Instant Runoff Voting

Heard about it today on Thom Hartmann's show.

Very interesting.
What do you think?

---


Replace Plurality Elections

Problem: Most places in the United States use plurality elections where the candidate with the most votes is elected. This is fine when there are only two candidates in a race. When three or more candidates compete for an office, the winning candidate often receives less than fifty percent of the vote. This means that a majority of votes actually preferred someone other than the person who was elected. This violates the commonsense democratic principle that a candidate elected to a single winner office, such as mayor or governor, ought to be preferred by a majority of voters.

Solution: Under IRV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest first choices is eliminated. Voters who ranked the eliminated candidate first now have their ballots counted for their second choice. This process continues until one candidate earns a majority.

By ranking candidates, voters are able to express their true preferences without worrying about wasting their votes or spoiling the election and helping elect their least favorite candidate. For this reason alone, IRV often leads to higher turnout and stronger democracy. Candidates need to build a base of first choice support, but also reach out to the broader voting population in order to be acceptable to the majority.

Much more reasons for it here:
http://instantrunoff.com/


---

Fair Vote uses the same old talking points.

That is a really bad list of alleged 'problems' with IRV.

Pick a couple and let me respond. There is so much B.S. in there I don't know where to start.

I will say this: If we are going to start from the premise that we have to have hand marked pieces of paper for ballots, with no computer involvement, then let's set that out at the beginning. I may disagree with that premise, but I think IRV will still be superior anyway.

A couple of quotes from the linked pdf:

"Instant Runoff Voting (By Hand, of Course. It CAN Be Done):
I think that IRV is a fabulous goal, long term. It stands to greatly reduce runoff costs and other
problems once we have systems that can reliably handle it."

"normal indicators such as exit polls will not be able to easily reflect IRV results...That's not to say that it can't be done, just that it is extremely important to get it right the first time, with proper design and certification."

"You don't have the opportunity to go to the ballot for your candidate twice." Huh?

"I actually ran into the chair of the Wake (County) BOE and had a discussion, expressed my
concerns, really echoing concerns that Mr. West had, so we sat down and scratched out a
little test ballot, and said - just looking at my race, an at my race, a large race, the most
complicated race, our conversation went on for some time, and based on the length of our
discussion, it took us this long- and you’re the expert - to figure this out, then I'm not
sure this is really the way to go." WTF?

"…Rocky Mount Councilman Reuben Blackwell, who has announced that he will likely
run for mayor, said he thinks it is the wrong time and place to test the method.
"To cast out an instant runoff speculative experiment in communities that have
had historic voting rights violations issues is absolutely wrong," Blackwell said. "I
think this needs to be studied further before it is done anywhere."
Blackwell added that the current runoff system, though time-consuming, allows voters a
chance to re-evaluate options after the field is narrowed rather than making that decision
ahead of time." Hmmm. An incumbent considering a future race thinks we should wait. OK.

“It’s not a swimmingly easy procedure,” he said. “It’s not transparent, it’s not simple and easy to understand like the current system is.” Well we could make it real easy by restricting it to one candidate only if you want!

"The funniest part of my ballot, however, was San Francisco's allegedly fair and
democratic "Instant Runoff System" in action... At significant expense, the city printed up
special little ballots so you can mark your "first second and third choices" for these offices.
Problem is, both candidates are running unopposed." This is a flaw with IRV how exactly?

"if the goal of IRV is to somehow elect "more progressive" judges in NC,"... Umm, that is not the goal of IRV.

"Any savings realized by moving to IRV would be lost with the education program required to acquaint members with the new system." Isn't that the same as saying we could have a new, more accurate, and more democratic system for no additional cost?

"The overall finding on RCV (Ranked Choice Voting) is positive. Wide majorities of voters knew about Ranked-Choice voting, understood it, and used it rank their preferences. Further, most prefer it, with only about one in eight saying they prefer the former run-off system."

Implement the instant runoff and eliminate the electorial college could be a major improvement.

much less this nonsense.

Besides which you'll never change the laws and constitutions required.

Let's focus on REAL action - like getting voters out to vote.

Let's not waste our time on nonsense like this.

Doug D.