NationStates Jolt Archive

Tired of seeing elections won with less than a majority? Want more of a chance for a third party? Tired of negative campaigns? Of course you are, but that can all be a thing of the past if we adopt a system of instant run-off elections.

What are instant run-offs (http://www.sf-rcv.com/)?

Instant runoffs are simple and effective. Instead of choosing one candidate, the voter ranks the contestants in order of preference. If no one wins a majority on the first tabulation, the ranking is used for a series of instant runoffs. After each round of counting that fails to deliver a victor, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated. When a voter's first choice is dropped, the next name on his list gets his vote, and so on, until one candidate receives a majority. In this way, the winner is on the ballots of the majority of voters.

Yeah, but it seems the main obstacle to satisfactory elections seems to be the ability of people (and machines) to.... count.

I mean we must truly be fucked if not only can we not count accurately, neither can the machines we build.

Counting.

Yeah, but it seems the main obstacle to satisfactory elections seems to be the ability of people (and machines) to.... count.

I mean we must truly be fucked if not only can we not count accurately, neither can the machines we build.

Counting.
Come to think of it, you'd have to understand the whole scheme. Just because it works in San Francisco, doesn't mean it's going to be a hit in Dade County. This could give the hidden, hanging, pregnant chad problem a whole new dimension.

The instant runoff system sounds like a good idea. I think it should be implemented everywhere.

Come to think of it, you'd have to understand the whole scheme. Just because it works in San Francisco, doesn't mean it's going to be a hit in Dade County. This could give the hidden, hanging, pregnant chad problem a whole new dimension.
No chads anymore down here. Instead we have the black box, which is a whole 'nother piece of shit.

But people still have to pass a "WTF" test before making their lists, to eliminate the poor, the uninformed, the apathetic and the jokesters. Something like, can you name the President, Vice-President, and one of your Federal elected representatives. (I think I'd be disenfranchised on the state level, sad to say.)

But people still have to pass a "WTF" test before making their lists, to eliminate the poor, the uninformed, the apathetic and the jokesters. Something like, can you name the President, Vice-President, and one of your Federal elected representatives. (I think I'd be disenfranchised on the state level, sad to say.)
I would be, but that's largely because I live in a one party part of the state. There weren't any races this year for state rep or senator in my districts--everyone was unopposed, even in the primary.


It's no excuse, mind you. I should know. My attention has been more state-wide and nationally focused.

No chads anymore down here. Instead we have the black box, which is a whole 'nother piece of shit.

Yes, but wasn't it the incompetence of Florida voters that forced the traditional ballots out of existence?

With the instant run-offs, the new problem would be "I didn't know you had to vote for two people. I only want one to win".

Campaign strategy might be interesting, too. It might be better to be second on a lot of ballots, instead of first on a few.

Tired of seeing elections won with less than a majority? Want more of a chance for a third party? Tired of negative campaigns? Of course you are, but that can all be a thing of the past if we adopt a system of instant run-off elections.

What are instant run-offs (http://www.sf-rcv.com/)?

Instant runoffs are simple and effective. Instead of choosing one candidate, the voter ranks the contestants in order of preference. If no one wins a majority on the first tabulation, the ranking is used for a series of instant runoffs. After each round of counting that fails to deliver a victor, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated. When a voter's first choice is dropped, the next name on his list gets his vote, and so on, until one candidate receives a majority. In this way, the winner is on the ballots of the majority of voters.

Oh, you mean a preferential system.

Like we've had in Australia for a hundred years. I thought America already did that....

Oh, you mean a preferential system.

Like we've had in Australia for a hundred years. I thought America already did that....

No, the US uses a straight Plurality Victory system - whoever gets the most votes, wins.

And frankly, having seen the preferntial system in operation here in Oz, I'm far more inclined to keeping it as far away from the US as possible, thank you.

No, the US uses a straight Plurality Victory system - whoever gets the most votes, wins.

And frankly, having seen the preferntial system in operation here in Oz, I'm far more inclined to keeping it as far away from the US as possible, thank you.

Really? The San Francisco County article seemed to be quite in favor of the instant run-offs. What sorts of problems does the preferential system have?

Yes, but wasn't it the incompetence of Florida voters that forced the traditional ballots out of existence?

With the instant run-offs, the new problem would be "I didn't know you had to vote for two people. I only want one to win".

Campaign strategy might be interesting, too. It might be better to be second on a lot of ballots, instead of first on a few.

It was a combination of incompetence, a POS system (punch cards), and a determination by the national Republican party and the Bush campaign to shut down any real recount of the vote--I mean, if you want to make this personal, we can get personal on what really happened in Florida 2000.

Personally, I'd much rather have an optical scan system--it combines the best of machine counting with easy auditability.

As for IRV, I did it when I lived in SF, and it worked pretty well. It made for some interesting campaign strategy, with frontrunners campaigning with people in 3rd and 4th place in the polls asking for the #2 spot. In the end, I believe the favorites all won, though it was really close in a couple of neighborhoods.

Only real (http://us.altermedia.info/images/nuke.jpg) form of voting reform available.





Can anyone tell I'm on a bit of a low with democracy at the moment?

I've always thought the instatnt runoff was a great idea. Hopefully it's not too complicated for the average voter. How hard can it be to say "this is my favorite, this is my second favorite, this is my third choice."?

I've always thought the instatnt runoff was a great idea. Hopefully it's not too complicated for the average voter. How hard can it be to say "this is my favorite, this is my second favorite, this is my third choice."?

That's what would concern me. If some people can't figure an ordinary system of "poke a hole next to your favorite candidates name" how the hell do we expect them to be able to figure out a ranking system?

That's what would concern me. If some people can't figure an ordinary system of "poke a hole next to your favorite candidates name" how the hell do we expect them to be able to figure out a ranking system?

I think that's the reason it worked so well in San Francisco. I've never lived in a more politically informed or active city.

It was a combination of incompetence, a POS system (punch cards), and a determination by the national Republican party and the Bush campaign to shut down any real recount of the vote--I mean, if you want to make this personal, we can get personal on what really happened in Florida 2000.

Nothing personal, but recounts aside, the amount of discussion about how a ballot might have been punched, and how much it may have been dimpled is just too funny to let go.


Personally, I'd much rather have an optical scan system--it combines the best of machine counting with easy auditability.

As for IRV, I did it when I lived in SF, and it worked pretty well. It made for some interesting campaign strategy, with frontrunners campaigning with people in 3rd and 4th place in the polls asking for the #2 spot. In the end, I believe the favorites all won, though it was really close in a couple of neighborhoods.
After reading a little more, I really think that IRV is the way to go. I'm going to start a one-man letter writing campaign to our Secretary of State. In SFO, it appears the only race decided by IRV was the race for assessor-recorder.

After reading a little more, I really think that IRV is the way to go. I'm going to start a one-man letter writing campaign to our Secretary of State. In SFO, it appears the only race decided by IRV was the race for assessor-recorder.
I'm in favor of it, as long as there are mechanisms available that make it possible for an informed electorate to exist. I don't know if you've ever seen the voter information booklets California residents get, but they're spectacular. Now, most people probably don't look at them very closely, but as long as the information is available, I'm satisfied.

The only third party candidate that really got anywhere in past years was George Wallace. Actually got himself electoral votes. Who knows what kind of person we'd get these days?

I'm in favor of it, as long as there are mechanisms available that make it possible for an informed electorate to exist. I don't know if you've ever seen the voter information booklets California residents get, but they're spectacular. Now, most people probably don't look at them very closely, but as long as the information is available, I'm satisfied.
No, we always voted absentee in Florida when we were California residents. I've always depended on the League of Women voters for my source of candidates positions on the issues, as well as ballot text for our ubiquitous consitutional amendments.

The only third party candidate that really got anywhere in past years was George Wallace. Actually got himself electoral votes. Who knows what kind of person we'd get these days?
Ross Perot? Ralph Nader?

The only third party candidate that really got anywhere in recent years was George Wallace. Who knows what kind of person we'd get these days?
Well, there was Ross Perot a bit more recently than that. What did he get--19% of the popular vote in 1992? 12% in 1996?

Well, there was Ross Perot a bit more recently than that. What did he get--19% of the popular vote in 1992? 12% in 1996?

Yeah but the fool decided to drop out then come back in Hardly the way to get elected. I understand he really didn't want it anyway. He didn't get the Electoral College to give him votes either.

Meh. Proportional systems are vastly superior.

Yeah but the fool decided to drop out then come back in Hardly the way to get elected. I understand he really didn't want it anyway. He didn't get the Electoral College to give him votes either.

That's because he didn't win any states. He swung a number, though.

That's because he didn't win any states. He swung a number, though.

That's right. Bob Dole would have been President and we would have never heard about Monica, White-water, travelgate, or Hillary--care. Just a steady stream of Viagra ads.

Actually, it would have been GHWB, wouldn't it?

That's right. Bob Dole would have been President and we would have never heard about Monica, White-water, travelgate, or Hillary--care. Just a steady stream of Viagra ads.

Actually, it would have been GHWB, wouldn't it?

Yeah. It's possible that Clinton might have pulled it out, but it certainly would have been closer than it was. Poppy was no great shakes as a campaigner.

Yeah. It's possible that Clinton might have pulled it out, but it certainly would have been closer than it was. Poppy was no great shakes as a campaigner.

Well, we didn't have to read his lips for four more years, anyway.

Really? The San Francisco County article seemed to be quite in favor of the instant run-offs. What sorts of problems does the preferential system have?

The main problem here is that most people don't understand how it works. Once you get over that barrier, it seems to work fine.

It doesn't really help third party/independents get in though. The major parties still dominate. The proportional system used in our Senate is good for that though.

The preferential system's not at all difficult to work out & in Aus we mark our choices on our ballot papers with a pencil, no machines involved.

Having said that, it doesn't help indendents/third parties much. Our political scene is still dominated by two major parties, the Labour party (left wing) & the Liberal/National coalition (right wing).

I'd rather see proportional representation, eg: your party got 10% of the vote, you get 10% of the seats in parliament.

The preferential system's not at all difficult to work out & in Aus we mark our choices on our ballot papers with a pencil, no machines involved.

Having said that, it doesn't help indendents/third parties much. Our political scene is still dominated by two major parties, the Labour party (left wing) & the Liberal/National coalition (right wing).

I'd rather see proportional representation, eg: your party got 10% of the vote, you get 10% of the seats in parliament.

Well, I suppose it might be better then use a preferential IRV system for President and a preferential STV system for Congress then.

Really? The San Francisco County article seemed to be quite in favor of the instant run-offs. What sorts of problems does the preferential system have?

Sorry to have taken so long to get back to you on this - had a bit of RL to take care of. :D

My problem with Preferential Voting, and even moreso with Proportional Representation, is that it reduces the individual accountability of the representative and increases the power of the Political Party. In fact, Proportional Representation eliminates accountability entirely.

With preferential voting, you get whole campaigns of party negativity going. The big parties know they will almost certainly take every seat, so they don't even TRY to be the first choice - just one choice above the OTHER big party. You get whole campaigns of "PUT LABOUR LAST", and backroom deals between parties as to where they ask their rank-and-file to vote in a particular sequence. Plus, it entrenches the big parties even more than the US system does.

Proportional systems mean that you aren't voting for a representative at all - you vote for a party. Independents CANNOT be elected, and the party leaderships are eternal - as long as they get the minimum vote, the head of the party can NEVER be unseated. You no longer have local representation, just national parties vying for your vote and not giving a damn about any issue below the national level. And if you're in a relatively sparsely populated area, you'll never see any pollies at all - YOU DON'T COUNT.

Give me the simple, sane, and fair Plurality Victory system any day.

Okay. Sounds good on the surface at least. As long as there is a paper trail for each vote, each time.

*snip*

Give me the simple, sane, and fair Plurality Victory system any day.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is that system?

Excuse my ignorance, but what is that system?

The one the US uses today (excepting the Presidency). He who gets the most votes wins.

The one the US uses today (excepting the Presidency). He who gets the most votes wins.

Ok, not my choice of system.

the Labour party (left wing)

*snort* :p

*snort* :p

True, but I was trying to make a point about preferential voting not really encouraging diversity in our parliament. I should have said right wing & slightly less right wing. :p