Slashdot Mirror

It is so incredibly sad that we don't have some type of IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). If we wanted real change, this is the only way to get it because it is the only way to have a real possibility of electing someone other than a Republicrat (or a Demolican).

Imagine a system where your vote actually counted, no matter who you vote for... I guess I can dream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting
http://www.instantrunoff.com/

The solution to this is called Instant Runoff Voting. Here is their incredibly lame website, which explains the details.

Write to your state legislature and request preferential voting ballots. The plurality system we have today causes people to vote for one of two candidates that is most likely to win and offends them the least. With preferential voting you can truly vote your conscience without "robbing" your second- or third-ranked candidate of a vote. Some states already have this; see:

http://instantrunoff.com/
http://www.fairvote.org/

So if 36% of Americans favor legalization, why aren't there 30% of congress or the senate voting for it? We need to reform the electoral process to provide more choices. Maybe proportional representation plus instant runoff voting

That kind of reform rarely can come from within. It usually takes external pressure and competition.

Let me correct you a tad bit here. I'm not saying your wrong but I don't think your considering a couple of things. Have you ever heard of "changing of the guard"? In about any organization, not just military, you have the old leadership who was set in their ways. Eventually, they get replaced by younger leaders who have a little different ideas. Change can and does occur within the parties, it just takes a long time for it to happen. In the mid 90's, we had a lot of this happen inside the republican party. The new advocates supported term limits, campaign finance reforms, fiscal responsibility and so on. Unfortunately, the old school had too much influence over them and the change wasn't permanent.

3rd parties can do just that... but only if there is a real chance they can compete

I will agree that third parties can effect change. However, there will never be a real chance that they can compete. Why, because to counter any third party threat, all the major party has to do is adopt a position similar and all the sudden the third party is negated to bitching about not getting time in the debates. The third part doesn't generally strike this up as a win, they attempt to distinguish themselves further from the major parties and all the sudden, everyone thinks they are a bunch of lunatics.

Third parties do not attempt to invest the grass roots levels of support needed to become as strong or popular as the major parties. Well, in Vermont they seem to be but that's really a rarity compared to the rest of the country. The reason why democrats and republicans have so much support and following isn't because we don't have special tricks with elections (I will expand more on that later), it's because they hold offices close to the people's homes and lives. Your sheriff runs on a party ticket, your municipal and county judges run on a party ticket. Even the local dog warden (read dog catcher) runs on a party ticket. This filters up to the state and federal levels and people look around them and decide they like or dislike the person or party they represent. Their only contrast is the other major party who took the time and effort to get into this position. If any third party expects to be a viable competition against the major parties, they need to be in this position- yet they refuse to.

and that cannot happen without voting reform like instant runoff voting. http://instantrunoff.com/

Actually, it can happen. I just described one of the ways it can happen. However, you do realize that we already have had instant runoff elections and abandoned them don't you? The electoral college used to do the instant runoff and it's the reason why it's accurate to say that George Washing was unanimously elected as president when the electoral count doesn't reflect that. This was used to determine the president and vice president. It was changed later by an amendment into what we see now.

I don't like the idea of instant runoff, it will create more pandering and more lies then the current process enables. It's not some panacea for the third party because all the two major parties have to do is just place other people on the ticket and they will occupy the top two slots -meaning their guy will win. Of course the second guy would probably run under a third party name, but knowing he has the support of the major party or the major party has his support, then all you have is the illusion of a third party choice. And yes, this can easily be manipulated by the major parties which are little more then coalitions of former third parties wrapped into a common set of ideals. And most importantly, there is nothing to prevent that from happening again.

Yes, of course it takes compromise to get things done. But assu

That kind of reform rarely can come from within. It usually takes external pressure and competition. 3rd parties can do just that... but only if there is a real chance they can compete- and that cannot happen without voting reform like instant runoff voting. http://instantrunoff.com/

Yes, of course it takes compromise to get things done. But assuming that a 3rd party, like Libertarians, are "no more than 15% different" than Republicans or Democrats is a ridiculous statement. For one thing, it is apparent (from my observations, anyway) that both Republicans AND Democrats are for more taxes, more laws, more power in the Federal Government, and less personal freedom (just in different ways). Libertarians are the exact opposite on all of those.

I honestly think it is impossible to have any real 3rd party power in the US as long as you can only cast a single vote. People perceive that any vote for a 3rd party is like a vote for another party that they really don't want. Perception is reality in this case. Instant runoff voting would free people to vote for who/what they really want, without worrying their vote will count for nothing if their first choice has no chance. It is a system that can really work, based on the way humans really think and behave. http://instantrunoff.com/

What ballot system would support instant runoff voting? That's the method in which the voter ranks candidates and then, if no candidate attains a majority, the least popular candidates are eliminated and the voters' second choices counted [1,2]. It prevents third parties from spoiling elections, like Ralph Nader was accused of taking votes from Al Gore in 2000 or Ross Perot from George Bush in 1992.

With instant runoff voting, it's safe to vote for third parties since you can choose a major party as your second choice. I think the emergence of viable third parties would really improve politics and governance.

But how do you actually collect appropriate ballots? I don't know of a simple way that "connect the arrow" paper ballots would work. One of the advantages of electronic ballots is that they could theoretical handle instant runoff voting elegantly. However, I doubt that the electronic voting system manufacturers are designing for that ability, especially since they seem to be funded by the two major parties.

AlpineR

Agreed! but I wish we had instant run off elections http://www.instantrunoff.com/ to reform the B.S. 2 party system. I wrote my Congressmen about it, and got a nice (hand signed) form letter about it. Makes me think that they all know about it but will not change unless forced to.

Any new electronic voting method should incorporate IRV. For anyone not already familiar with this, Democrats and Republicans both want you to think you are throwing away your vote on third party candidates, and that you need your vote to keep someone out of office. During the previous election, third party candidates were even jailed for trying to attend the presidential debate just to be equally heard by Americans. As incredible as that is, you didn't hear about it on CNN, because that would only give third parties more publicity and the government owned media doesn't want that. Americans deserve a choice, and the power monopolists want to see that you don't. If this is not corrected now, as voting methods are being discussed and rengineered, then you will probably never even get an opportunity. It is in neither the republican nor the democrat interest to give up anything that helps them keep their strangleholds on the U.S. political system. Americans should make a stand by refusing any new voting system that does not incorporate IRV. They should also refuse any system which can be easily compromised.

Instant Runoff voting - Removes the "throwing away your vote" issue, if they'll implement it.

That's a great list. I'd add two others:

6. Work to get some form of instant runoff system going at the local level. If enough people learn how it works when voting for mayor, we'll have a much better chance of getting it implemented at higher levels.

7. Reject proprietary / DRM formats / tiered internet, etc. in favor of open / neutral standards wherever possible, and in general strive to keep information fungible. Probably the greatest hope we have at present is that we can communicate with others in widespread, distributed networks passing detailed information with relative ease. But that ability is under constant assault and could give way to the TV model (sit down, shut up and watch...but don't record...today's version of "truth") if we don't defend it.

--MarkusQ

start over with an instant runoff system http://www.instantrunoff.com/

This could help with that multi-party system you're afraid of.

The instant-runoff form of voting is also an interesting alternative.

Excellent summary, that's why I have much more respect for European parliaments that have proportional representation such that Greens, etc, have at least some voice in making policy. Obviously that isn't happening in the U.S. the best we can hope for is instant run off voting that would allow people to vote for third parties without worrying so much about something like a Nader spoiler factor. If we truly want to open up American politics towards BOTH Green left and Libertarian right ideas it's perhaps right up there with campaign finance reform as the most important reform to be made to our increasingly corrupt unrepresentative political ssystem we have in the U.S.

See for example: http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

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

Ah, but once we finally have secure electronic voting, it will be much easier to implement instant runoff voting allowing you to vote for a republican, a democrat, AND someone who will lose, in the order of your preference.

Then we may end up with something resembling democracy...

Nothing, except that "1 person, 1 vote" isn't necessarily the best voting scheme to use. It's what the US has now, but that doesn't mean it can't change.

Have you heard of Instant Runoff Voting?

More info at fairvote.org and instantrunoff.com.

You don't understand voting for 4 candidates. What happens is that the minority (~26%) likes the dubbing and the majority (the other 74%) hates it.

It would be a good place to use something like Instant Runoff Voting, which solves this problem. The american government has the same problem, see the 2000 election. Using IRV in contests like this would be a great way to teach people about it.

Actually this is a better link http://www.instantrunoff.com/

It listed no one even remotely acceptable for president that had a snowball's chance.

But the solution to that is instant runnoff. While verification of the actual vote would be nice, we have no record at all of how many people were quite dissatisfied with both candidates. Was it a majority voting out of fear that the stupid system we have would punish them for voting for a third party candidate by giving them their worst nightmare?

This is the best voting system I have found : instant runoff voting Check it out.

The only way to help out the minority parties is to use a new voting system. instant runnoff voting. Spread the word.

Instant runoff is wonderful.

Check it out.

Unfortunately neither of the two major parties will support it because they would rather POTENTIALLY lose to the other, than DEFINITELY lose to a third party.

And thus to me both are different arms of the same GovCorp.

As long as the electoral college is in place and we haven't started doing instant runoffs, we're stuck with a two party political system. Like it or not, thats what we have. So you have the choice to vote for the lesser of two evils, cast a meaningless protest vote for a third party candidate, or just choose apathy.

Looks like you've made your decision.

Well friend. Here you have your problem.

Two party Plutocracy, with a compliant (conspirator? partner?) in the corporate media.

Solution: Make 3rd parties viable through Proportional Representation and Instant RunOff Voting

The USA has *no* alternative to the democratic logjam in your Democracy -- its either this, or a descent into Fascism, Revolution or Civil War.

You yanks are setting yourselves up for a world of hurt -- time to start thinking about this.

Click the link above for a better explanation of instant runoff voting (try the flash demo). It's ultimately the best way to get what the people want. I love that the IT organizations (Debian, ACM, IEEE) are using this!

There's just no way that could work. How about if 90% of people picked Ralph Nader as their 2nd choice, and only 40% of people chose Kerry as their first choice. Assuming a "second-choice" vote counts half as much, should Nader (or anyone else) become the president, when nobody really wanted him?

First of all, when using the instant runoff method of voting, that wouldn't be an issue. Just because Nader had 90% of number 2 votes doesn't mean he would win.

The problem with our election system is that no 3rd party has stepped into the forefront. Nader just won't be elected because there is no money behind him, and there won't be without a strong party.

The need for vast sums of money in order to be a contender is one of the problems with our system, not a virtue. It promotes corruption and anything we can do to lessen the impact of money on an election would be a good thing. It would let people vote their conscience without fear of "throwing away" their vote. We wouldn't have to deal with the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" garbage. The system would more accurately reflect the wishes of the people. It also promotes moderate candidates rather than extremes.

And if you are worried about Nader taking votes away from Kerry, you should go out and form some ultra-conservative and business-friendly 3rd party that would take votes away from Republicans. That would keep things fair... If Buchannan wasn't so far out there, he would have changed the results in 2000.

I hardly see how attempts to game the system can be said to "keep things fair". How about fixing the system so that such deceptions wouldn't be effective?

Also, for all the respect I have for our founders, we must remember that at the time they wrote the constitution, and their own other writings, the entire idea of a democratic government was considered dangerous and unworkable. For some time our form of government was called "The Great American Experiment". I'd say it succeeded, actually. The Electoral College is a left over from a time when people simply didn't trust the democratic process, these days are not those days.

Additionally, the principle protection from "mob rule" is the Constitution and its ammendments, which forbids congress and "the mob" from making certain laws. The Constitution can be changed but only with a supermajority. In theory this keeps the majority from oppressing the minority (which is what "mob rule" means). This is why I'm not too worried that the "Homosexuals are Second Class Citizens" ammendment will pass. I just don't think the Taliban wannabes here in America can muster the supermajority necessary to put their hysterics into the Constitution. Thus, you will notice, "mob rule" is neatly avoided. No wise unelected protectors needed, the system itself is designed to prevent certain problems.

So, in summary: the Electoral College is an anti-democratic institution left over from a time when our founders gave in to their aristocratic fears rather than properly trusting the system they designed to work. I respect the founders, but I'm not in worshipful admiration of them, they were human, and some of their ideas weren't good idea. What I *really* want is nationally mandated Instant Runoff Voting, which would allow for third parties to stand a chance of being elected, open more elections to challengers, etc.

Perhaps you are referring to instant runoff voting?

"Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a voting reform that asks the voter to rank the candidates in order of preference."

Apathy mostly stems from the sense that the individual has no impact. I firmly feel that if we addopted instand runnoff voting (IRV), that would be overcome. First off, it would revitalize the third parties by allowing people to vote for whoever they wanted without any chance of hurting their second-favorite choice's chance of winning (should their favorite not win). This, for example, would have allowed a democratic voter to say that they wanted Ralph Nader to be President, but still vote for Al Gore if Nader didn't get the popular vote.

Second, given IRV, you have a good deal more incentive to remove the electoral college, which again makes voters feel empowered, and incents voting.

The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1,2,3, etc. (hence, the motto, "it's as easy as 1-2-3."). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until 1 winner emerges with a majority of the vote.

>> If we don't like the way the education system is being run we vote em out of office and get someone new.

> That doesn't work when you have 60% of your voting population that is either ignorant or apathetic.

(The statistics to back that up. Perhaps the rest of the population wants Disney running the country.)

Or when a candidate who wins the popular vote by a margin of more than half a million people fails to win office.

Or when there are only two candidates to choose from. It's no wonder Minnesota was able to elect an independent candidate--if you follow the first link you'll see it had the highest voting turnout in the last presidential election. What we need is serious voting reform to increase both voter turnout and choice.

If our government were properly e-enabled, including electronic instant runoff voting, then active participation would be much greater. Just take a look at the response the ./ polls get :-)

Actually, I'd like voters in this democracy to vote for their second choice... and their 3rd, 4th and 5th.

Using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters rank the candidates as far as they'd like and the vote counters take everyones top choice until a single candidate has a majority. Solves the spoiler issue as well as making sure the winner has majority support.

Take a look at http://www.instantrunoff.com for more info.