NationStates Jolt Archive


Instant-Runoff Elections

BoogieDown Productions
16-07-2004, 15:58
How would you feel about national instant-runoff elections?

For those who don't know, and instant-runoff election is where you rank the candidates in order of preference, for example:

1. Nader
2. Kerry
3. My cat
4. The devil himself
5. Bush

OR

1. Bat Puchanan
2. Bush
3. An armadillo
4. The devil himself
5. Kerry

Then based on the first choices, there is a runoff, and all but the top two vote getters are eliminated, the list becomes:

1. Kerry
2. Bush

OR

1. Bush
2. Kerry

This way elections are no longer spoiled by voting for a third party, allowing more people to vote the way their convictions tell them without worring about helping to elect a candidate that they hate.

I think this form of elections would be highly effective; it would begin to erode the two party system and it would ensure that the winner of an election had at the very least a 51% popular majority. It would work best if coupled with a constitutional amendment removing the antiquated electoral college system.
Direct participatory democray! YAY!

If you respond to the poll, please post with who you are voting for, WHY, whether you support removing the electoral college by constitutional amedment, and any other comments.
New Foxxinnia
16-07-2004, 16:03
Seems like a pretty silly idea.
Inshania
16-07-2004, 16:07
It all seems pretty pointless in a way.
Kryozerkia
16-07-2004, 16:13
Bipartisan is too restricted; a multi-party system would be more democratic.
BoogieDown Productions
16-07-2004, 16:24
Seems like a pretty silly idea.
Thank you for putting no thought whatsoever into your answer, and for cluttering the thread with your obnoxious signature.

Bipartisan is too restricted; a multi-party system would be more democratic.

You guys aren't understanding how an instant-runoff works. It is designed to shift us away from our current bipartisan system by allowing people to vote with their convictions,(a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush) so eventually a third party might beat out one of the two mainstream parties to get into the general election. Please try to understand what I'm talking aobut before posting, and please answer the questions!

It all seems pretty pointless in a way.
Its not pointless at all, it would be a fundamental change in our electoral policy that would open the field to third parties while removing the third-party spoiler effect.
Rheannon
16-07-2004, 16:43
I agree with the principle wholeheartedly. Whether we could ever manage to implement something like that on a large scale, I don't know. There's already been problems with simple electronic voting, but instant runoff on paper would be a nightmare.

It is frustrating to look through a ballot and see all the candidates, but know you're only going to vote for one out of two since the others have a chance in hell of getting elected.
BoogieDown Productions
16-07-2004, 16:52
I agree with the principle wholeheartedly. Whether we could ever manage to implement something like that on a large scale, I don't know. There's already been problems with simple electronic voting, but instant runoff on paper would be a nightmare.

Well, with open source, Public-private key pair internet voting those problems would dissapear. Imagine it, you have 3 days to vote in, you go to the polling location, show your ID and are given a code that you can use to log in and vote online anytime in the 3 day period. (maybe it would be better to have voting terminals at the polling location, but I like the idea of voting from home) Once you have voted, you can go online and verify the accuracy of your vote, and even change it as many times as you like during the 3 days. No more need for recounts! You know the voting software is legit because its all open-source, and that the votes were counted properly because each voter verifes their own vote. What do you think?


It is frustrating to look through a ballot and see all the candidates, but know you're only going to vote for one out of two since the others have a chance in hell of getting elected.

True, but thats how things are now, this would be a measure to change that by allowing people to vote for third parties NOW without worriing about costing the lesser of two evils the election. Eventually, it could turn into a multi-party system, but that would depend on the voter's convictions.
Soviet Democracy
16-07-2004, 17:01
I support it. Though it is semi-complex, it could work wonderfully if integrated a little bit, slowly. I want to post how I would vote.

1. Kerry
2. The Devil Himself
3. My Cat
4. Nader
5. Bush

I hate Nader, if you cannot see. I love his VP though. But Nader should just get out of the election. I am still sore from the last one and think Nader is a moron for running again. But he is better than Bush!
BoogieDown Productions
16-07-2004, 17:15
I support it. Though it is semi-complex, it could work wonderfully if integrated a little bit, slowly. I want to post how I would vote.

1. Kerry
2. The Devil Himself
3. My Cat
4. Nader
5. Bush

I hate Nader, if you cannot see. I love his VP though. But Nader should just get out of the election. I am still sore from the last one and think Nader is a moron for running again. But he is better than Bush!

You would pick the devil over your cat? but you are the only one who understands her, so you'd be her Dick Cheney

Under this system there would be no reason to hate Nader, egotistical jerk that he is, because there would be no spoiler effect! What do you mean "integrate slowly"? how would this work? like, state by state? It would eventually have to be implemented by Constitutional amedment, so I think its kind of all or nothing...
Soviet Democracy
16-07-2004, 17:22
You would pick the devil over your cat? but you are the only one who understands her, so you'd be her Dick Cheney

I use to be a Satanist so I think of Satan differently than the average person.

Under this system there would be no reason to hate Nader, egotistical jerk that he is, because there would be no spoiler effect! What do you mean "integrate slowly"? how would this work? like, state by state? It would eventually have to be implemented by Constitutional amedment, so I think its kind of all or nothing...

State by state. It would have to be something like that, I would even say county by county. I do not completely know how it would work unless it was done electronically. It seems to take a lot of work if done on paper, not on computer. I think there are things in it that have to be thought of, and not just shove the system in.
BoogieDown Productions
16-07-2004, 17:38
State by state. It would have to be something like that, I would even say county by county. I do not completely know how it would work unless it was done electronically. It seems to take a lot of work if done on paper, not on computer. I think there are things in it that have to be thought of, and not just shove the system in.

It would definatly have to be done electronically, on paper IRV would be a nightmare, see my post in response to Rheaanon (sp?) for my idea about how to implement it.

As for doing it country by country, many european contries already use a similar system, I am thinking about in the US. Our constitution mandates an electoral college system, but each state is able to decide how it chooses its electors, so it could be done state by state, if the democrats had a brain in their head, they would do it in battleground states where they hold power in the state legislature like New Mexico, Maine, etc. Removal of the Nader spoiler in certain states would make Kerry a shoe-in for the presidency.
Soviet Democracy
16-07-2004, 17:43
As for doing it country by country, many european contries already use a similar system, I am thinking about in the US. Our constitution mandates an electoral college system, but each state is able to decide how it chooses its electors, so it could be done state by state, if the democrats had a brain in their head, they would do it in battleground states where they hold power in the state legislature like New Mexico, Maine, etc. Removal of the Nader spoiler in certain states would make Kerry a shoe-in for the presidency.

I said county by county not country by country. Ok, funny story having to do with that.

Yesterday I was at the train station trying to get this German girl that I know to say things in English (she hates speaking english even though she took 9 years of it). So I was pointing to something on the ticket purchasing screen and saying "Country!" She was giving me a weird look the whole time. I repeated this at least 6 times. She was saying no a lot and had a really confused look on her face.

Finally, someone that I also know from Germany came over (I tell you that I am in Germany right now) and looked at it and asked her what the problem was. She said something in German, and then looked at the screen. Then he said "Drew, it says county not countries." I look again. "God damn it." *sigh* I got own3d by non-Native English speakers.
Somewhere
16-07-2004, 17:47
That's a good idea. Prefernce voting is a lot better than the current system here in the UK. They should introduce it here for the general elections. Plus, it's not complex at all - if you only want to vote for one candidate then all you have to do is put a 1 on your favourite candidate and don't bother marking on the rest.
BoogieDown Productions
16-07-2004, 17:51
That's a good idea. Prefernce voting is a lot better than the current system here in the UK. They should introduce it here for the general elections. Plus, it's not complex at all - if you only want to vote for one candidate then all you have to do is put a 1 on your favourite candidate and don't bother marking on the rest.

Its not complex at all for the voter, but it could be complex to count, escpecially in a huge nation like the US. What do you think about the open-source internet voting idea?


Soviet Democracy: Oh yeah.... gotta read slower... sorry
Soviet Democracy
16-07-2004, 18:01
Soviet Democracy: Oh yeah.... gotta read slower... sorry

Hehe, quite alright. I am glad you said that because then I could tell my story of basically the same thing. Well, having to do with mixing up country and county, except for someone who does not speak English well caught my error.
New Foxxinnia
16-07-2004, 18:13
Thank you for putting no thought whatsoever into your answer, and for cluttering the thread with your obnoxious signature.
I did use 'thoughts' to come up with my 'opinion'. And my opinion is that it seems rather 'silly'. And my sig has nothing to do with it.

But anyways, when I think about it harder and longer I begin to see that it isn't all that bad of an idea. And I should stop cluttering threads with my obnoxious sig.
BoogieDown Productions
16-07-2004, 18:25
But anyways, when I think about it harder and longer I begin to see that it isn't all that bad of an idea. And I should stop cluttering threads with my obnoxious sig.


See? I told you it was good idea... Sorry, I shouldn't have been a jerk about it, but it was the first reply...
Temme
17-07-2004, 05:06
Hmm, that's a very interesting system.

I'm not totally sure that would increase the number of 3rd parties though.
Erastide
17-07-2004, 05:32
Hmm, that's a very interesting system.

I'm not totally sure that would increase the number of 3rd parties though.

Well, at least it would make them more viable. In close elections, you could vote for a different party than Rep/Dem but then put the other choice next, or leave out candidates you don't like.

I do doubt this would affect the president, as it becomes too polarized. But maybe if we had this in local elections and people got used to it, then it could move to the presidency.