Instant Run-off/Preferential Voting

Post Reply New Topic

What do you all think of Instant Run-off voting for the US? I would love to rank my choices so I wouldn't feel bad voting 3rd party before choosing the lesser of two evils party. (Video at bottom)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW19BYTKRbU[/youtube]

It'd be nice. If not, I'd like to see a null-vote system implemented.

problem with such voting systems is that it causes all parties to move to the centre.
even if they don't, the centralist parties get into power, which then causes the rest to move centralist.

If you believe like I do that centralist parties are ones that can never accomplish anything other than maintain status quo. such a system is just a poor substitute for true proportional representation

Why would all parties move to the center? Aren't the D's and R's already there (As moderates)? The Libertarian party is Libertarians, and the Greens are greens. The problem now is that supporters of the Libertarians or Green Party feel that they have to abandon their 1st choice because they can only pick one.
If by Centrists you mean someone who can easily change between the democrats and the republicans than yes, they are worthless. I meant more of using this system to vote for president and elected offices.

But on topic, here's a reason for conservatives and Liberals to support this system, spoilers.

The democrats just lost a seat in Hawaii because two strong democrats split the vote, and the republican won about 40%. In NY-23, the democrat got 48%, the conservative got 46%, and the republican (who dropped out) got 5%. In these cases, a liberal/conservative district now has a congressman who probably wasn't the first choice.

But under this system, the voters would rank their choices between the three of them, and when all the votes were in, whoever was in 3rd place would be dropped, and their voters would then be given to each individuals second choice.

This might of also kept George HW Bush in the White House, but it might of also given Al Gore the 2000 win.

I'm not saying IRV isn't better than the archaic system the US has currently, Or the similarly but different, system here in Canada.

your system is designed to prevent third and fourth parties from effectively gaining power. If there IS only need for two parties, your system works pretty good, but not if there is a third or more.
Our system is okay, so long as the demographics are note homogeneous.
But in worst case scenario's it's possible for a party to get a majority with only 12.6% of the vote, if there are 4 parties... lower if there are more parties.

But as for why it pushes them to the centre.. consider...

I have 3 choices ...
party A, B & C.
A is left, B is centre, C is right.
people who like party A, are most likely to have party B as second.
people who like party C, are also most likely to have party B as second.
Not EVERY one would be as such, but the vast majority would... they see the political spectrum as a line from good to worse.

But the end result would be, that if party A or C can't get majority through first choice ballot, they're likely to lose on second choice, and party B will win.

As elections go by, the parties will strategically place themselves trying to make themselves seem the "moderate" party, to garner 2nd choice votes.
Yes.. it can backfire, but there will be parties with the right propaganda that will manage to do so.

The other issue, is that you seem to believe that the person themselves makes much of a difference.... They don't... it's party only. If they vote against party line or "on conscience" it's only on minor votes... anything important, it's party line!

The beauty of PR is this... in the House, or the Senate, (house of commons here in Canada) it would imply that if 18% voted party A, then 18% of the seats would go to party A.
This forces alliances/coalitions... which is the other way to achieve "compromise" And it is a way that doesn't stagger, doesn't just sit content with the status quo.

Yes there are extreme cases in such places as Italy. Where too many parties form, and there is no way to bring order to parliament.
This only happens when a nations demographics are so splintered. Canada nor the US would ever face such problems.

Beats having 1/4 of the demographic screaming and crying about socialism because of the extreme swing that's created by the current socio-political climate.

Cambridge, MA, has preferential voting. Their government seems to be no less corrupt - and perhaps more so - than neighboring cities.

In my own city, people have to run as individuals rather than party representatives, which seems to work a bit better. I don't know if that would work on a larger scale, though.

No thanks, one person one vote. I wouldn't be against run offs at a later date if no candidate reaches 50% but not some sort of weird ranking system. Elections are tough to handle and fraud prone already so no need to complicate it even further. I don't think this would make it any easier for third parties or independents when their issue is more just getting on the ballot and getting noticed.