Instant runoff voting

Instant runoff voting
Such an electoral system saves time and money, and ensures a majority winner.

By Blair Bobier
December 10, 2008

Now that our country has elected a 21st century president, we should reconsider our 18th century electoral system.

Two examples from the seemingly never-ending 2008 election showcase the system's flaws. More than a month after election day, we still don't know who won Minnesota's Senate race. In Georgia's U.S. Senate contest, it took two elections and tens of millions of dollars to produce a winner. Both races could have been resolved quickly and with less expense using instant runoff voting. Because the Constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how to elect their senators and presidential electors, instant runoff voting could be used at all levels of government.

Instant runoff voting is worth learning about -- not just because it saves time and money and is more democratic than our current methods, but because you may find yourself using it before too long. The Los Angeles City Council has created a task force to determine the feasibility of using it for local elections. It already has been used for several election cycles in San Francisco and has been approved for use in a number of Bay Area municipalities.

With instant runoff voting, voters indicate their first, second and third choices among candidates on the ballot. If a candidate wins a majority of first-choice rankings, that candidate is elected. If no candidate receives an initial majority of first-choice rankings, the candidate with the fewest first-choice rankings is eliminated and that candidate's supporters have their votes count for their second choice. The process repeats until a candidate emerges with majority support.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-bobier10-2008dec10,0,4934879.story

Hartmann gets it --

effect that still exists in IRV, but yeah we definitely need to get away from the plurality nonsense we use now.

And, yes we need not only to account for majority ...

we also need to account for minority ...

"The Problem with IRV"
http://web.archive.org/web/20020605150214/electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm

Approval voting:
http://www.approvalvoting.org/faq.html

There are some other voting methods here, but some of the links need to be updated: http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=1

The concept works -- under any of the options --

Needless to say, I don't agree with the "danger" the link suggests re IRV --

Proportional representation is also more than interesting --

We have a rigged system now with many changes required --

The two parties are cooperating in making elections private affairs in their hands --

Meanwhile, the steals didn't begin in 2000, but in the mid-1960's ...

That's when the large computer counters used by media began to come in --

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm



Meanwhile: See the note I'll add re Jimmy Carter --

the best chance smaller parties have.

and certainly by mid-60's ...???



And ...














http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam04.txt

and smaller parties often make deals with larger ones (or each other) for preferences in return for various policy concessions and such:

Preferential voting (or preference voting) is a type of ballot structure used in several electoral systems in which voters rank a list or group of candidates in order of preference. For example, the voter may write a '1' beside their first choice, a '2' beside their second preference, and so on. This contrasts with ballots used by methods which do not allow more than two-valued ranking of candidates (Yes or No, often with No assumed unless Yes is marked), such as Plurality voting or Approval voting.

Australia uses preferential ballots in two different ways: instant-runoff voting and the single transferable vote system, although neither of these names are commonly used in Australia.

Instant-runoff voting is used in electing candidates to single-member electorates such as the Australian Federal House of Representatives, state legislative assemblies and local government municipalities.

Single Transferable Vote systems are used in electing candidates to multi-member electorates such as the Australian Senate, State upper houses, Tasmania's State legislative assembly, the Australian Capital Territory's legislative assembly, and some local government municipalities.

Ballot papers are counted according to prescribed set of rules which prescribe the method used in the counting of the ballots and the distribution of preferences. Voters' preferences are now data-entered into computer systems, which then process the recorded votes to determine the results of the election. Copies of the transcribed date file used in the counting of the elections are published and made available for public inspection and scrutiny.

Supporters of the parties and individual candidates hand out "How to Vote" cards (HTVs) at the entrance to polling stations or distributed with election material sent in the post, advising voters how to fill in their ballots to support that party or candidate. The information published on a how to vote card is a recommendation only and no voter is obliged to vote as published, but up to 80% of voters follow the recommendations of their preferred party or candidate. The proportion of voters that choose not to follow their preferred candidate's recommendations is called the "preference leakage"<2>.

The STV systems of some jurisdictions in Australia (e.g. the Senate) allow group voting tickets or "above the line voting" where a voter can with a single mark indicate support for a predefined set of preferences. This reduces the burden on voters, especially where there are large numbers of candidates and when a complete preference list is required to make a vote valid, so about 95% of voters use this option. Voters not wishing to use the "above-the-line-voting" option maintain the entitlement to indicate preferences for individual candidates; this is referred to as below-the-line voting. The allocation of predefined and individual voter preferences are important in determining the results of the election.

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

In the US, third parties are seen as "spoilers" simply because of Duverger's Law as far as SMDP voting goes, the system the US has. By requiring a majority to win a seat, the dynamics of an election would change drastically.

With Al Franken, what this means is that there would no longer be an argument in voting for Franken simply because the third party candidate is a "spoiler" on the left. People would be liberated to vote their preference, not vote based on the fear of losing the seat to the conservative.

Now, if you are an "institutionalized party" like the Democrats or the Republicans, then obviously, IRV is something you do not want, simply because your goal is to attain and hold power, not enact laws or reforms that may actually weaken your grip on power in the long-term.

If you are a reformer and want more options at the ballot box without fear of being punished for voting third party by having the conservative win your seat, then IRV would only help you.

it permits the better candidate/party to win --

and eliminates the "lesser evil" aspect of voting we have now --

Now, if you are an "institutionalized party" like the Democrats or the Republicans, then obviously, IRV is something you do not want, simply because your goal is to attain and hold power, not enact laws or reforms that may actually weaken your grip on power in the long-term.

Good that you are open about that reality --

but the two party-system thereby prevents challenge and choice for the voter --

while still being able too blame a "spoiler" ...

And while GOP/DEMS keep a lock on power -- it keeps us from having leverage over them.

IMO - Constitution, freedom. law, honest economy -- small "d" democracy is what we

have to protect first. When DEMS are moving for progressive change, they'll get elected.

But if you think the hand count in Minnesota is taking a long time, just wait until election judges have to determine voter intent for order of preference between several candidates. :crazy:

and used as an excuse to hasten it all with computer voting --

Large computer counters used by media began to come in right after

coup on JFK/people's government.

The 2000 steal was by no means the first ...

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

Quote --

US elections could not be "ibserved because they lack three necessary

criteria ---

1) Voters must be able to understand the ballot procedures and the

ballot, themselves --

2) Voters must have equal rights to have their votes counted --

3) A central Commission in the country to resolve election disputes --

None of these conditions exist in US --

Florida violated ALL of these --

Unquote