- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 9,218
- Reaction score
- 5,860
- Location
- St. Louis MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
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.
honestly, i'd probably prefer a "none of the above" option. if none of the above wins, we start over with new candidates.
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
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.
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.
Not for federal elections it can't.
Not for federal elections it can't.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
honestly, i'd probably prefer a "none of the above" option. if none of the above wins, we start over with new candidates.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?