1. YES!! This is the most well-reasoned, politically possible solution to fix the two party system stranglehold on our system of electing the Pres/VP.

   Purists would like to get rid of the electoral college but, IMO, that would be a disaster. New York, LA and Chicago could end up adding more dead votes (yes, dead people) than the entire number of votes smaller states. If you think voting corruption is bad now, wait till national total vote for prez is implemented.

   A state could allocate its electoral votes using the winner take all approach (as it works now) or a state could split its electoral votes like Nebraska does – overall state winner gets two electoral votes, and winner in each Congressional district gets one. The key is that each state uses IRV to choose its winner. The transition from plurality winner to IRV could be done on a state by state basis – no US Constitutional amendment required.

2. Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA.

   Abolish the INSANE super timebomb Electoral College — a DARK AGE byzantine scheme.

   P.R. and NONPARTISAN App.V.

3. States can have a runoff now. No need for IRV.

4. I’m not sure a runoff would be legal for President. Louisiana and California come to mind. Richard?

   The purpose of IRV is quite simple – to do away with the two party system of primaries, caucuses, and the rest of the party falderol. (Don’t tell the establishment that, or they’ll resist it even more.) The problem with today’s goofy primary system, particularly WRT presidential nominations, is that it maintains the status quo of the two party duopoly. Mr. Nevius writes

   “[voters want] the end of “politics as usual” – the idea that our system is broken is the only thing that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump supporters seem to agree on.”

   Top two and runoff do nothing to change the existing system. It’s no surprise that the California establishment was a big supporter of top two (and the minor parties screamed loudly, but no one noticed).

   The Greens, Bernie, the Donald, Ron Paul, Libertarians, Constitution Party folks, and many other disenfranchised political minorities need to embrace the fact that IRV is the only realistic hope for them to get a seat at the table. Yes, on first glance IRV would seem to favor “the middle” candidate, but I strongly believe that when a Libertarian or Green candidate gets to the final two in the IRV tabulation, many voters will get up the nerve to vote their conscience instead of voting defensively (for the lesser of two evils). When it becomes OK to vote for your pet project first, while still having the option to weigh in on the lesser of the other evils, voting behavior will change dramatically. Static thinking that nothing else will change when one variable changes is human nature – and is quite wrong.

5. I agree, I don’t think a standard old-fashioned runoff for president would be legal, because federal law since 1845 has told the states to choose their presidential electors on one particular day in November. So a two-round process would violate the federal law. But IRV would be no problem because it would all be done on that day.

6. The 1845 law included: “And provided, also, when any State shall have held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and shall fail to make a choice on the day aforesaid, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such manner as the State shall by law provide.”

   The appointment by popular election of presidential electors is made on election day (1st Tuesday after the first Monday in November). That the result is not ascertained until some time later is not considered a failure to choose. Rather it is as if the populace as whole shouted out who they wanted to appoint collectively, and it took time to determine who they had appointed.

   But the phrase a “failure to choose” was intended to cover the case of states that required majority election of electors. It has been used in two instances: (1) In 1848 in Massachusetts, when Martin Van Buren running as a Free Soil candidate finished second ahead of Democrat Lewis Cass, and kept Whig Zachary Taylor from having a majority; and (2) In 1860 in Georgia, when Stephen A Douglas received got almost 11% of the vote, denying a majority to John Breckinridge at 49% (John Bell had 40%).

   In those two instances, the legislature chose the electors, but there is nothing in the phrase “such manner as the State shall by law provide” that would preclude a runoff.

   Or a state might:

   (1) Open presidential 1st primary in March.

   Any candidate who received 5% of the vote would qualify for the 2nd primary. In addition, trailing candidates who received less than 5% of the vote, could donate their votes to other candidates to help them qualify. Candidates could supplement their vote with a petition among non-voters in the 1st primary. And if a candidate reached 5% of the vote in other states with a majority of presidential electors he could also advance.

   (2) The 2nd primary would be in June. Candidates receiving more than 10% would advance to the 3rd primary. Again eliminated candidates could donate their votes, or advance based on having received 10% of the vote in other states with a majority of electors.

   (3) The 3rd primary would be in September. Candidates would name their vice presidential running mate and presidential electors before this election. Candidates receiving 20% or more would advance to the general election. Eliminated candidates could donate their votes, or advance based on having received 20% of the vote in other states with a majority of electors. At least two candidates would advance.

   (4) General election in November. If no candidate received a majority, the top two would face off in the runoff.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.