Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 10:53 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Would you like to see the potential spoiler role of alternative party candidates... |
|
...eliminated with the implementation of instant runoff voting at the national level? ---------------- Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters have one vote and rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first preference rankings, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes redistributed to the voters' next preferences among the remaining candidates. This process is repeated until one candidate has a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated. The term "instant runoff" is used because IRV is said to simulate a series of run-off elections tallied in rounds, as in an exhaustive ballot election.<1>
IRV is also referred to as majority-preferential voting in Australia, the preferential ballot in Canada, alternative voting (AV) in the United Kingdom, and sometimes ranked choice voting in the U.S. It is also referred to as the Hare system or Hare method, after Thomas Hare, an inventor of single transferable vote (STV) because IRV is the same as STV for a single seat election: Even though voters can mark multiple candidates in preference order, the elimination process results in only a single transferable vote cast for the office.
Robert's Rules of Order calls preferential voting "especially useful and fair in an election by mail if it is impractical to take more than one ballot. . . . In such cases it makes possible a more representative result than that under a rule that a plurality shall elect. . . . Preferential voting has many variations." The single transferable vote technique used by IRV is the example given. The manual goes on to note that if voters don't rank enough candidates, this may prevent any from receiving a majority and "require the voting to be repeated. . . . Although this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality, it affords less freedom of choice than repeated balloting, because it denies voters the opportunity of basing their second or lesser choices on the results of earlier ballots, and because the candidate in last place is automatically eliminated and may thus be prevented from becoming a compromise choice."<2>
At a national level IRV is used to elect the Australian House of Representatives,<3> the President of Ireland,<4> the national parliament of Papua New Guinea and the Fijian House of Representatives.<5> In the United States, it is used in five local jurisdictions, including San Francisco, California and Pierce County, Washington, and has been approved by voters in other jurisdictions such as Minneapolis, Minnesota and Memphis, Tennessee. In the United Kingdom, IRV is used for elections for leaders of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, while the supplementary vote form of IRV is used for all direct elections of mayors in England, including for the Mayor of London.<6> New Zealand cities using IRV include the capital, Wellington<7>. IRV is used in a number of non-governmental elections, including elections for the Canadian Wheat Board and student government in universities . . . .Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
|
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I can't respond the way the question is worded. I like the idea of IRV--but not for the reason |
Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. What are your reasons? |
varkam
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Seconded. I tend to think that having more than two de facto parties would be a good thing. eom |
Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. I would certainly agree with you there... |
|
...and IRV would encourage more choice.
I wasn't trying to suggest with this poll question that there aren't any number of good reasons to support IRV.
|
Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 09:32 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Kick for a larger sample. |
Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 02:44 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Kick for a larger sample. |
Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 06:07 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Kick for a larger sample. |
MH1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 06:37 PM
Response to Original message |
happychatter
(619 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 06:40 PM
Response to Original message |
9. so far this poll indicates that vindictiveness and hate are very therapeutic for people |
|
even when they win they need someone to blame
|
MH1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
I have no idea what you are talking about.
IRV is a good idea, and has nothing to do with "vindictiveness and hate".
I know a few people pushing IRV, and they are mostly all supporters of third parties - third parties WANT IRV, because then there would be a more accurate measure of public support for their parties.
|
Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. Sorry I'm not following you -- can you explain your reasoning... |
|
...in making a connection between this poll and its results thus far, and vindictiveness and hate?
|
...of J.Temperance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 07:57 PM
Response to Original message |
Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-08 01:23 AM
Response to Original message |
13. Kick for a larger sample. |
Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-09-08 05:39 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Kick for a larger sample |
Mr_Jefferson_24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-10-08 12:16 AM
Response to Original message |
15. Kick for a larger sample. |
camera obscura
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-10-08 12:23 AM
Response to Original message |
16. I picked the second option but I think state elections should have instant runoff |
|
the Coleman/Franken election has convinced me of that!
|
union_maid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-10-08 12:24 AM
Response to Original message |
|
It would eliminate "spoilers" AND empower third parties at the same time. The only problem that I see is that to be effective in national elections it would have to be nationwide and I don't think that's possible to mandate under our system.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon Jun 17th 2024, 01:06 AM
Response to Original message |