As a Green Party member, I've always been a big fan of IRV since it elminates "vote stealing" by "third parties" in major elections. The process is pretty simple, you rank your candidates in order of preference. If the top two vote getters tie, then the ballots whose #1 choice has the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the 2nd place votes on those ballots are counted.

For example, let's say we have an election between threepeople.

Let's say 8 people vote.

GWB and AG tie with 3 votes apiece. RN gets two votes. But let's say those two RN voters have ballots that look like this.

1. RN
2. AG
3. GWB

In which case:

1. RN
2. AG
3. GWB

Those votes become votes for AG and AG wins the election 5-3.



I'm just wondering what people's thoughts are. I think it's a much fairer way to determine a major election, especially if you have a third party with the potential to sway votes.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

Too complex. National elections aren't run efficiently now. Adding more complexity to the process isn't going to help. It's also not a very intuitive system, and doesn't even matter unless the top two vote getters tie, which is a statistical impossibility in very large scale elections.

It is already employed in several major elections (though none as big as the POTUS election).

If not in the case of ties (or near ties that require extensive recounts), it is typically employed in elections in which no candidate receives a majority vote.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

I would think that democrats would favor some sort preferential voting since it eliminates the vote stealing they like to whine about, and saves them money that currently goes to keeping third parties off of ballots.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

I guess I'm not seeing the advantage in that scenario either.

Assuming your scenario, with the following numbers:

Candidate A : 41%
Candidate B : 33%
Candidate C : 26%

Candidate A has a plurality, but not a majority. I'm not seeing how IRV can, or should change this outcome.

Sounds like a modification that would favor Democrats since they have more splinter parties.

How about no.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Well it depends on what the voters are looking for in any given election. Let's say Candidates B and C are very similar and differ on only a few issues. That most of B voters listed C second and vice versa.

If A is declared winner, that could run contrary to what the voters are actually looking for.

I realize there are a lot of ifs and hypotheticals, but isn't this kind of what happened in the 2000 presidential election?

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

So you don't favor reform that could be more fair if it doesn't benefit your preferred party?

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

To me, that kind of goes against the ideal of 'one person, one vote'. Not candidate is ever going to truly mesh with someone's set of ideas and values, so you select the best match. I don't think that anyone's 'backup choice' should have any bearing whatsoever.

Presidential elections are an entirely different animal. The existence of the electoral college changes the dynamic entirely.

Fair enough, I'm just kind of kicking the idea around here since it's always something I've been curious about.

I think the system we have is annoying in that third parties are bad because they take votes away from one party or the other. (And it won't necessarily be the Democratic party all the time).

I guess it all comes back to the system being broke with no viable third party to combat the juggernauts that are the Democrats and Republicans.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

I agree with Xcheck... because normally people are independant tend to agree with more Democrat views than Republican... so this just makes it so that the Democrats constantly win... No thanks

_________________

LETS GO BUFFALO!

That's a pretty blanket assumption, and not entirely accurate.

Which part? haha The part that the Independent party favors democratic views? or that the votes will go to the Democrats?

_________________

LETS GO BUFFALO!

And really in a nutshell what is wrong with the American Political system.

No one wants to make things fair, or better, they simply want to help their party.

(And who's to say in 20 years, the Libertarians aren't losing elections for Republicans). Don't be so selfish or short sighted.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

They should just get rid of the Electoral College and go with popular vote IMO.

_________________

LETS GO BUFFALO!

I like where this thread is going, ideas to make voting better and more fair. I am not opposed to this type of hijack.

Hopefully people can look beyond party lines instead of "we should do this because it will help my guy win."

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

Independents swing both ways, hence the fact that they are independent. As times change, the indy vote swings both ways depending on the hot issues of the day.

Not to mention that other third parties, such as the Libertarians and the Greens fall into and out of popularity in the same way.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

haha agreed, I mean think about it... Popular Vote would make it so the majority wins... not who votes for the electoral college and what not.. IMO Popular vote would be much more successful and fair

_________________

LETS GO BUFFALO!

Thats fair, but it is just an assumption though... I mean I look at it like this... Who seems to be popular with the common phrase "Change"? Democrats... who CLAIM that they will be doing more good for the people and solely changing things for the people? Democrats... It just seems more likely they will go Left than right.

_________________

LETS GO BUFFALO!