The December 5 issue of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this editorial, calling for the legislature to eliminate general election run-offs, at least for partisan office.
The December 5 issue of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this editorial, calling for the legislature to eliminate general election run-offs, at least for partisan office.
Instead of simply a reversion to the mean (plurality) Georgia should try range or score voting. It would eliminate run-offs and better reflect voter preferences. Yes, voters have preferences beyond a binary choice for either tweedle-dee OR tweedle-dum which includes a third or fourth or fifth preference. But even those who are yellow-dog voters have nothing to lose. Search range-voting for details.
A change to a plurality requirement would not be a reversion for Georgia. Prior to the runoff general election provision: when no candidate got 50%-plus, the race was decided by the Georgia House.
Georgia did lower the threshold for avoiding a runoff general election from 50%-plus to 45%. This lasted from about 1993 to 2004, when the 50%-plus requirement was restored.
Don’t change to Range-voting. Change to Instant-runoff voting, which would accomplish the same results as the current system but do it all in one election.
There are several errors in the Journal-Constitution piece. Here’s my post on this topic.
If the Communistution had its way, there would be no voting, of any kind.
It would offer its pro-fascistic opinions and endorsements and those are the candidates who would take office.
This is a paper that, a few years ago, endorsed a back-room deal by a few politicians to change the state flag; and it is a paper that opposed letting the very people over whom the flag would fly have any say in the matter.
@lemur: Instant runoff actually gets a somewhat better result that Georgia’s two-round runoff. For the problem that can occur in two-round runoffs, read up on the French presidential election of 2002, for example here. So it’s faster, cheaper and better.
P.R. legislative and A.V. nonpartisan executive / judicial.
NO party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions — now extremely EVIL and dangerous — producing only party hack extremists.
#7: The difference between Georgia and France is that Georgia has state-mandated party primaries, with runoff primaries if necessary. Thus Georgia potentially has four steps in its process.
In the last French presidential election, the Socialist Party did conduct a presidential primary to pick its nominee. The polls opened at 4:00 p.m. and closed at 10:00 p.m. A majority was required, but a runoff was not needed, since the woman candidate got more votes than her two male opponents combined.
There is a good
oped response to this editorial as well. State Rep. Mark Hatfeild mentions tactical voting, the effect on third parties, and the advantage of a clear voter mandate.
It seems that pushing the dozen states that use runoff elections to switch to IRV would be a good tactic. They would save money, diminish the problem of voter fatigue and declining turnout, and they would get a fair result equivalent to multiple rounds of runoff elections. They could even drop primaries and leave parties to endorse (one or several) candidates by their own internal caucuses or conventions.
Bob Richard,
What do you mean IRV is “cheaper” than normal runoffs? Sure, if a second runoff election is needed, that’s expensive. But runoffs can be very infrequently needed, depending on how balanced a community is between the two major parties. Whereas the significant extra cost of IRV would exist whether or not a runoff would have even been necessary.
#10: “… pushing the dozen states that use runoff elections to switch to IRV…”
What dozen states are you referring to? Georgia is the only state that has runoff general elections as well as party primaries. Some 11 states now have party runoff (or second) primaries.
The first step in the processes of Louisiana (state elections) and Washington state (congressional and state elections) is commonly called the “primary.” I would argue that the first step here is the general election, and the second, final step is the runoff general election.
I’m liking the IRV concept better and better.
#11: What is “the significant extra cost of IRV”?
#10: As for “the effect on third parties” in Georgia: the Libertarians, e.g., had the right to nominate a candidate for each office on the Nov. 4 ballot. The U. S. Senate and PSC races were close enough that the Libertarian in each race– who finished a distant third– got enough votes to prevent either of the top two candidates from crossing 50%. Absent the Libertarian, Sen. Chambliss would clearly have been elected on Nov. 4.