On January 5, five New York Assemblymembers introduced A582. It provides for Instant Runoff Voting in New York city partisan primaries, and repeals the existing provision that requires run-off primaries several weeks after the first primary, if no one gets at least 40% of the vote.
Also, seven New York State Senators have introduced S421, which would let any county or city use Instant Runoff Voting for its own local elections. The bill pertains to both general elections and partisan primaries.
This was posted 30 minutes ago, and no copy-paste comment from Demo Rep yet? Anyway…
They’ll claim it’ll increase turnout.
They’ll say it’ll save money.
It won’t do either.
http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2010/07/minneapolis-rcv-report-irv-is-no-magic.html
They’ll claim it’ll guarantee majority winners.
It won’t.
http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2010/12/instant-majority.html
When replacing the citywide runoff in New York City, IRV very likely will result in more votes cast in the final IRV round than would have been cast in the citywide runoff — particularly for the less notable offices subject to runoffs. It also will most certainly save money. And it will elect the finalist who is ranked on a majority of ballots that rank either of the top two candidates. (Note that NYC runoffs allow someone to win in the first round with 40% of the vote.)
IRV for these elections was recommended in the staff report of the New York City charter commission and opposition concerns were extensively addressed.
IRV = THE method to elect Stalin/Hitler clones to single person offices when the Middle is divided.
34 S–M–H
33 H–M–S
16 M–S–H
16 M–H–S
99
With IRV – M loses. S beats H 50-49. Take cover.
Gee a mere 99 of 99 for M in 1st + 2nd places.
—-
P.R. and App.V.
Copy and paste on your computer screens — or perhaps a wall near you.
#2 “And it will elect the finalist who is ranked on a majority of ballots that rank either of the top two candidates.”
The same is true of a plurality election: “it will elect the finalist who is voted for on a majority of ballots that vote for either of the top two candidates.”
The purpose of the primary runoff in New York City was to ensure that the Democratic candidate would win the election – in effect to render the vote of non-Democrats meaningless. Will IRV fulfill this promise?
So IRV isn’t really about improving or expanding democracy, it’s about saving money? If that’s all we’re doing here, let’s just pack our bags and head for home.
# 6. REAL Democracy begins at home.
P.R. and App.V. — NOT the EVIL INSANE IRV scheme for single person offices.
#5-Pete — IRV in New York City has drawn interest as a less expensive way than runoffs to protect the city from unrepresentative nominees. But of course it does other valuable things too.
It’s a piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle!
Puzzled, that’s a good word. I’m still puzzled about FairVote’s attempt to inject IRV into the debate in Port Chester, when cumulative voting was the correct answer and was the only proposed solution besides the Democrats’ attempt to construct wards in a densely populated village. IRV is not always a piece of the puzzle. There are lots of different puzzles, and not all pieces fit just because they happen to be your favorite piece.
IRV is only a puzzle for SCOTUS math morons.
See #3.
See the advance in political science due to Condorcet (head to head math) in the 1780s — repeat 1780s — regardless of plurality and New Age IRV math MORONS.
Pete — we were inserting the choice voting form of proportional voting. That’s not IRV, although involves a ranked ballot. If you read the amicus, you’ll see more about it and why it can make sense in Port Chester-type situations: http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=2056
Feel encouraged to contact me directly if you’d like to hear more about it.
The way I “found out” about your addition of something other than cumulative voting to your amicus brief was in reading on your website how Fairvote had written an amicus brief in the Portchester case which proposed either cumulative voting or IRV.
The reason why it’s relevant to me now is that New Paltz will soon be facing a public campaign for a cumulative voting solution to its government consolidation study currently under way(there are currently two municipal governments here and we’re proposing one, elected by the cumulative method), and any other “proposals” would just muddy the waters and harm the work we’ve been doing here for ten years. We need allies, and help, but…
Pete – -just sent you an email to sort this out. You’re confusing instant runoff voting with choice voting. One is a winner-take-all system. The other is a proportional voting system — choice voting is much more widely used around the world as a proportional system and has an important history in the US.
But glad to hear you’re raising proportional voting of any sort in New Paltz.
There isn’t a worse alternative method of counting rank choice ballots than instant runoff voting which does *not* solve the spoiler problem and does *not* find majority winners, but does count only the 2nd and 3rd choices of *some* voters, but not others, when their 1st choice is eliminated, does eviscerate many voter rights and the verifiability of election outcome accuracy.
More information and educational videos are available linked from the website I’ve listed here.