[Fenguin]

Fairvote.org
Flash tutorial on IRV

Is anyone familiar with this? It seems like an easily implemented step to overhaul the US voting process. In an election, you select several candidates based on your order of preference. In the event that no candidate is selected with a basic majority, second-choice votes from eliminated candidates are included in the tally. The gist is, no more 'wasted votes'. You can actually feel free to 'vote your conscious' without feeling like you should have endorsed what you feel is the lesser of two evils.

Aside from that, the main change will be in how it affects political campaigns. Since politicians will also be stumping for second-place votes, the system discourages the mud-slinging prevalent in today's elections.

The other approach I could see is a simple weighted approach, where 3 candidates are chosen on order of preference, and allotted points accordingly:

1st choice = 5 points
2nd choice = 3 points
3rd choice = 1 point

Whereas IRV assigns points only from eliminated candidates, this does it across the board, and functions more effectively as a way to select the candidate you least want elected. This point system also has the added benefit of being like NASCAR, so it can be easily explained to and embraced by motorsports enthusiasts.

[Tame]

I am fundamentally opposed.

Pick a candidate. Vote. See the results.

Keeps politicians more to the middle, and discourages the extremes.

[Fenguin]

The purpose of a democratic republic is to implement the will of the people through elected representatives. This adds a higher degree of resolution to the process, and allows the electorate to express their desires better.

How is this a bad thing? It seems to be a step forward, unless you're not fond of representative democracy, which is a completely separate argument.

[Tame]

Fenguin said:

The purpose of a democratic republic is to implement the will of the people through elected representatives. This adds a higher degree of resolution to the process, and allows the electorate to express their desires better.

I'm sorry, but this theory that possibly going down to the 4th choice generates any more of a consensus is just odd.
There is no more of a resolution, and instead, you end up with gamesmanship among the supporters of candidates to try and get the outcome they desire (kinda like the prisoner's dilemna in game theory.)

Quote

How is this a bad thing? It seems to be a step forward, unless you're not fond of representative democracy, which is a completely separate argument.

One person, one vote. Pick a side.
Not fond of representative democracy? And where did I say that? I am not fond of casting multiple ballots for one election.

[Lenore]

Tame said:

Keeps politicians more to the middle, and discourages the extremes.

Heheh. Exactly why I'm for instant runoff. Let's give the candidates a reason to stand up for what they truely believe in, instead of mouthing vague rhetoric designed not to offend anyone.

[Tame]

Thing is, most of the country is in the middle.

[Walter]

Tame said:

Keeps politicians more to the middle, and discourages the extremes.

Like Libertarians?

IRV is great! Here's an IRV website for Vermont - http://www.fairvotevermont.org/

[Tame]

Yep, until we become mainstream.

[Walter]

Tame, There is only one ballot (you said ballots) and people are more than welcome to only choose one person and not to number their choices.

[Lenore]

Tame said:

Thing is, most of the country is in the middle.

If that's true, then IRV shouldn't change the results of elections.