Instant Run-Off Voting: Is It a Good Idea?

[Dissident Dan]

Do you think that instant run-off voting is a good idea that we should implement for governmental elections?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Come on, hardly anybody is responding.

 

[FZ+]

Er... can you clarify what IRV is?

 

[Zantra]

IRV? More info more info

 

[kat]

http://electionmethods.org/IRVexample.htm

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is also known as the "Alternative Vote" and "Preferential Voting." Voters rank the candidates as first, second, third, etc.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

it would've prevented the 2000 debacle but it seems kind of unsatisfying, you end up with someone who doesn't have much of a mandate.

 

[Dissident Dan]

If by mandate, you mean getting a majority of first preferences, then IRV doesn't create mandate problems that plurality vote doesn't.

Condorcet is superior to IRV in the case when you a have a person who, when compared one-on-one to each other candidates, is preferred each time, because sometimes that person wouldn't be elected using IRV, but always would be elected with Condorcet.

I think that either system is superior to a simple plurality.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think that either system is superior to a simple plurality.

Because you focus on justice in voting. But I think that anything that empowers minority parties leads to governmental instability. Look at the Knesset in Israel. They have proportional voting in their elections and tiny little sliver parties of fanatics have enormous power to swing votes. No thanks.

 

[Nereid]

Instability

Does proportional representation always lead to governmental instability? Even when there's a 5% (say) hurdle, such as in Germany and Turkey?

IIRC, Australia has proportional representation, as does Malaysia (and Singapore?). Neither have anything like the Israeli mess. (Of course, they have had other difficulties!)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Because you focus on justice in voting. But I think that anything that empowers minority parties leads to governmental instability. Look at the Knesset in Israel. They have proportional voting in their elections and tiny little sliver parties of fanatics have enormous power to swing votes. No thanks.

Israel has a lot more problems than just its electoral system! Throw a bunch of Jews (historically, probably the most persecuted group) in with a bunch of Arabs in the desert, and see what you get.

Germany seems pretty stable.

I think that our government is not responsive enough to the people.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If our government were more responsible to the people, it would be even worse than it is. Look at the attempts to amend the constitution each time something new comes up flag burning, 10 commandments in classrooms, gay marriage. And all of these are responsive to some group of people. Then imagine a Congress made up of interest groups from white supremacy to liberationists to Nader to five different kinds of communists. Then see if you like the results of responsiveness.

The founders knew that you had to put limits on politicians with the constitution just as you do on citizens with laws.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Naw, if the country were more democratic in general there would be a lot less pain & suffering. For example, if smoking pot or some other consentual crime were left to the states to vote upon (this goes for all of the "wedge" issues), it would be socially positive, and these issues wouldn't divide the country so badly anymore.

I think that our government is not responsive enough to the people.

It's very responsive, with rubber bullets and pepper spray. No, you're right, Bush could have 100% popular disapproval and he would continue careening into wherever.
I wonder how many Democrats would vote for say Gephardt even if they were hard-core Dean supporters? Somebody could do a poll.

________________________
Nepotism -- It's Genetic