The November 9 Minneapolis Star-Tribune has this op-ed in favor of Instant Runoff Voting. The author says that the U.S. Senate race, and two U.S. House races, in Minnesota, might have turned out differently if IRV had been used (although, in the case of the U.S. Senate race, no one knows yet who will ultimately win). Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.
The op-ed has one minor factual error. It says Jesse Ventura was elected Governor as the Reform Party nominee in 1998 with only 36.7% of the vote. Actually he got 37.00% of the total vote cast for Governor.
IRV ignores most of the votes in a Place Votes Table (ALL of the votes in 2nd, 3rd, etc. places) and is therefore totally CORRUPT.
Thus IRV is one EVIL super-defective *fix*.
P.R. for legislative body elections.
A.V. for executive/judicial election — i.e. vote YES or NO on each candidate. Guess what – any *extremists* will likely NOT be elected.
— Pending MAJOR public education about head to head math.
I would disagree with what you said about Instant Runoff Voting. It seems to ensure majority rule, help the State save money and reduce the spoiler effect.
Yes, some form of proportional rep might be nice in legislative races — I have pleaded with Congress to allow it in US House races — but that means abandoning the two-party system, something that Americans are not really ready to seriously debate, let alone implement.
Instant Runoff Voting, Fusion, Fair and Equitable Ballot and Debate access rules do not really alter what a true two party system is that thus can win the critical support of the, mostly, Democrats and Republicans in power.
BTW, This past Saturday, the Fargo Forum published a short little letter to the editor I wrote on the need to improve the tone and scope of our civic life.
The ‘scope’ being the role that moderates, Independents and minor parties can no longer play — due to harsh ballot access and debate rules and I also make a little plug for fusion, IRV and PR.
http://www.in-forum.com