Instant Runoff Voting

Interesting spread of votes (0.00 / 0)

I want to hear from the Never person, or any never person. Why not?

For the record I lean against IRV, but I think it might have been useful, say, during California's infamous recall election. My only experience with it is during caucuses to elect convention delegates, where a friend of mine once topped a local mayor on first ballot. The mayor was, um, annoyed.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 16:44:54 PM CDT

Could be an interesting way to (0.00 / 0)

allow people to vote with out worrying about "wasting" their vote.

I think its an interesting thing, the "wasting" meme that is... can one really "waste" a vote? Why the pressure to pick a winner, people act as if there they have money on it. Certainly it is an important decision, but you personally gain nothing from picking the candidate you feel would be best.

Sometime it seems people just want to be on the winning team.

Hope > Fear

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 20:16:15 PM CDT

Well, that's what the candidates (0.00 / 0)

and their touters want the voters to believe--that it's a social entertainment, like the lottery, whose outcome is insignificant to almost all the participants.

I still recommend Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"

---

by: hannah @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:12:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Strategic voting (0.00 / 0)

There's a slight premonition of IRV strategies in elections where voters chose among a field of candidates to fill multipleseats (e.g., state representatives, councilors at large).

I was in a race like that once. I sent a letter to supporters reminding them that, if I was their top choice, leaving the other votes empty made it more likely that I would win. (IIRC, it was something like 'Vote for Five', and there were two Dems and 5 Republicans in the general.) That's called a "bullet vote."

So, do I want to cast a "5th Choice" for candidate XYZ, knowing that under some circumstances that vote could help defeat my higher choices?

---

by: elwood @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 21:27:41 PM CDT

I voted "never" (0.00 / 0)

What is broken in the system that we have that requires fixing?  What are the unintended consequences of changing? 

If I understand this system correctly, you could have a Republican endorsed candidate, a Democratic endorsed candidate, and three others.  It is clear early on that a couple of the others are going to draw enough first place votes to deny the Republican or the Democrat a majority.  What is to prevent the Republican from getting a couple of the other candidates to get their supporters to vote for the Republican as second choice?  What deals and promises will be made?  And, what prevents one fo the "major" candidates from getting a couple of "minor" candidates to run, knowing they will syphon away first place votes from the other "major" candidate, and again, cutting deals with those "minor" candidates to get the second place votes? 

The ballot reforms the Democratic majority enacted here in NH - fair ballot rotation, elimination of straight ticket voting - have done a lot to insure fair elections. There are a couple of more reforms that are needed, like true early voting, not restricted absentee voting, and mandatory 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. voting hours, that could increase turnout, but we have much fairer elections today, thanks to the Democratic majority!!

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt   [I'm an advisor to the NHDP Coordinated Campaign]

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:11:39 AM CDT

I imagine (4.00 / 1)

the whole Nader/Gore/Bush thing would be one example some might use. If a voter had Nader as a first choice and Gore as a second choice, after Nader's eliminated in the first count the voter can still vote sincerely "for someone" and then "vote against" Bush. You could maybe say the same thing about Perot/Clinton/Bush in 1992. It might mitigate the "spoiler effect".

There's probably appropriate applications for it in some cases, but I agree that we don't need it in NH and it would probably make the majority of races even more complicated than they already are (e.g. "What do you mean vote for not more than 5? I don't even know who half these people are!").

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:01:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Someday I'm going to diary my thoughts (0.00 / 0)

on "majoritarian" versus "narrow" political parties. I haven't seen this take on it before -- m,aybe because it's so damn obvious none of my profs bothered to point it out.

The two "major" parties are majoritarian in that they are committed to the effort to capture at least 50%+1 of the popular vote. They don't generally look for 70% of the vote, because making the compromises -- e.g. on abortion or on gay rights -- to reach those extra voters would alienate their base. The major parties therefore tend to be clearly different but pulled to the center (as the attempt to destroy Social Security showed).

The minor / narrow parties are not committed to capturing 50%+1. They would be ecstatic to get 20%. They tend to be ideologically purer, whether we mean the Greens or the Libertarians.

There are two big, related questions here:

1. What useful role can narrow political parties play in the American political system?
   
2. How can a new majoritarian party displace an old one in the 21st century?
   

---

by: elwood @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:19:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

From my hip, more or less (0.00 / 0)

1. Keeping the big parties honest on, say, environmental issues.

2. They can't, unless redistricting is nationalized and done by computer. Northampton, MA is probably legitimately a Green Party district -- but why vote for a Green when you can have a Democrat who joins the statewide majority? There must be other places like that, and pretty soon you have Greens at 5% or so. (Greens were a handy example, it could be Libertarians or whoever.)

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:25:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Something like that (0.00 / 0)

1. Keeping the majors honest is a sort of blackmail function, probably not very satisfying to candidates or voters. "If Dems don't raise CAFE standards, we'll vote Green, even if it means electing the Republican!" (absent IRV). That does happen, and it can be healthy. Another approach to this is the old New York fusion model, where the Liberal and Conservative Parties gave their nomination to the Dem or Republican. That used to result in the major candidates courting them.
   
2. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians are majoritarian. I'm thinking of a group that concludes -- to pick a very timely example -- that the GOP is too corrupt and too tied to aging social policies to compete with the Dems. How does it get established?  Start with a major defector from the major party -- a Van Buren or a Teddy Roosevelt?
   

---

by: elwood @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:34:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry I misunderstood the second point (0.00 / 0)

The only real hope for a new majoritarian party is something like the Reform Party -- that is, a party backed by a billionaire that draws big names from the other two parties.

I know the Reform Party imploded, but that was most likely due its lack of a philosophy. In terms of organization -- and here that means money -- that's what it's going to take. Getting Jesse Ventura elected governor of Minnesota was a victory, but they couldn't leverage it, and of course the split was pure farce. Suddenly there were two alternative parties, and neither one stood for anything other than throw the bums out.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:48:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm kind of curious about Nebraska (4.00 / 1)

With their non-partisan legislature. I mean, the New York fusion ticket thing is about ideology, but would non-partisan elections promote issues-based coalition building and a closer reflection of regional interests?

One of the huge advantages of the American Congressional system, over, say, the Westminster system or a continental European proportional representation system is politicians aren't bound by the will of the party. We don't expel people from our party if they vote "the wrong way" on a budget, for example. Our system promotes a level of political independence for our elected representatives that doesn't exist in much of the world because of the forced coalition-building in the two "big tent" parties at conventions and county meetings and other such party-level events.

On the other hand, you have to wonder if that independence detracts from democratic ideas like the "will of the people", etc. It's certainly interesting stuff to think about.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:51:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hadn't realized that about Nebraska (0.00 / 0)

Candidates run for the one-chamber legislature on ballots that do not list party affiliation.

However, people keep track.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:12:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't know that either (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:33:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Too each his/her own perhaps? (0.00 / 0)

Just found JimC's diary now.

I suppose it depends where it is. I agree that it may not be the best place for the NH State legislature with its 400+ members but say for a governors race, a Congressional District race, or Senate race, I think it would be appropriate. Many voters are getting sick and tired of the same old status quo politicans where other "quailified" candidates aren't on equal footing as the heavy hitters, don't have as much political capital, and the race is already at a major disadvantage to them. It's got its plusses and minuses but I believe the benefits definitely outweigh the liabilities, so to speak.

I know a lot of Vermonters are jealous the city of Burlington has IRV and based on what I've seen and heard, there's been an overwhelming positive response. At least for me. 

Just a thought.

"Seventy percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq and two pro-war candidates win the NH Primary. If that doesn't tell you how f-ed up the system is, what does?"

- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:39:08 AM CDT

Vermont (0.00 / 0)

What happens in Burlington stays in Burlington :)!

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt   [I'm an advisor to the NHDP Coordinated Campaign]

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:50:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Refocusing the Question (0.00 / 0)

Is instant runoff voting a good idea for the first in the nation New Hampshire presidential primary?

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:34:24 AM CDT

How would it work? (0.00 / 0)

It's already possible for multiple candidates to get delegates. There isn't necessarily just one winner (delegate-wise) of the primary. Both Kerry and Dean secured delegates in 2004. How would IRV change delegate allocation?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:39:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

For the sake of discussion (0.00 / 0)

Let's say the winner is designated by the first to achieve over 50%, and the other delegates get awarded proportionately based on that final ballot.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:54:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Could you make up an example (0.00 / 0)

to show me what you mean?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:59:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

To avoid accusations of bias, I'm making Gravel the winner. On the fifth ballot, he gets 51%.

The rest go like this:

Clinton 10%
Obama 10%
Edwards 10%
Dodd 6%
Richardson 6%
Biden 5%
Kucinich 2%

(Am I forgetting someone? Anyway, that's the idea.)

So that split determines the delegate split.

In this scenario -- like the primary itself -- it's not so much the delegates that matter, it's the perception of who the winner is.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:15:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But... (0.00 / 0)

wouldn't the other candidates have been eliminated in previous rounds? Kucinich wouldn't be getting 2% because he wouldn't be considered on the fifth count.

Just trying to figure out how you would do this makes it appear untenable.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:33:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I had the same thought (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:34:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bullet votes? (0.00 / 0)

Strong supporters who list no second choice would never get re-allocated.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:54:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Compared to a "normal" ballot (0.00 / 0)

It wouldn't be any different than those voters who, for example, only vote for Congressional races, but not County Attorney. Right?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:00:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait, no (0.00 / 0)

I think I misunderstood.

Do you mean:

1. Gravel
... "---"
5. Gravel

Or:

1. Gravel
2. blank
..."---"
5. blank

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:02:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK, here's what I understand about IRV (0.00 / 0)

With regard to getting a plurality of the vote:

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. THe big question is: Shouldn't the candidate (be they a mayor or governor)  REALLY be preffered by a majority of the voters?

You probably all know this but 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.

Here's the catch:

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 (at least that's what I believe). 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.

As far as primaries go, keep in mind most primary elections are plagued by low voter turnout and high taxpayer costs. States spend millions of dollars to hold primaries that many people believe are private nominating processes for political parties. In jurisdictions with strong partisan leanings, these low turnout party primaries determine who will represent all voters from that district.

With IRV, multiple candidates from a political party are able to run together in the general election without splitting their party's vote. No primary is necessary. Candidates are elected in a single, high turnout election, thereby strengthening democratic accountability (at least in theory). In addition, taxpayers only need to fund one election instead of two.

As I said, it went well in the city of Burlington and if you want, I'll see if I can dig up some Burlingtonian reactions in regards to it. Hope this all helps.

"Seventy percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq and two pro-war candidates win the NH Primary. If that doesn't tell you how f-ed up the system is, what does?"

- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:25:05 AM CDT

Is it true or not? (0.00 / 0)

For this reason alone, IRV often leads to higher turnout and stronger democracy (at least that's what I believe).

That sounds like something that can be measured. Did places that implemented IRV have higher voter turn out than they had before? Do places that use IRV have higher voter turn out than places that don't?

When you say you believe it to be true, are you just talking about the stronger democracy part or are you saying that IRV might maybe sometimes possibly often lead to higher turnout?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:37:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Both (4.00 / 1)

That democracy is enhanced by giving other qualified candidates a better chance at winning and can possible lead to higher turnout as a result.

The best place to check out for voter turn out is the recent mayors race in Burlington, Takoma Park, MD, and/or San Fran. They all have IRV.

"Seventy percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq and two pro-war candidates win the NH Primary. If that doesn't tell you how f-ed up the system is, what does?"

- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:45:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democracy doesn't begin and end with voting. (0.00 / 0)

I prefer to think that democracy depends on whether or not the people in office actually carry out the will of the people or cater to a small moneyed minority.  Clearly, the Bush/Cheney cabal considers democracy as just a variant selection process, an alternative to heredity and ecclesiastic elevation.  Bush thought a mandate was equivalent to being anointed by the Lord.  His failure to recognize that neither had occurred is sort of beside the point.  Too many people are acting as if it did.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:26:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Majoritarian Democracy (0.00 / 0)

I don't disagree that raw democracy depends on the will of the people, but what about when the will of the people is wrong? What do you think about the 'tyranny of the majority' argument? The recognition of the importance of protecting the rights of the minority has always been one of my favorite parts of the American system.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:52:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"No primary is necessary." (0.00 / 0)

Well that's a horse of a different feather, to quote Richard Lederer.

Do you advocate this system for national elections?

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:43:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure... (0.00 / 0)

... But I'd prefer to take it one step at a time before we get that ambitious.

"Seventy percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq and two pro-war candidates win the NH Primary. If that doesn't tell you how f-ed up the system is, what does?"

- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:50:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bold stance (4.00 / 1)

I remain on the fence.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:53:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

Hey, in Vermont we have a tendency to jump off the diving board first:

* Civil Unions
* GMOs
* Impeachment
* IRV
* Even Jim Jefford's switch to an independent

NH gets the primary. We get first dibs on social issues!

 

"Seventy percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq and two pro-war candidates win the NH Primary. If that doesn't tell you how f-ed up the system is, what does?"

- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:03:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ahem! (4.00 / 1)

Diving boards?

http://en.wikipedia....

:-!

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:06:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]