote ranked that person first, then falls to those votes' second-ranked candidate. If no majority is met for any candidate again, the process repeats itself.
So, basically, I could vote LP all my heart desires in the general election, but still vote AGAINST the Democrats. This format would be especially effective if we had proportional representation at some level of federal represenation, but I digress.
Thoughts?
For more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
_
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
ay karumba!!!
we need far more electoral reform than this.And not another 'system' for managing votes. And we have enough trouble with voter fraud in the current system. Imagine how they could use this tool to 'fraud' some more? ay karumba!!!!
oh,and as a little ps.-imagine if INDIVIDUALS voted for INDIVIDUALS based on their proposed actions,beliefs on issues,etc.,NOT on which party they are affiliated with?
WOW,now that would be a revolution.
This whole question of two party dominant or multi party would be irrelevant.
Another thread actually has the LP endorsing RP to run on the LP ticket 3rd party,if he does not get the Repub. nod.
How crazy is this? Even the libertarian party has to 'endorse' someone? It's insane. And hardly a thinking man (woman in my case)'s world.
IRV is broken
Our current first past the post system is probably the worst voting system around, but Instant Runoff is quite bad too as it is highly unstable. Approval voting or one of the simpler forms of Range Voting would be a far superior voting method.
The federal government should allow the states the leeway to experiment with a variety of voting methods. We really do need the states to conduct different experiments in improving democratic methods of representation so that the best forms can be discovered.
Yup
Technically, any of the Condorcet methods seem better than approval methods -- but they may be more prone to tactical voting. Approval is a bit too noisy.
(see this simulation), and google voting simulations for more
Range Voting looks better
IRV still may not be a solution - look at the results of 2007 Australian federal election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election%2C_...
Still looks pretty like two-party domination to me (note, that the Liberal party of Australia and National Party of Australia form a coalition).
Take a look at range voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting
http://rangevoting.org/MotPlusMenu.html
http://rangevoting.org/
http://bolson.org/voting/essay.html
http://reformthelp.org/issues/voting/range.php
and yet....
"Australia has a mild two-party system. There are two dominant political groupings in the Australian political system, and aspects of the Australian electoral system have made it difficult for other parties or independents to gain parliamentary representation. Nevertheless, the system of preferential voting used in Australian elections, combined with proportional representation for most Upper House elections, makes it easier for minor parties and independents to gain representation in Australia than in some other two-party systems of government, such as in the United States."
As for range voting... not only does it mainly look like a mathematical equation for doing largely the same thing as IRV, it also appears as though it's too susceptible to tampering by idiots.
_
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
...still... ;-)
Just take a look at the following links and tell me what do you think - I hope they will address all of the concerns:
Range voting encourages honesty:
http://rangevoting.org/HonestyExec.html
Why Range Voting is Better than IRV:
http://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html
What do minor parties in Australia think about IRV:
http://rangevoting.org/AusIRV.html
How we know IRV just leads to 2-party domination:
http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html
What did the USA's founders think? What does the constitution say?
http://rangevoting.org/ConstVt.html
Instant Runoff
Yea, the Green Party candidate for president in the 2004 election talked a lot about Instant Runoff Voting. I think its a very good idea. There are some orgranizations out there that help promote it.
http://www.irvwa.org/
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/political_reform/instant_...
Have you researched these groups fully?
Who are the board of directors,etc. in these organizations? Who are their 'true affiliates'?
Always worth doing further research (which would take some time,unless they are funded by Rockefeller,Ford,etc.,in which case it easy to dismiss them,since their motives would now be suspect) to understand who promotes yet another unviable,abstract system for managing We the People,under the guise of democracy and having our voice/vote count.
That work.
If one you had a clean run but the system here in this country is so twisted big business and media and now hoolywood choose the pres. and the idiots who have been brain washed follow. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."