Instant run off voting instead of primaries?

[Dinner]

At first this seemed needlessly complicated to me but upon reviewing some of the evidence it does seem like IRV would result in the growth of more viable third parties in American politics and it would allow independents to vote for third parties without necissarially throwing the entire election as normally happens in a two party system.

First a video to explain:



Instant run off voting has been adopted in seven US cities (San Francisco being the largest and most important) and it is currently being considered by many cities, counties, and even a few states. What do you think about it?

Some wiki links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

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

[Tattila the Hun]

I've thought about this. Supposedly, if a person wishes for a hypothetical McCane to win over Odama, he'd put Odama on the last place? Or, if his stance is "anyone but Odama", he'd put Odama on the last spot, and someone he thinks will have the best chance of winning, on the first spot? Could this, in theory, enable a person to win, who's not anyone's first choice?

[Zevico]

Btw this system is already in place in Australia, where it's known as the preferential voting system. Works like a charm. Typically each candidate or political party organises a pamphlet to give to voters, telling them what candidates they prefer in an election.

The effect in Australia, in the Senate (which is elected in terms similar to the US Senate), is that minor parties (such as the Greens) and independents have a viable chance to hold the balance of power between the two major parties, the Labour party (equivalent of the democrats) and the Liberal party (equivalent of the Republicans).

In the House (the equivalent is the House of Reps in America or the House of commons in England), the effect is not felt as much: there are a few independents but invariably the winners of the seats are the major parties.

Also, you should implement compulsory voting so that your government better represents the politics of your people. That's in Aus too.

[Felch]

**** compulsory voting. If you can't be bothered to vote on your own, you have no business deciding who gets elected.

[Zevico]

**** compulsory voting. If you can't be bothered to vote on your own, you have no business deciding who gets elected.

Well, to be more precise, it's compulsory attendance at the voting booth. You can always fill in a blank ballot or simply leave after having your name ticked off the electorate roll.

I should have mentioned this earlier: I understand your point of view--a democracy is made by those who participate in it and a person who throws away an opportunity to vote does not deserve to brought to the booth--but I think that every citizen of a democratic country has a duty to express his political views and to vote. I have tried to think of a reason for this, but so far I haven't found one. I just take it as axiomatic.

We can't force people to speak or write or think, but we can at least require people to turn up to the voting booth at the risk of a small fine that most people will nevertheless feel (I think it's about $200 here). That in turn will at least give encourage them to vote and participate in the system. I think a poll found about 80% of people were satisfied with the australian political system: perhaps this is a contributing reason.

One thing's for sure--it does lead to high voter turnouts.

[Wezil]

Pumping up the voter turnout and adding a significant number of uninformed votes is not necessarily a good thing.

[Darius871]

Pumping up the voter turnout and adding a significant number of uninformed votes is not necessarily a good thing.

Why? We'd still have Obama either way...

[onodera]

I've thought about this. Supposedly, if a person wishes for a hypothetical McCane to win over Odama, he'd put Odama on the last place? Or, if his stance is "anyone but Odama", he'd put Odama on the last spot, and someone he thinks will have the best chance of winning, on the first spot? Could this, in theory, enable a person to win, who's not anyone's first choice?

No. Quoting Wikipedia:

If no candidate is the first preference of a majority of voters, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and that candidate's ballots are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates according to the next ranking on each ballot.

[Wezil]

Why? We'd still have Obama either way...

Your system is retarded.

Throw rocks at it.

[OzzyKP]

I am a big fan of IRV.

Not of compulsory voting however.

[onodera]

IRV won't let someone who's everyone's second best option (and who's obviously the best candidate for the post) win, and that's its problem. There are lots more voting systems that are better, but I guess improving the voting system one step at a time works too.

[Winston]

Maybe you could test it out in Florida, see how it works.

[Ben Kenobi]

Compulsory voting.

This system.

That is all.

[axi]

IRV won't let someone who's everyone's second best option (and who's obviously the best candidate for the post) win, and that's its problem. There are lots more voting systems that are better, but I guess improving the voting system one step at a time works too.

True from a mathematical pov, but in real life, what candidate would ever have a big percentage of 2nd places, yet be one of the last in 1st places? (so that they would be eliminated before their extra votes kick in)

Of course this depends on the degrees of freedom (# of candidates) and the dispersity of major vs minor candidates.

[notyoueither]

Pumping up the voter turnout and adding a significant number of uninformed votes is not necessarily a good thing.

Having a nation run by less than 30 to 40% of the population is no joy either.