Instant Runoff Voting

[Anagram]

Would you support instant runoff voting in United States elections? Instant runoff voting is where you rank each candidate when you vote. If no one got 50% the lowest scoring candidate gets eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed to the voter's second place choice. This continues until someone has a majority.

More and more, I really think this would be superior to simple first past the post voting. It would allow people to vote their conscience and also vote for the lesser of two evils if there is a candidate you really don't want elected. And there are definitely many primary situations for both major parties where candidates 1 and 2 are similar and broadly supported but they split the vote and lose to a candidate 3 who has a group of dedicated supporters but would lose head to head to either of the first two. It should end up keeping candidates closer to what the public actually wants.

All in all, I really can't come up with much of a downside. It avoids the expenses of actually hosting a runoff, which also usually ends up with less turnout than the actual election day. It doesn't seem like it would be too complicated for people to figure out in the voting booth. Even having people just pick their top 3, rather than ranking all the candidates would be an improvement in my eyes.

 

[Crovax]

Would you support instant runoff voting in United States elections? Instant runoff voting is where you rank each candidate when you vote. If no one got 50% the lowest scoring candidate gets eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed to the voter's second place choice. This continues until someone has a majority.

More and more, I really think this would be superior to simple first past the post voting. It would allow people to vote their conscience and also vote for the lesser of two evils if there is a candidate you really don't want elected. And there are definitely many primary situations for both major parties where candidates 1 and 2 are similar and broadly supported but they split the vote and lose to a candidate 3 who has a group of dedicated supporters but would lose head to head to either of the first two. It should end up keeping candidates closer to what the public actually wants.

All in all, I really can't come up with much of a downside. It avoids the expenses of actually hosting a runoff, which also usually ends up with less turnout than the actual election day. It doesn't seem like it would be too complicated for people to figure out in the voting booth. Even having people just pick their top 3, rather than ranking all the candidates would be an improvement in my eyes.

I don't that major reactionary changes are ever the way to go, especially when those changes are specifically tailored to change a result you don't like.

 

[Anagram]

I don't that major reactionary changes are ever the way to go, especially when those changes are specifically tailored to change a result you don't like.

I've been for this since before Trump. I think I even made a poll on this a few years ago, if not here than somewhere else. Just seemed relevant again.

 

[Helix]

honestly, i'd probably prefer a "none of the above" option. if none of the above wins, we start over with new candidates.

 

[Anagram]

honestly, i'd probably prefer a "none of the above" option. if none of the above wins, we start over with new candidates.

I can see the merits of that, but I'd still prefer Instant Runoff Voting. In that case, if there's a candidate you actually do support that's unlikely to win, you have less incentive to indicate your support for them than one of the two major parties or none of the above.

 

[Nilly]

I like the idea of instant runoff, but given how weak the libertarian and green party currently are, I really can't see it making much of a difference in practice. Yeah you get the satisfaction of knowing you put a third party as rank 1, but they still get eliminated and essentially it comes down to R or D. Australia implemented instant runoff in 1920 and they still have a 2 party system.ssentiall

 

[Cephus]

It doesn't matter, it would require a Constitutional amendment for any of this to happen and since that's not remotely likely... irrelevant.

 

[Anagram]

I like the idea of instant runoff, but given how weak the libertarian and green party currently are, I really can't see it making much of a difference in practice. Yeah you get the satisfaction of knowing you put a third party as rank 1, but they still get eliminated and essentially it comes down to R or D. Australia implemented instant runoff in 1920 and they still have a 2 party system.ssentiall

Very true. But there isn't even a chance for 3rd parties to build their support over time in the current environment. They still probably wouldn't win much if it all, certainly not at first, but with everyone who supports them actually able to show their support for them, it at least gives them a chance to build support for the future.

 

[Helix]

I can see the merits of that, but I'd still prefer Instant Runoff Voting. In that case, if there's a candidate you actually do support that's unlikely to win, you have less incentive to indicate your support for them than one of the two major parties or none of the above.

when it comes to the duopoly, most tweaks to the system that aren't pushed by the two major parties themselves are going to be an improvement.

 

[Anagram]

It doesn't matter, it would require a Constitutional amendment for any of this to happen and since that's not remotely likely... irrelevant.

No, it could be put in state by state. Georgia and Louisiana for instance have runoffs for their elections. Instant Runoffs could be introduced the same way.

 

[Cephus]

No, it could be put in state by state. Georgia and Louisiana for instance have runoffs for their elections. Instant Runoffs could be introduced the same way.

Not for federal elections it can't.

 

[Anagram]

Not for federal elections it can't.

Nope they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia,_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Louisiana,_2014

 

[Anagram]

Not for federal elections it can't.

In fact, after having just read Foster v. Love, where the Supreme Court struck down a different Louisiana runoff system, (theirs and Georgia's current system have been later found to be constitutional), IRV shouldn't face a constitutional question at all. The U.S.C. section regulating the time and manner of the elections only regulates the manner in so far as votes must be on "written or printed ballot, or voting machine the use of which has been duly authorized by the State law."

 

[Jetboogieman]

Personally I think alot of anger in the American system could be alleviated by proportional representation, break the two big parties up and make it feel like even those on the fringes have a voice, they could work with others and come to compromises, and people would feel more like they were heard or at least they were participating in government.

Right now the two big parties, with very contradictory base voters under their umbrella, try to be too much to too many and end up pissing off everyone.

 

[Anagram]

Personally I think alot of anger in the American system could be alleviated by proportional representation, break the two big parties up and make it feel like even those on the fringes have a voice, they could work with others and come to compromises, and people would feel more like they were heard or at least they were participating in government.

Right now the two big parties, with very contradictory base voters under their umbrella, try to be too much to too many and end up pissing off everyone.

I don't like proportional representation as much because it sacrifices the individuality of each candidate. You end up with more parties represented, but you have to vote for everything the party believes. Here you can end up with pro-gun democrats or pro-ssm Republicans, or whatever.

 

[Phys251]

Would you support instant runoff voting in United States elections? Instant runoff voting is where you rank each candidate when you vote. If no one got 50% the lowest scoring candidate gets eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed to the voter's second place choice. This continues until someone has a majority.

More and more, I really think this would be superior to simple first past the post voting. It would allow people to vote their conscience and also vote for the lesser of two evils if there is a candidate you really don't want elected. And there are definitely many primary situations for both major parties where candidates 1 and 2 are similar and broadly supported but they split the vote and lose to a candidate 3 who has a group of dedicated supporters but would lose head to head to either of the first two. It should end up keeping candidates closer to what the public actually wants.

All in all, I really can't come up with much of a downside. It avoids the expenses of actually hosting a runoff, which also usually ends up with less turnout than the actual election day. It doesn't seem like it would be too complicated for people to figure out in the voting booth. Even having people just pick their top 3, rather than ranking all the candidates would be an improvement in my eyes.

Maybe not for the general election, but I definitely support this for the primary process. In fact, I'm planning on writing a nonpartisan post about a very similar matter.

 

[Anagram]

Maybe not for the general election, but I definitely support this for the primary process. In fact, I'm planning on writing a nonpartisan post about a very similar matter.

I'd take it. The primary process is where it has it's most impact. Although it'd be nice to have it in the general election where people could vote for whom they really support, even with the system it's pretty unlikely that much would change in terms of who wins.

 

[SocialD]

Would you support instant runoff voting in United States elections? Instant runoff voting is where you rank each candidate when you vote. If no one got 50% the lowest scoring candidate gets eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed to the voter's second place choice. This continues until someone has a majority.

More and more, I really think this would be superior to simple first past the post voting. It would allow people to vote their conscience and also vote for the lesser of two evils if there is a candidate you really don't want elected. And there are definitely many primary situations for both major parties where candidates 1 and 2 are similar and broadly supported but they split the vote and lose to a candidate 3 who has a group of dedicated supporters but would lose head to head to either of the first two. It should end up keeping candidates closer to what the public actually wants.

All in all, I really can't come up with much of a downside. It avoids the expenses of actually hosting a runoff, which also usually ends up with less turnout than the actual election day. It doesn't seem like it would be too complicated for people to figure out in the voting booth. Even having people just pick their top 3, rather than ranking all the candidates would be an improvement in my eyes.

Sounds pretty good in theory.

 

[SocialD]

I'd take it. The primary process is where it has it's most impact. Although it'd be nice to have it in the general election where people could vote for whom they really support, even with the system it's pretty unlikely that much would change in terms of who wins.

This is probably the most feasible place to take it. the general electorate I'm afraid is too stupid at present time for this to work out well.

 

[Smeagol]

Would you support instant runoff voting in United States elections? Instant runoff voting is where you rank each candidate when you vote. If no one got 50% the lowest scoring candidate gets eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed to the voter's second place choice. This continues until someone has a majority.

More and more, I really think this would be superior to simple first past the post voting. It would allow people to vote their conscience and also vote for the lesser of two evils if there is a candidate you really don't want elected. And there are definitely many primary situations for both major parties where candidates 1 and 2 are similar and broadly supported but they split the vote and lose to a candidate 3 who has a group of dedicated supporters but would lose head to head to either of the first two. It should end up keeping candidates closer to what the public actually wants.

All in all, I really can't come up with much of a downside. It avoids the expenses of actually hosting a runoff, which also usually ends up with less turnout than the actual election day. It doesn't seem like it would be too complicated for people to figure out in the voting booth. Even having people just pick their top 3, rather than ranking all the candidates would be an improvement in my eyes.

Obviously, in concert with the elimination of the Electoral College, yes. Supported the idea for years.

Other election reforms I support:

- Prohibit the reporting of exit poll data on Election Day and TV networks until all polls have closed including Alaska and Hawaii.

- Allowing Americans to vote at any polling place in America including out of state. Its amazing to see how elections officials consider this impossible but Visa, MasterCard and American Express can accurately tally retail purchases of untold numerous varying amounts worldwide.

- Standardize ballots nationally.

- Allow all citizens to vote regardless of criminal record. As much as I abhor crime, especially violent crime, I do not see the loss of civil rights to those who have served their sentences.

- Open primaries in all states.

- State primary dates determined by lottery of states who wish to vote together on one of 10 dates.

- Maybe allowing the runner up to become Vice-President along with several cabinet appointments.

 

[Ikari]

Would you support instant runoff voting in United States elections? Instant runoff voting is where you rank each candidate when you vote. If no one got 50% the lowest scoring candidate gets eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed to the voter's second place choice. This continues until someone has a majority.

More and more, I really think this would be superior to simple first past the post voting. It would allow people to vote their conscience and also vote for the lesser of two evils if there is a candidate you really don't want elected. And there are definitely many primary situations for both major parties where candidates 1 and 2 are similar and broadly supported but they split the vote and lose to a candidate 3 who has a group of dedicated supporters but would lose head to head to either of the first two. It should end up keeping candidates closer to what the public actually wants.

All in all, I really can't come up with much of a downside. It avoids the expenses of actually hosting a runoff, which also usually ends up with less turnout than the actual election day. It doesn't seem like it would be too complicated for people to figure out in the voting booth. Even having people just pick their top 3, rather than ranking all the candidates would be an improvement in my eyes.

It would be nice, but no way, no how will we get it. It would be nothing more than a threat to the consolidated power of the Republocrats, and they wouldn't allow anything through that could seriously challenge their power.

 

[Anagram]

Obviously, in concert with the elimination of the Electoral College, yes. Supported the idea for years.

Other election reforms I support:

- Prohibit the reporting of exit poll data on Election Day and TV networks until all polls have closed including Alaska and Hawaii.

- Allowing Americans to vote at any polling place in America including out of state. Its amazing to see how elections officials consider this impossible but Visa, MasterCard and American Express can accurately tally retail purchases of untold numerous varying amounts worldwide.

- Standardize ballots nationally.

- Allow all citizens to vote regardless of criminal record. As much as I abhor crime, especially violent crime, I do not see the loss of civil rights to those who have served their sentences.

- Open primaries in all states.

- State primary dates determined by lottery of states who wish to vote together on one of 10 dates.

- Maybe allowing the runner up to become Vice-President along with several cabinet appointments.

Can't say I agree with the open primaries. And I think if you allow the runner up cabinet influence you'll end up with an ineffective and inconsistent executive branch.

 

[faithful_servant]

honestly, i'd probably prefer a "none of the above" option. if none of the above wins, we start over with new candidates.

I thought that was what the Libertarian candidate was for.... :mrgreen:

 

[Smeagol]

Can't say I agree with the open primaries. And I think if you allow the runner up cabinet influence you'll end up with an ineffective and inconsistent executive branch.

I think with closed primaries the principle of the secret ballot is diminished.

As far as the runner up being elected VP, my concern is the large faction of the electorate who feel completely alienated from their government when one part wins the White House and both houses of congress. It happened in 2009 and people went half crazy. The President would still pick the majority of secretaries and choose which 3 or 4 to give the Veep; I'm sure saving his key agenda posts for himself. In 2009, I'd never seen such extremely distraught people. I just don't think throat's good for the country.

Drudge, Limbaugh and the sad return of "Racial America"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZSV_VDNz7U
More stockpiling ammunition: Fear of potential Obama laws causing mass sales | Local | missoulian.com

Maybe if everybody had a some level of representation in the administration, people wouldn't be so quick to lose their ever loving minds.

 

[Surrealistik]

It's certainly better than the thoroughly undemocratic first past the post that exists today which heavily skews towards a two party system, and often fails to deliver truly representative outcomes; this is precisely why Canada is doing away with it.

My preference is overwhelmingly for proportional representation (with cutoff/qualifying thresholds) as the most democratic and representative implementation of democracy, with runoff voting to be used in cases where you're strictly voting for an individual in lieu of seats, so I will select 'Other'.