Instant Run-Off Voting Can Help Independants

National news scene

Moderator: Super Moderators

Post Reply
Conspiracy Theorist
Pirate
Posts: 264
Joined: 05-19-2000 02:00 AM

Instant Run-Off Voting Can Help Independants

Post by Conspiracy Theorist » 08-24-2008 04:03 PM

We have a 2-party system that is not constitutionally mandated, but that evolved as a natural and functional effect of our type of government. Multi-Party systems can exist in Parliamentary systems, but not in our "seperation of powers" system. But, I've been hearing about a plan that could make it possible for 3rd parties and independants to flourish.

Air America talk show host Thom Hartman described a system of instant run-offs that, I think, are already being utilized in a couple of smaller states. Here's how it would work:

Let's say "Jane" decides she might like to vote for Ralph Nader. As it stands now, a vote for Nader would be a vote for McCain, just as a vote for Barr would probably be a vote for Obama. Nader will be forever villifed, because the votes he drained from Gore in Florida, tipped the election to Bush. The result is, that Nader is responsible for all of us, all of the World, in fact, having suffered through 8 years of Bush. Think of the possible 1 million who have died in Iraq simply because of Bush, but indirectly because of Nader. Think of the jobs that have been outsourced, the outrageous oil prices, and the collapse of the US Dollar, all of which could have been avoided if Nader had stayed out of the race. The world's greatest consumer advocate has become a political pariah, but it need never have happened.

Here's how an instant run-off could work. Let's say"Jane" lives in Florida. She doesn't really like Obama, but would certainly prefer him to McCain. But, she really likes Nader, and agrees with him 99% of the time. She decides to stand on principle and casts her vote for Nader. McCain wins Florida by a small margin, and as in 2000, McCain wins the presidency by a margin that would have changed to Obama, had Florida's electoral votes gone to him in the absence of Nader from the ballot.

Now, in the Instant Run-Off, Jane is given a 1st, and 2nd choice. Now, she can register her "protest" vote for Nader, but also vote for Obama as her 2nd choice. You could even work it so there would be a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice, but let's keep it simple. If Nader does not place 1st or 2nd in vote totals, Jane's vote is automatically transferred to her 2nd choice, which, in this case, is Obama. Now, the Nader voters have the opportunity to freely vote for their first choice without helping their very last choice. Obama now carries Florida and wins the election.

But wait..."David" is also in Florida, and wants to vote for Bob Barr, but doesn't want to cause the election of Obama. He's torn, but in my scenario, he can vote for Barr, and if Barr doesn't finish first or second, his vote can automatically be transferred to his 2nd choice, which would be McCain.

Do you understand how this works? If people felt free to vote for 3rd party candidates or independants, knowing that they would not inadvertantly help their very last choice, more would vote that way. And, even though the votes for minor candidates would be tranferred, with more people feeling free to cast their votes based on their true preferances, many of these minor canddates would rise to prominence, and some might actually WIN!

Keep in mind, that under my plan, in 2000, Nader's votes would probably have overwhelmingly gone to Gore, and we'd never have had Bush. In 1992, Perot's voters when polled split evenly between Clinton and GHW Bush, so the results of that election would probably have been the same, with Clinton elected. Either way, it's a much fairer system.

Questions, anyone?

User avatar
Psychicwolf
Pirate
Posts: 5999
Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM

Post by Psychicwolf » 08-24-2008 04:50 PM

Here in Washington, we just had our first "run-off" primary. In other words, the two candidates who received the greatest number of votes stand for election in November. But the presidential election was not a part of it, nor will it ever be because the parties will not sanction the vote. Beside's we are a caucus state, so the parties are definately dominant in caucusing. As for the other candidates here in Washington, it fell pretty much into Repubs and Dems receiving the top two spots.

It's an interesting idea, and has been proposed before. I doubt things will change anytime soon.

Also, how are the votes "changed" without the electorate stating his second choice?
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.

Conspiracy Theorist
Pirate
Posts: 264
Joined: 05-19-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Conspiracy Theorist » 08-24-2008 06:30 PM

In this idea, your ballot would automatically ask you to make a first and second choice. Actually, if there were, for example, 5 candidates on the ballot, you could just number them 1 to 5 in order of your preference.

OMG
Pirate
Posts: 2596
Joined: 04-17-2006 02:02 AM

Post by OMG » 08-24-2008 08:43 PM

This reminds me a lot of the system they have in France. Which I think is probably the best system out there. They have a lot of people/parities running for Prez, then if someone doesn't get more then half the votes, then in a couple of weeks they have a run-off with the top two candidates.

In the first round you don't have to worry about voting for someone just to keep someone out, because if someone you really dislike wins in the first round, there is nothing you can do as they had more than half the votes to begin with and made no differnce if you voted for the second place person or the person who wasn't even close. So you feel comfortable to vote for who you really like. It is a great way to start pushing away from the two party system as you start feeling comfortable voting for other parties. Another benefit is that the lead two can't just play to their base and have everyone else follow. If other parties do well, the top two will try to convince those leader to "endorce them" and try to get the lower parties supporters on their side for the second vote.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 08-24-2008 08:48 PM

They just need a true closed primary system here. Had that been the case, for example, McCain would not be the nominee.

User avatar
Psychicwolf
Pirate
Posts: 5999
Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM

Post by Psychicwolf » 08-24-2008 09:25 PM

HB3 wrote: They just need a true closed primary system here. Had that been the case, for example, McCain would not be the nominee.


I agree.
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.

Post Reply

Return to “National”