Instant Runoff Voting

norm

I had not heard of this system until 2004 election. I find this to be the most democratic way of voting and it makes your vote count no matter who you vote for.

IRV is a reform that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, so that in cases where there is no initial majority winner, a runoff recount can be conducted without a new election to determine which candidate is actually preferred by a majority of voters.

Read more here:
http://www.instantrunoff.com/

After reading some of the voting threads this morning and hearing people don't vote for whatever reason, would this make you vote?

jamestr1

cutback wrote:

would this make you vote?

I'm a fan of this idea. I already vote but this would probably change my vote. I'd vote for more third party candidates.

Jeanwah

I love the idea of this. We need to get rid of the electoral college and put into place a new way of tallying votes.

Pacomc79

Raindog was a big fan of this. They do things a little differently in Louisiana. I'm thinking they might already have it there.

farfromglorified

How can you rank X number of degenerates in order of "preference"?

Pacomc79

farfromglorified wrote:

How can you rank X number of degenerates in order of "preference"?

I have this mental image in my head of the movie poster for "The Usual Suspects"

RainDog

Pacomc79 wrote:

Raindog was a big fan of this. They do things a little differently in Louisiana. I'm thinking they might already have it there.

Do things differently in Louisiana? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

We don't have Instant Runoff Voting in Louisiana. We have Runoff Voting, or, as it's often called, an Open Primary. It's different, and a step in the right direction (though it could be argued that it's wasted in a place like Louisiana); but I prefer the concept of IRV.

The way it works here is the parties do not nominate an individual for the ballot. Instead, if you meet the qualifications, you're on the ballot. As an example, you'd get, say, ten different people all running for the same seat. In New Orleans, that means about six of them are Democrats, with the remainder being Republican and/or Independent (or more Democrats). If no one gets more than 50% of the vote, no one wins the election. Instead, another election is held a month later, and the ballot then contains only the top two vote getters (who, in turn, have another month to campaign). They can be from different parties or the same - it doesn't matter (the last mayoral runoff was between two Democrats). No other candidates are accepted - no write-ins, no nothing. One of these individuals is then guaranteed to get more than 50% and win the seat.

Instant Runoff Voting gets this done in one day, and seems to be a bit cleaner.

norm

RainDog wrote:

Do things differently in Louisiana? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

We don't have Instant Runoff Voting in Louisiana. We have Runoff Voting, or, as it's often called, an Open Primary. It's different, and a step in the right direction (though it could be argued that it's wasted in a place like Louisiana); but I prefer the concept of IRV.

The way it works here is the parties do not nominate an individual for the ballot. Instead, if you meet the qualifications, you're on the ballot. As an example, you'd get, say, ten different people all running for the same seat. In New Orleans, that means about six of them are Democrats, with the remainder being Republican and/or Independent (or more Democrats). If no one gets more than 50% of the vote, no one wins the election. Instead, another election is held a month later, and the ballot then contains only the top two vote getters (who, in turn, have another month to campaign). They can be from different parties or the same - it doesn't matter (the last mayoral runoff was between two Democrats). No other candidates are accepted - no write-ins, no nothing. One of these individuals is then guaranteed to get more than 50% and win the seat.

Instant Runoff Voting gets this done in one day, and seems to be a bit cleaner.

That's so close. Why bother with the other election? Seems like a waste of time and money. Oh, sorry I forgot I was talking about American politics.:)

1970RR

cutback wrote:

I had not heard of this system until 2004 election. I find this to be the most democratic way of voting and it makes your vote count no matter who you vote for.


Read more here:
http://www.instantrunoff.com/

After reading some of the voting threads this morning and hearing people don't vote for whatever reason, would this make you vote?

This doesnt help if the two major parties have made ballot access extremely difficult for third parties.

Pacomc79

RainDog wrote:

Do things differently in Louisiana? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

We don't have Instant Runoff Voting in Louisiana. We have Runoff Voting, or, as it's often called, an Open Primary. It's different, and a step in the right direction (though it could be argued that it's wasted in a place like Louisiana); but I prefer the concept of IRV.

The way it works here is the parties do not nominate an individual for the ballot. Instead, if you meet the qualifications, you're on the ballot. As an example, you'd get, say, ten different people all running for the same seat. In New Orleans, that means about six of them are Democrats, with the remainder being Republican and/or Independent (or more Democrats). If no one gets more than 50% of the vote, no one wins the election. Instead, another election is held a month later, and the ballot then contains only the top two vote getters (who, in turn, have another month to campaign). They can be from different parties or the same - it doesn't matter (the last mayoral runoff was between two Democrats). No other candidates are accepted - no write-ins, no nothing. One of these individuals is then guaranteed to get more than 50% and win the seat.

Instant Runoff Voting gets this done in one day, and seems to be a bit cleaner.

oh, thanks for the clarification. I guess it might suck for a non incumbant though, because they lose the month "face" time if you will?

RainDog

cutback wrote:

That's so close. Why bother with the other election? Seems like a waste of time and money. Oh, sorry I forgot I was talking about American politics.:)

Really. The second election is a month after the first - and that means 30 more paydays. You think they'd give that up?

RainDog

Pacomc79 wrote:

oh, thanks for the clarification. I guess it might suck for a non incumbant though, because they lose the month "face" time if you will?

The incumbant problem (i.e. free advertising) isn't easily solved. The other candidate also gets a month to further put his or her "face" out there - but that doesn't usually compare to the face time for the seat holder. However, that's a problem in all elections, runoff or no. The neat thing about the Open Primary (first election), though, is the incumbant is usually being attacked by everyone looking to hold the seat, even members of his or her own party.

If I'm not mistaken, though, the Nagin mayoral election was something of an anomoly. Now, I'm relatively new to LA politics; but I believe it's unusual for an incumbant to go through a runoff, at least for the local (non-statewide) elections. The incumbant either wins outright (more than 50% the first time) or doesn't make the runoff - which leave the voters two new candidates and no incumbant problem.

norm

I thought I'd bump my own thread in light of the discussion in the What Are Democrats Thinking? thread.

The more I read about the current candidates the more I wish we could implement this way of voting.

Jeanwah

Bump.

More people need to know about this!

OutOfBreath

RainDog wrote:

Do things differently in Louisiana? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

We don't have Instant Runoff Voting in Louisiana. We have Runoff Voting, or, as it's often called, an Open Primary. It's different, and a step in the right direction (though it could be argued that it's wasted in a place like Louisiana); but I prefer the concept of IRV.

The way it works here is the parties do not nominate an individual for the ballot. Instead, if you meet the qualifications, you're on the ballot. As an example, you'd get, say, ten different people all running for the same seat. In New Orleans, that means about six of them are Democrats, with the remainder being Republican and/or Independent (or more Democrats). If no one gets more than 50% of the vote, no one wins the election. Instead, another election is held a month later, and the ballot then contains only the top two vote getters (who, in turn, have another month to campaign). They can be from different parties or the same - it doesn't matter (the last mayoral runoff was between two Democrats). No other candidates are accepted - no write-ins, no nothing. One of these individuals is then guaranteed to get more than 50% and win the seat.

Instant Runoff Voting gets this done in one day, and seems to be a bit cleaner.

that sounds about how presidential voting is done in several european countries. You have round 1, which can be won if you get above 50%, and if not, you get a re-run with the top two runners.

It made some waves in france when last time it actually led to the final two being chirac (who was hated by anyone outside his own party, but he was the incumbent), and le pen, the xenophobic ultranationalist since the other parties split the votes. Leading to a landslide for Chirac in round 2. (People were encouraged to vote chirac while holding their nose )

Anyways, that's the way if one is gonna elect a president in my view. The instant runoff thing I'm not so sure about. Could give some strange results and food for the courts all over I guess...

Peace
Dan

norm

i can't believe i haven't bumped this in a year......:)

Abookamongstthemany

cutback wrote:

i can't believe i haven't bumped this in a year......:)

I'm glad you did. I was thinking of starting a thread on this, myself.

norm

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'm glad you did. I was thinking of starting a thread on this, myself.

you're 2 party system thread reminded me.....:)

DriftingByTheStorm

It's a great idea,
unfortunately it requires a constitutional ammendment.

It won't happen because it is a serious threat to The Powers That Be.

It means people would no longer have to vote for "the lesser of two evils".

So for now its,
Satan or Lucifer.
Lucifer or Satan?

Jesus doesn't stand a chance.

norm

bump