it worked well and everyone seemed satisfied with the results.


sadly, the two parties are very deeply entrenched, and join forces to squash anything that might help third parties.

Sorry my post isn't directly related to the article. Still on topic with "more people would vote."

They don't want more people to vote. They have a difficult enough time controlling the current voters.

I say give it a try.

The downside is that if you get a candidate who is everybody's second choice he might not have a mandate.

Bryant

It's a good idea intellectually, but it won't increase voting because the people You're trying to attract won't be able to digest how it works.

which have been using it for a while now.

Of course, some of the nuances can be a little complex. In Oakland's 2010 mayoral election, liberal Jean Quan and progressive Rebecca Kaplan teamed up to get their supporters to rank law-and-order conservative Don Perata last. Quan eventually won, even though Perata had more first-place votes, which is how ranked-choice is supposed to work. But she was just defeated for re-election by slightly less conservative Libby Schaaf, because as the incumbent, she didn't feel like cutting the same deal with Kaplan.

Is homogeneity necessary to understand the process (lack of understanding the process being your initial premise)?

a surprise coming from a usually fine DUer.

To significantly modify a voting system requires two buy-ins from the electorate: first, that it addresses a need they feel they want in their voting choices (e.g. the opportunity to vote for third party candidates while protecting a 2nd choice), and second, that the new system is fair. The first, in my opinion is of interest to only a marginal percentage of the voters (who, btw don't tend to hang out at political blogsites). The second is less likely to be an issue in an area where voters are homogeneous (liberal vs conservative; Dem vs Rep, etc.). However, on a State or national level, it is much more likely that one group or the other will feel that a complex new voting system is being implemented to reduce their voting influence.

If anything it makes the voting process easier because if you vote for the Green candidate but want to vote for the Democrat, too, you can just vote for them both, and not worry about your ballot being spoiled.

The average voter isn't engaged enough to want to consider the merits of Greens, Libertarians, etc.

If we can get more liberal people to be satisfied they might actually, you know, GOTV as they pretend they do when it's an off year election cycle.

Vote for all the candidates who don't disgust you.

We'd probably end up with boring bureaucrat types, but that's okay.

Which probably isn't liked by many, but I think it can be used to get a rising star a big boost if not a win here or there. It'd make those elections exciting and people wouldn't have to "vote for the lesser evil." Win win, imo.

see post #9 upthread.

Seems to work OK, but there haven't been enough elections to really test it well. Minneapolis had a large number of candidates in its last mayoral election, and they didn't have to have a runoff election. I don't follow Minneapolis city politics closely, so I don't know how people there feel about the results, though.

The current system ensures we have only two parties.

... periodically I use a website that allows you to conduct an informal IRV voting poll and have used it to get DUers to give their Presidential preference. It has been a while but I will do so again.

This works well in state and local voting. I think it would work well in Presidential voting too but to really implement it, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to do away with the electoral vote system.

Fusion voting is when a candidate can run on more than one party line (NY is a good example, where Joe Schmoe can run as a Democrat, Working Families, Green, etc).

I talked to my dad about it and he looks very closely at all the lines the candidate appears on. For example if a candidate he was looking at appears on the "Right to Life" party line, it's automatic vote for his/her opponent. Cross endorsements tell a lot about a candidate.

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

nt