Salon has this article by Professor Sophia McClennen, making the case for Instant Runoff Voting in U.S. presidential elections in very strong terms. Thanks to Lance for the link.
Salon has this article by Professor Sophia McClennen, making the case for Instant Runoff Voting in U.S. presidential elections in very strong terms. Thanks to Lance for the link.
I now think approval voting would be a better solution and easier to explain to the voters.
Reading the comment section in the Salon article gives me little hope that spoiler theorists and rabid partisans will realize what damage they’re inflicting upon democratic elections before it becomes irreversible and we end up like North Korea. But it’s still worth trying to turn things around regardless.
Gee again — IRV IGNORES most of the data in a Number Votes Table —
34 AMZ
33 ZMA
16 MAZ
16 MZA
99
Number Votes Table
1 — 2 — 3 — Tot
A 34 — 16 — 49 — 99
M 32 — 67 — 0 — 99
Z 33 — 16 — 50 — 99
Tot 99 — 99 — 99
The IRV FANATIC math M-O-R-O-N-S love to ignore the 67 votes for M in second place
— i.e. M is the compromise *middle* choice.
I.E. IRV W-I-L-L elect even more extremists who WILL claim a mighty *mandate* from Hell to do whatever.
—–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
— pending Number Votes with Head to Head (Condorcet) math and an App.V. or added place votes tiebreaker.
“Proponents of the system also point out that if we had used it in the 2000 elections, Al Gore would have beaten George H. W. Bush in Florida, since most of the voters who chose Ralph Nader first would have chosen Gore second.”
Eliminating the electoral college would have done the same, as Gore won the popular vote. I cannot stand this constant rehashing of the Florida election. It was stolen by the Bush family. Learn some history.
The article presents a bad choice (instant runoff) and compares it to a worse choice (first past the post) and ignores other more compelling options of which there are several. Didn’t the author want to avoid this kind of trap?