Understanding Instant Runoff Voting
Kari Chisholm
A lot of election reform activists and third-party activists argue for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Most of the conversations around IRV degenerate into complicated discussions about voter choice theory and math.
It's really not that tough. As San Francisco's city elections office told voters, "123 Voting is Easy. Easy as 123."
But the easiest way to see IRV in action is to run a big demonstration vote - with choices that people care about. (Not a silly what's-your-favorite-ice-cream vote...)
So, without further ado, I'd like to invite BlueOregon readers (especially all the conservative Republican ones) to come on over and vote in a 2006 Gubernatorial Instant Runoff Vote. I've included all the major candidates who ran in the primaries, plus the minor-party ones who are now headed for the fall ballot.
The results, of course, won't mean a damn thing - since our readership is hardly a representative sample of anything. (So please don't bother trying to stuff the ballot.)
But be sure to view the final results - and step through each round - to understand instinctively how Instant Runoff Voting works. (And if you're one of the first few voters, bookmark it and come back later to see a bigger sample vote.)
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:21 a.m.
Jun 22, '06
Good to see this effort. Of course, voter choice theory IS that complicated.
But our current system is pretty bad when it comes to reflecting voters' true desires, and IRV is pretty easy to understand, and probably an improvement over our current system.
That said, I don't think it's really possible to create a system that will create the result most in tune with voters' desires every time. Democracy is a messy sport.
Jun 22, '06
Excellent demonstration, Kari. I've blogged my comments over on my site. I'm definitely a proponent of IRV.
At least my #1 guy made it to the final round (so far). ;-)
Jun 22, '06
As you point out, your sample is far from representative. One of the biggest flaws with IRV is that it presumes all voters are well informed and have completely developed preferences. In fact, most people who vote are fairly uninformed and just vote based on shortcuts and cues, like party affiliation, endorsements, name recognition, etc.
In one IRV country in Europe, they had the problem of people whose names fell earlier in the alphabet winning more often, because people would select their top one or two preferences, and then would just number the rest of the candidates 3,4,5,6,7... down the list in alphabetical order.
A relatively uninformed liberal Democrat voting in the 2006 Oregon governor's race might select her first choice based on preference (1-Kulongoski), and then the rest based on name recognition (2-Saxton, 3-Starrett, 4-Keating, etc.). Of course, if you're actually a liberal Democrat, voting for Saxton and Sarrett before Keating makes little sense. But that's the problem with IRV -- it presumes the average voter is much more sophisticated than she actually is.
Some have asked: but why is this worse that the current system, in which people vote for one candidate based on little information? It's worse because people usually have enough information to know who their top choice is. They might even know who their second choice would be (but then again, they might not -- especially in small, local races). But they probably do not know their third choice from their sixth choice.
In the end, the current system reflects voter preferences far better than the IRV system.
10:06 a.m.
Jun 22, '06
The alphabetical problem is eminently fixable--names are rotated on ballots in a lot of states.
10:23 a.m.
Jun 22, '06
Kari: Thanks for setting this up. An entertaining excercise. And I'm surprised at how well my guy is doing. (oops, might have let a clue slip out...no, I didn't vote for Starrett :)
Stella: your objection seems like a minor one. I believe it's rare that a significant number of votes would be redistributed; also, in my view a good IRV system makes it very clear that you can simply vote for one candidate if that's what you'd rather do. Questions like these are best answered by scientific studies, and the frequency of weird results is important. Getting a clearer picture of the public's desires in EVERY election is a win, in my view, for democracy...and allows for a more representative system.
Jun 22, '06
Torridjoe--
Rotating names just concedes the point: candidates wind up winning based on their placement on the ballot, rather than their placement in the preferences of the electorate.
By rotating names on the ballot, you're simply addressing one result of the problem (the alphabetical advantage), rather than addressing the problem itself (that IRV is a bad system because it presumes voters are more informed than they actually are).
10:31 a.m.
Jun 22, '06
For those who agree that IRV is a better system, what do you think of the Open Primary (One Ballot) initiative?
In my view, One Ballot is essentially a "non-instant" runoff vote, and as such is very similar to IRV. I believe it's a strong step in the right direction.
Of course there are scenarios in which One Ballot and IRV would lead to different results, but I think they'd be extremely rare.
To me, the important aspect of both systems is that they increase the ability of all citizens to have their voices heard. Both of them present would be an effective pushback against gerrymandering, which is an incredibly anti-democratic phenomenon.
One Ballot is a good system...removes much of the unhealthy gamesmanship from the system...and would be a strong step towards IRV, which may be the better system in the end (but is not currently on the ballot or in the works.)
Thoughts?
Jun 22, '06
Pete F.,
You're wrong about that because One Ballot allows the parties to select their own candidates. (In fact, it's totally predictable that the parties will pick their own candidates by moving to a convention/committee primary system if One Ballot passes, since fewer candidates from the other side in a given race would mean a guaranteed loss in the One-Ballot primary.)
So, under the One Ballot system, you'd only have the choice to vote for Ted Kulongoski -- you'd never have the opportunity to vote for any of the other Democratic candidates (Hill/Sorenson), since that decision would have been made by the party insiders already.
Jun 22, '06
If this is typical, looks like another problem with IRV is that whoever writes the ballot can editorialize on party affiliation.
I think if Ben Westlund is listed as "Republican/Independent", then Ted Kulongoski should have to be listed as "Whipped-by-Minnis/Democrat".
Jun 22, '06
Loved the comments by Pete F. and JHL.
The IRV seems like a system some churches and other organizations use to elect officers---I have a relative who was on the counting committee for such elections. Sometimes the process can take awhile.
Which leads to the voting mechanics question: if voting is done by paper ballot and optical scan (connect 2 parts of an arrow in Marion County, fill in a space some other places) then who reprograms the vote counting software--and how much would that cost? Or would ballots have to be counted by hand?
As for this piece of anti-open primary spin:
Pete F., You're wrong about that because One Ballot allows the parties to select their own candidates. (In fact, it's totally predictable that the parties will pick their own candidates by moving to a convention/committee primary system if One Ballot passes, since fewer candidates from the other side in a given race would mean a guaranteed loss in the One-Ballot primary.) I have had this argument in person with someone who has not been active in a central committee.
While it is theoretically possible, I just don't see 21st century party organizations doing that. Primaries were instituted in the first place to get away from that sort of thing (my Grandfather helped defeat a county machine in Michigan in the 1930s which had machine leaders drawing state convention delegate names out of a hat, feeding them, paying their trainfare to the convention, and expecting them to vote the county party line). The state and cong. district meetings I attended as a member were closer to the Will Rogers line "I belong to no organized party--I'm a Democrat".
But the solution to concern about parties choosing a candidate in open primary and concerns about caucuses making too many decisions in private is to have a nonpartisan legislature. Yes, I know that idea drives some people nuts, but wouldn't it be great to watch people have to compete for votes of all legislators instead of restricting things to their own caucus?
The nice man I talked to at the Kulongoski headquarters yesterday said he understood perfectly my remark that no one is required to decide their choice for Governor on the first day of summer. Let's see the campaign play out. Which candidate spends the most time out talking to folks--not just strolls along small town streets, but county fairs, well advertised town hall meetings, etc.? Let's see which candidate has the best ideas. Outside audits for school districts, anyone? Statewide health insurance for teachers? A debate on how many troopers should be on state highways? Or just "we have a limited amount of resources, we must prioritize" but no actual listed priorities? How do the candidates propose handling the federal investigation of the State Hospital?
I'm not going to vote on the IRV site because it seems like just a game given that I am a truly undecided.
And JHL is right about ballot design bias: I think if Ben Westlund is listed as "Republican/Independent", then Ted Kulongoski should have to be listed as "Whipped-by-Minnis/Democrat".
Jun 22, '06
The 05-06 School Year made Portland State the first University in Oregon to use Electronic IRV voting.
It was pretty interesting to see in action.
http://www.pdx.edu/aspsu/news/8856/
12:09 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Betsy: I agree that's a possibility (that the parties would conduct their own primaries behind closed doors.)
But that's a positive outcome, too.
As it stands now, we the taxpayers - D's, R's, Independents, non-citizens - fund the primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties.
Preposterous.
Jun 22, '06
while i would support an irv system based only on the fact that it could be a step in the right direction (which would be proportional representation), i think as a system itself it leaves much to be desired.
irv obession really started to appear after the gore/nader debacle, the sentiment being "if we had irv, gore would have won because the nader votes would have devolved to gore". basically, "we don't want to vote for gore, but we don't want to be punished (with a bush win) for doing so". the desire to be able to make a choice without having to make a trade off, without having to deal with the negative consequences of that choice. they can have their cake and eat it too.
the result is that this actually winds up hurting a progressive/green/democratic coalition. coalitions are only effective based on the threat of defection; if the democrats know that they are basically assured the 2nd choice of defecting progressives/greens, then they don't have to govern in a way to keep the progs-greens happy. the progs-greens can protest without pain, but they have no valid threat (what are they going to vote republican? libertarian? nonsense), and thus no power. only in a select few districts where progs-greens have an actual chance of breaking 50% (or getting the plurality if that is the case), will irv really have a positive effect for them. in a two-party first past the gate system, coalition building depends on being able mobilize a large base of energetic voters who are willing to not play along when they're not getting what they want--in this country right now that means calling yourself a democrat and voting for the ned lamonts, and chuck pennachios. voting tweaks like irv are just another example of the "magic pill" that the progressive left is always looking for to make things better.
that said, irv might be interesting if it was used in primaries.
12:48 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Stella-- rotating names DOES concede the point. It also has the benefit of fixing the problem.
As for your theory that IRV is bad because voters aren't smart enough, I'd respond:
1) You don't do anyone any favors by dumbing down your elections, and 2) I'm not sure you get how IRV works, based on your complaint.
You assert that most people only know the top 2 or 3 candidates, and essentially guess the rest. Let's concede that for argument's sake. What impact does that have on the outcome? Almost none. Why? If you only know the top 2 or 3 best known, then your vote will count into the final 2 rounds of voting, at worst--assuming that the best known candidates will be among those at the end. Not knowing who 4-10 are has no impact, because when they dropped out there was no vote of yours to allocate. The only time it comes into play is if you pick one of 4-10 to be among your top candidates. Then when they are ejected from the race, your vote gets applied to your next-favorite candidate. And that only happens if you know enough about the election to choose one of those lesser candidates.
Jun 22, '06
Well ... I'll provide the contrary opinion lack in this thread. I do not support IRV elections. A cardinal rule of democracy is that all voters have an equal say. Yet instant-runoff voting essentially allows supporters of the least-popular candidates to REcast their vote again once it becomes apparent they are not going to win. Why should one voter be allowed a second bite at the cherry, just because his candidate is unpopular? While I think Karl's program does a lot to educate people on the way the ballot would be structured and the ease in which people can vote. It doesn't provide enough emphasis on the structure of multiple vote counts.
Jun 22, '06
I said: "...people usually have enough information to know who their top choice is. They might even know who their second choice would be (but then again, they might not -- especially in small, local races)."
You said that I said: "...most people only know the top 2 or 3 candidates."
Torriedjoe--
How about actually responding to what I said, instead of what you wish I had said.
I said voters usually only know enough to select their top ONE choice, and SOMETIMES also their second choice. (In fact, I think for most voters, the second choice would be simply the other major party's frontrunner, based on name recognition.) Only the most educated elite can rank up to three and beyond. In fact, this poses MAJOR problems for election outcomes.
As for your other comment about dumbing-down the process: I thought we were here to create a system to actually reflect voter preferences. I see you really want to create a system that encourages voters to be smarter than they actually are. That's a fine, albeit unrealistic, objective. As long as we're clear.
1:25 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
One major difference between Instant Runoff Voting and the Kiesling 'Open' Primary proposal is that IRV empowers new voices in the process while the open primary would be far more likely to silence them. For this reason, third parties from across the political spectrum see the open primary as essentially anti-third party.
Also, the intent of 'open' primaries is to dilute the voting power of registered rank and file partisan voters to produce more centrist candidates. As I've written before, I think Oregon Republicans have been producing out of step general election candidates, but Democrats by and large haven't.
I agree that we need election reform, but this proposal would further increase the power of well-funded candidates and lead to more costly costly elections overall. The pro-Westlund/pro-open primary voters are not unlike those who S. Carolinians who supported Strom Thurmond and term limits on the same ballot. Under this system, Westlund almost certainly would be eliminated under this front-loaded structure.
Jun 22, '06
Dylan,
IRV still gives each voter equal say, through each round of voting.
Not only do the supporters of the least-popular candidates get to re-cast their vote, but the supporters of the most-popular candidates also re-cast their votes -- for the same candidate in each round.
Seems perfectly fair and equal to me.
1:47 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Charlie:
(1) Yes, the term "open" primary is a poor choice. Can we agree to just call it "One Ballot?"
(2) I'd contend that third parties across the political spectrum are surprisingly short-sighted. Sure, One Ballot would make it incredibly difficult for a third-party candidate to make it to the General Election. But it would also make for far more significant Primary Elections. Whether weakish third-party candidates get attention in April or October gets a big yawn from me. (Here's an article taking the opposing position.) Strong third-party candidates, as I see it, would actually getting a boost by only having to run against one opponent in November.
I would think that the opportunity to participate in meaningful engagement in the political process would be attractive to third parties, but maybe they've just gotten comfortable with gadfly status. I find it baffling.
(3) Your conflation of One Ballot backer and Westlund backer is disturbing (though I've heard it before.) I support One Ballot because of what it would do to the legislature, far more than what it would do to Mahonia Hall. And I certainly wouldn't want to base the political process on a single candidate in a single race.
If there's anybody taking that position, I would agree that their opinion ought to be discounted.
2:11 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Pete--
Re: (2) The problem for third parties -- and one of the major reasons many oppose this -- is that they have a very good reason for caring about the timing of a three or four way contest: campaign finance. They're not being short-sided; they're being realistic about their chances under a system that's largely titled toward better-funded major party candidates.
Re: (3) There are plenty of people who only support Westlund or 'one ballot,' but there are also plenty of folks who hold the inconsistent position of supporting both. My point is that under this system, our Governor's race would not be a potentially three-way match-up.
If nothing else, it makes a lot more sense to put meaningful campaign finance reform in place before implementing a system that will only increase the power of big money campaigns.
Jun 22, '06
LT--
Your claim that the parties won't close their primaries is naive. In fact, they will have no other choice. In a marginal district, if four Democrats run in a blanket primary against two Republicans, chances are the two Republicans will advance to the General Election, because all four Democrats will have divided their supporters and knocked each other out.
Imagine this hypothetical match-up for the Fifth CD "Open Primary" to replace Darlene Hooley once she retires: 1. Dave Hunt (D) - 14% 2. Paul Evans (D) - 16% 3. Andrew Kaza (D) - 6% 4. Kurt Schrader (D) - 15% 5. Brian Boquist (R) - 23% 6. Jim Zupancic (R) - 22% 7. Other Green/Libertarian - 4% This is a totally plausible, indeed likely, scenario. And in this case, the choice in the General Election would be between Boquist and Zupancic.
There is only one way for both parties to avoid this problematic outcome: closing their primaries. They'll have to do it, because otherwise they will have no way to ensure that one of their candidates makes it into General Election. It's naive to think otherwise.
So, like I said, all the One Ballot initiative does is CLOSES the primaries to the public.
Jun 22, '06
One major difference between Instant Runoff Voting and the Kiesling 'Open' Primary proposal is that IRV empowers new voices in the process while the open primary would be far more likely to silence them. For this reason, third parties from across the political spectrum see the open primary as essentially anti-third party.
The title of this post is "understanding IRV". Is it possible there are people who understand it but don't think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread? Or that would react to this idea as "oh, our lives are not complicated enough, you want to change the voting system? What real world problem would that solve"?
All of this is really theory, as is the debate about the intelligence of the voters. Don't fall into the trap of thinking all intelligent voters would love IRV just because advocates think it is great. Think about how many Oregonians right now are contemplating voting systems vs. the people concerned about job, family, what they will do on July 4, if they'll be cool enough if the temperature gets over 90 this weekend, etc. Do you really believe if a magic wand created IRV in Oregon all your favorite candidates would win? And that there would be no logistical problems?
Experiments sometimes have unintended consequences. Remember the "Southern Primary" in 1988? Who won? Was it the expected candidate?
Think about districts drawn to benefit a certain group (Republicans, ethnic groups, etc.). Does that demographic then always get elected there?
Candidates are, under this system, supposed to go door to door saying (in a district where only 2 candidates are running) "if you can't vote for me in first place, please vote for me in 2nd place"? How many candidates want to do that, or do they not have the right to an opinion because IRV is so great everyone is supposed to join the IRV bandwagon and not ask any questions?
This is a technocratic discussion but elections have a huge human factor. And unless you've presented these ideas to a roomful of people and gotten feedback, you don't really know how the general public will react.
I went to a presentation of Open Primary and IRV in front of the Legislative Commission. The IRV folks didn't seem receptive to questions from the general public during the break. Their attitude was more along the lines of "we have this great idea, therefore it will work".
Folks, there is a long distance between great idea and implementation.
David says "IRV still gives each voter equal say, through each round of voting." Does that "say" include whether people want IRV? Or are voters just supposed to accept IRV because they are told to accept it?
Whatever anyone thinks of Vote By Mail, it was a well debated ballot measure. Sometimes I wonder why the folks behind IRV haven't done the same thing. Of course, that would require making presentations to groups of people, collecting signatures, etc. And in a free country people don't have to accept a change just because they are told it is better.
Charlie's comment "Also, the intent of 'open' primaries is to dilute the voting power of registered rank and file partisan voters to produce more centrist candidates." ignores the appeal to One Ballot/ nonpartisan ideas to those who don't register with a major party. Is it really wise to deprive nomination power to anyone not registered to a party and then wonder why those folks don't see the value in choosing between fall candidates? I believe "the fastest growing party is no party at all" and know people who are independents at heart who only keep their registration because they want to vote in primaries.
2:54 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Stella-- so because you allowed for knowledge of 2 candidates, and I discussed knowledge of 2 OR 3 candidates, I'm not addressing what you actually said? I don't think you've got much basis for nonresponsiveness on that account.
Then you say "Only the most educated elite can rank up to three and beyond. In fact, this poses MAJOR problems for election outcomes."
What are they? Wait, before we get to that question, on what basis are you claiming that knowledge of three candidates is reserved for the most educated elite? What do you suppose Westlund's Q rating is? It's at least 10%, based on the Zogby polling a good while ago--and that's just people who'd vote for him. How about Mary Starrett? I bet most people who've lived here for a while and have a TV know who she is. Are they the most educated elite?
I want a system that does as good a job as possible at reflecting true voter sentiment. Anything that allows the rank ordering of choices, rather than an all-or-nothing ballot, does that. It has nothing to do with trying to force people to be smarter; it has everything to do with not assuming they're too dumb, and closing off alternatives based on that flimsy premise.
Jun 22, '06
Burlington, Vermont, used Instant-Runoff voting on March 7 to choose its Mayor. This was the first time IRV had been used anywhere in Vermont for elections to public office. The election was so successful, state officials say they are now persuaded IRV should be used for statewide elections. House Bill 385 and Senate Bill 48 both provide that all statewide elections should use IRV, and these bills are likely to pass by the time the legislature adjourns in mid-May. They would not take effect until 2008.
At the Burlington election, only one-tenth of 1% of the ballots were spoiled. Exit pollsters interviewed 1,000 voters and learned that 66.4% of the voters say they like IRV, whereas only 16.3% don’t like it. 17.3% said they were neutral, or refused to respond.
At a legislative hearing on March 22, Mary Sullivan, chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, testified in favor of IRV. Howard Dean, former Vermont Governor and now national chair of the Democratic Party, submitted written testimony in favor, as did U.S. Senator John McCain. Legislative leaders have already decided to work for Senate approval first, and the Senate Government Operations Committee is now working on a final version of the bill. There are some legislators who don’t want to implement IRV, and they will press instead for another study of IRV.
From April 2006 Ballot Access News
3:21 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Think about how many Oregonians right now are contemplating voting systems vs. the people concerned about job, family, what they will do on July 4, if they'll be cool enough if the temperature gets over 90 this weekend, etc.
Once again, I'd remind LT that this is a blog designed for "progressives to gather around the water cooler" and discuss ideas. It's not a voter contact tool. If you have an opinion pro/con on IRV, 'open' primaries, great.
But the constant refrain that everyday voters may not be contemplating voting systems -- or whatever the topic at hand is -- is wearing thin. It's not that the statement is untrue, it's just that it's totally beside the point. You also seem to miss the point of Kari's original post. The vote he set up was not designed to accurately or scientifically gauge voter opinion on the Governor's race, but rather to illustrate to blueoregon readers how IRV works. If you are not going to participate in this demonstration of IRV because you have not personally made up your mind in that race, that's your choice.
Jun 22, '06
The Top Two primary is inherently undemocratic. Democracy is about freedom of choice. Why should our Election Day choices be limited to two and only two candidates? It could be two Republicans in some districts; two Democrats in others. Either way, our choices will be severely limited and so will the scope of the debate.
Given how many gubernatorial candidates were on the primary ballot this year, the 'top two' candidates would advance to the General Election with minimal support from a low turn-out election. Far more people would vote against the winning candidates than for them. That's not democracy. Neither is restricting choices.
IRV, on the other hand, actually achieves what the proponents of Top Two hope for--and more. IRV produces a MAJORITY winner, reflects the will of the electorate and produces more civil, issue-oriented campaigns. And, it gives people more choices, not fewer.
Jun 22, '06
Torridjoe--
Have you ever read a survey of voter knowledge. Most Americans can't even name the vice president! Even in a presidential election, polling data show that voters know almost nothing about the top-two candidates. And you expect them to make educated judgments about candidates all the way down the list in races for county commissioner and state rep?
You say that the average voter knows who Ron Saxton and Mary Starrett are. I agree. The point is not whether they can recognize the candidates' names, but whether they can make informed judgments about the degree to which a candidate's ideology conforms with their own. If the majority of voters are selecting their top choice as #1, and then just ranking the rest based on name recognition, then your system has serious problems if it aims to reflect the true preferences of voters.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by citing statistics about Westlund's popularity. Of course, voters differ in their choice of candidate, and 10% of voters apparently prefer Westlund. All I'm saying is: most voters are not knowledgable or sophisticated enough to rank-order their true preferences beyond their first or second choice. In a list of 10 candidates, most voters will know who is their favorite. They may even know who is their second favorite -- although they may not. But that's the end-of-the-road for most voters. This point is proven by the alphabetical/ballot placement advantage seen in some IRV countries: after the top one or two, voters make choices based on criteria other than their true ideological preferences (criteria like name recognition and placement on the ballot). The IRV system winds up reflecting these trends rather than ideological preferences. That's the problem to which I was referring in my previous post.
4:30 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Charlie: Though I'm not a supporter of either, I have to say I disagree with your characterization that it's
hypocriticalinconsistent [didn't want to put words in your mouth, though it seems that was implied] to support both Westlund and One Ballot (as Westlund himself does). The argument goes that Westlund, running as a Republican, would've had a much better chance of finishing in the top two in an open primary than winning a closed Republican primary. Running as a "moderate" R, but drawing well from Is and Ds I don't consider this a wholly unrealistic scenario. Not guaranteed by any means, but certainly not impossible. Then, given a likely head-to-head with Teddy K, I also don't consider it wholly unrealistic that he would put up quite a fight. However, the closed Republican primary forced him to leave the party and run as an I, knowing he had no chance against the wingers given his progressive stances on health care and gay rights, and also his advocacy of a sales tax.4:34 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Just out of curiosity, how would IRV be implemented? Would we do away with spring elections altogether in favor of a single November election?
4:58 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Stella-- We're not talking about Americans, we're talking about registered voters who show up to vote (or fill out their ballot and send it in, in OR). That's quite a different group of people. Those who vote in elections are much better informed.
I never said, nor do I think anyone else did (maybe I'm wrong), anything about using IRV for anything except federal and statewide races.
As for ranking: by nature, if you are picking a #1, you are making a judgement not only about #1, but necessarily about #2 as well--since you've decided not to pick #2. In addition, I think most voters have a 3rd-party candidate they tend to favor over the "opposite" party choice they usually make. For liberals, it's usually the Greens. For conservatives, it's libertarians or the Constitution Party. For independents, they likely have the broadest knowledge at all, for they believe themselves likely to pick from EITHER party, AND from the pool of independents and small-party candidates.
You keep saying there are "serious problems," but you never explain what they are. Let's take your worst-case scenario: Bob ranks Ted as his #1 candidate, then picks in name order for the entire rest of the ballot. I simply cannot get my head around the idea that, given the name recognition for Ted's major party opponent Ron, that Bob would rank Ted #1 and Ron #2, knowing that there are other alternatives. But let's pretend he does, and then ranks the other four or five candidates in random order (since the ballot would be randomized).
Now, surely you will agree that Ted and Ron are locks to be among the top 3 finishers. Which means a voter who selected Ted will keep his vote for Ted until the final 2 rounds. If Ted is top 2, Bob's vote will never change. If he's top 3, it will potentially only change once--to his #2 candidate, Ron. So worst case scenario, either Ted wins (hooray!), Ron wins (oh well), or someone else wins and Ted came in 2nd (darn!), or Ted came in 3rd--in which case Bob was able to have his vote for Ron still count for something--either as the winner (yay!) or the 2nd candidate (darn!).
In the worst case scenario, therefore, Bob was afforded the opportunity to express his preference for Ted, and THEN Ron--all while having no idea about any more than 2 candidates. How is this bad?
Your belief that failure to know every candidate intimately will distort the process, seems to fall flat. Pretty much the only time fringe candidate votes come into play is when voters DO have the electoral knowledge to select one (or more) of those fringe candidates as their favorites. For nearly everyone else, the system works almost EXACTLY the same. The exception would be in a race with a viable 3rd party candidate--which, by definition, suggests a high level of interest and knowledge about that candidate. And that's when you get the value of being able to more accurately pinpoint voter preferences: I want Ben to win, but if not him I'd rather have Ted than Ron. (Or I want Ben, but I'll take Ron over Ted otherwise). For those who stick to the best known candidates, nothing changes. But for those who DO perform their civic duty on a higher plane, the system can work for them as well.
What I'm trying to say regarding Ben's popularity is that at least 10% of the voting population has enough idea about Ben to vote for him. The total who have enough idea abotu him to vote for OR against him, is surely higher. And therefore, in my opinion, there is a group much larger than the "most educated elites."
You continue to claim that candidate recognition and placement are a problem for IRV, while ignoring the fact that they need not be. Recognition is an issue no matter what system you use, and placement on the ballot can be randomized, so all those "dumb" people filling out the rest of the ballot in order cancel each other out.
5:02 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Nate, I don't believe -- and wasn't implying -- that supporting both Westlund and Kiesling's "open" primary system is hypocritical. I just don't think those who support both are taking into consideration that Westlund's candidacy would almost certainly not be viable under the proposed system.
Staffers I've spoken with on Ben's campaign -- but not speaking officially for the campaign in any way -- understand that the front-loaded fundraising schedule of Kiesling's system would likely kill their guy's candidacy. The reality of political campaigns is that money and name ID do matter* and that the money raised by Weslund in the primary (something like $550K I think) would have make it extremely difficult for him to overcome the structural advantages of the major party candidates.
*not the only reason, but still a determinative factor.
5:08 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Blair: how do you feel about gerrymandered legislative races getting decided in May, for instance in my district (46) or any number of other "safe" districts? Sure, there'll be a token election in the fall, and the Republican candidate will get a few votes. But the real race was in the spring, when 35% of registered voters turned out. One Ballot may not be perfect, but by your standards, it's better than the current system (at least for most legislative races.)
LT and Stella: The kind of political calculation you're engaging in is beside the point. Political parties (large and small) can and will adjust to any conditions. Stella, where do you get the idea that there's "only one" approach to avoiding messy primaries? In an effective party, fringe candidates could withdraw from the race and endorse an opponent. Parties that don't have effective leadership might fail to take this road, but they would pay the consequences.
I'm just as supportive of my party as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I let my partisan leanings guide every decision. I don't really care what parties think of this one; I want a system in which I, and my neighbors of any political leaning, can weigh in on every race. For me, that trumps every other argument I've heard.
5:17 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Charlie:
(2) The shortsightedness comes in when the parties place their own political existence above the kind of policy they advocate. This quickly becomes a separate debate, so I'll leave it at that.
(3) Nate drew attention to the word "inconsistency." It's not inconsistent to have a long-term vision and a short-term goal that aren't strategically aligned.
5:31 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Fundamental changes to our electoral system produce winners and losers. Under Kiesling's plan, major parties are the winners, minor parties are the losers. I'm personally most concerned about two consequences of this change: (1) an increase in the cost and importance of campaign finance and (2) the likihood of undemocratic outcomes (see Betsy's comments). I'm sympathetic to the questions the sponsors asked when writing this initiative, but remain unconvinced of the answers at which they arrived.
6:16 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Betsy: if there is "no other choice" but to close the primary, then why hasn't that happened in Louisiana? See here for a rundown of a recent (but pre-Katrina) LA election.
I'd still contend that having parties close their parties is not a bad thing (especially compared to having us fund their closed primaries.) But it's certainly not an inevitable thing.
Charlie: I respect your points. I consider them both minor points in this context. Campaign finance is of vital importance, and requires separate legislation to be fixed. I don't see how this bill has a huge impact on it...an impact, yes, but I don't see where it becomes huge. (Is it primarily the need to run longer campaigns?) And the power of parties...show me a scenario where minor parties start to gain a foothold of ANY kind, and I might start to care. To me, disenfranchising 40% of the voting population in a given district (who are R's or D's) is a way bigger deal than disenfranchising 2% Greens or Libertarians.
6:19 p.m.
Jun 22, '06
Just to clarify: I would be very happy to see our system move toward multiple parties. But the deck is currently heavily stacked against that possibility. More attainable goals are far more important to me.
12:49 a.m.
Jun 23, '06
Pete--
It wasn't a matter of gerrymandering. No matter how the districts are drawn in much of Portland, you're going to have a huge majority of Democratic voters (we're talking about 10,000+ voter advantages). That means it's highly likely a Dem is going to win the seat. There's no way around that when you have that many Democrats living in a small area (Mult Co is the biggest county in terms of people and the smallest in terms of land mass).
With the higher concentrations of R's living in areas like east county, you're not goint to see them paired up with heavy Dem resgitration areas in SE/NE Portland-- that would be gerrymandering. You'd end up with a map that looks like my home state of Texas, with parts of districts not even touching the other (for no reason at all, other than it was the way DeLay wanted it).
Jun 23, '06
Dylan is right about this cardinal rule, but completely wrong that IRV violates it when writing: A cardinal rule of democracy is that all voters have an equal say. Yet instant-runoff voting essentially allows supporters of the least-popular candidates to REcast their vote again once it becomes apparent they are not going to win.
That's about as insightful as saying that someone who voted for Howard Dean in the presidential primaries in 2004 and then voted for John Kerry in the general election had "more votes" than someone who voted for both Kerry in the primary and the general. That's of course not true. Every voter has one and only one vote count in each round of counting.
Also, folks may be interested to know that up the coast, Pierce County, Washington (where Tacoma is) will vote in November on exactly the form of IRV Blair suggests -- folding the primary into the general and using IRV in one spoiler-free, majority election. Track the latest at www.fairvote.org/irv
Jun 23, '06
Sorrhy to goof on italics above. They were supposed to stop at the end of the first paragraph. The text starting "that's abouat as insightful" is mine...
9:50 a.m.
Jun 23, '06
Remember, when the rules change, the strategies change.
The reality of political campaigns is that money and name ID do matter* and that the money raised by Weslund in the primary (something like $550K I think) would have make it extremely difficult for him to overcome the structural advantages of the major party candidates.
Yeah, but under a May one ballot primary, Westlund wouldn't have waited until March to announce his campaign - and presumably would also have started fundraising earlier.
To many of its supporters, One Ballot is about weakening the hold that the two parties have on the the qualifying round for the fall election. To me (and I'm also a supporter) it's about strengthening parties (the two major AND all the minor ones).
I find it fascinating that so many folks are suddenly hating One Ballot because it strengthens the two parties - when all we've heard for months is that it will hurt the two parties.
I don't actually know which way it will go - and neither can any of you.... laws of unintended consequences and all that... BUT here's what we DO know: the one ballot system would open up the qualifying round of the election to all voters and all candidates. By definition, that's more democratic. And that makes it good.
I'm almost totally uninterested in trying to imagine potential outcomes and then using that fantasy to decide whether I'm for or against the proposal. Rather, I'd suggest evaluating it on its face -- are the proposed rules more democratic, or less? I believe they are MORE democratic.
[Disclosure: I built the website for the One Ballot campaign, but I don't speak for the campaign, its sponsors, or anyone else but myself.]
10:57 a.m.
Jun 23, '06
K, I can't believe we're more interesting than the Italian countryside!
The history of Oregon's ballot measure system is littered with initially appealling initiatives with unintended consequences, so thinking through Kiesling's initiative is totally appropriate. And applying what the new system would look like to specific races is a pretty good way to tell if the system makes sense for Oregon.
But on its face, a system in which general election voters could face two nominees from the same party (again, see Becky's comments) is LESS democratic and unrepresentative of true voter preference. I think it's downright goofy.
You're right that the One Ballot system would lead to longer campaigns. But in the Westlund example I doubt the outcome would be any different from what I wrote-- presumably the major party candidates would start earlier too, right?
Part of my hesitation about this proposal is the feedback I've gotten from fellow managers who've run races under this system. Crowded field, highest spending candidate almost always wins, targetting's a nightmare.
Of course strategies change. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the strategic disadvantages before enacting this thing.
11:56 a.m.
Jun 23, '06
Charlie: But on its face, a system in which general election voters could face two nominees from the same party (again, see Becky's comments) is LESS democratic and unrepresentative of true voter preference.
I disagree. In my district (#42), there is absolutely nothing democratic about a primary system where nearly half of the voters (I'm guessing the dist. is 40-60% D, but don't have the time to look it up) have absolutely no say in who their representative will be. Whoever wins the Dem primary will be the next rep, end of story, and none of the Rs of Is can have a thing to say about it. 42 will always be represented by a D, but One Ballot (and even more-so IRV) would give Is and Rs a chance to express their preference for which D will represent them. The same (reversed) is true in many districts of Eastern Oregon.
Charlie (again): You're right that the One Ballot system would lead to longer campaigns. But in the Westlund example I doubt the outcome would be any different from what I wrote-- presumably the major party candidates would start earlier too, right?
I guess I'm missing why the campaign season would be inherently longer (except that each time it's longer than the time before). Also, I think you're missing my point that under One Ballot, Westlund wouldn't have to run as an Independent. He could, and almost certainly would, have run as a Republican. Under the current system, he would get his ass handed to him in the Republican primary for not being sufficiently wingnutty, but under One Ballot he would have a chance to finish in the top two as a "moderate" Republican.
12:13 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
K, I can't believe we're more interesting than the Italian countryside!
No more countryside for me.... it's the last night. I'm finally in an urban hotel with decent net access - and catching the plane in the morning.
12:18 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
Getting back to the IRV conversation... I think it's fascinating that with 136 votes cast so far in my little demonstration, the multiple rounds of collapsing vote totals doesn't change the order AT ALL.
The order of finish based on the very first vote is the exact order by which candidates drop off.
So, IRV-supporters: is this just an artifact of this particular vote (and the biased group of people here at BlueOregon voting) or is it fairly common in IRV balloting?
(And does that matter? After all, I'd expect most - but not all - IRV votes to lead to the same result as a regular plurality vote.... it's the ones where it won't that are the most interesting/important.)
Jun 23, '06
Just to try it out, I voted for Ben followed by Ted followed by a couple others.
Then after confirming my vote, there was a screen that said something like after all rounds my vote would go to Ted.
IRV advocates, this is what I don't understand. If I really wanted to vote for Ben (am undecided) would I have to cast all my votes for Ben so that I didn't end up with my vote being cast for someone else? Is it possible to vote first, second, third for one person?
You think people were angry at the Butterfly Ballot in Florida (one man said "I am a rocket scientist and my vote ended up going to the wrong person because of the ballot design") ---don't you think people might be angry if the mechanics of the election process ended up with them voting for someone else other than they intended?
That is an aspect of IRV no one seems to discuss--do they assume everyone approaches an election with a first and second choice?
12:47 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
I agree with what Kari and Nate say above. The big issue here is that there are lots of people who have no say whatsoever in chosing their legislators, because their legislators are chosen in the primary.
I don't object to looking at hypotheticals about real races. It's unstated assumptions that muddy the debate (whether Westlund runs as I or R, or starts his campaign as late as he did; whether major parties would run their own closed primaries.) If you're going to make assumptions in a hypothetical case, make the effort to make them clear; if you don't, your examples aren't worthy of much attention.
Jenni: I was wrong to bring the G-word in. My point is not about the intent of how the districts were drawn up, but about the fact (regardless of cause) that many districts are heavily D or R, and the awful effect that has when combined with closed primaries.
Charlie and Blair: You have both avoided addressing the unfairness of many voters having no say in a race that is decided in the primary. Is it bacause you disagree that it's unfair? Do you think there's a better solution than One Ballot or IRV?
I know this debate is going on pretty long, but I think your perspective(s) on that point would be very interesting to anyone following it.
12:58 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
LT- that's an excellent question, and I think I can answer it.
The thing that doesn't get pointed out about IRV is that every vote is a vote of support. Even the high numbers. If there's a candidate you don't like, you should not enter ANY number beside their name. A vote for a certain candidate - even a high number - can only help him/her, not hurt.
For instance, if I am generally left-leaning, a good ballot to cast might be this:
For you, LT - I believe you are somebody who puts such importance on finding the correct candidate, that once you decide, you really don't want to support anybody else. If your guy doesn't come in first, you probably don't have a stake in who wins. (It's a quality I admire, by the way, though I don't entirely share it.) So I would think your ballot should just have the #1 candidate on it, and you should leave the rest blank.
The only problem I see with IRV is that it's NOT quite as simple as 123...most people won't get the point I'm making here. But, I'd say that having more influence most of the time is better than the weird scenarios where people's votes would not reflect their true beliefs.
Jun 23, '06
Thanks, Pete.
You voted for 4 of my candidates in your comment. I voted for candidates I know ( Ben, Ted, Jim, Joe).
My point was that if I had really decided on one candidate (haven't yet), voted IRV, and then had the screen come up saying my vote had counted for a candidate I'd listed in 2nd or 3rd place, I don't see how that is a selling point for IRV."That's just the way the system works" may not convince people that is the best system!
"Your vote may end up being cast for your second or third choice, rather than your first choice" is something not much talked about, and something I think IRV advocates should be more open about.
Lots of people I know are skeptical of anyone who says "We have this great idea, therefore it will work". If advocates are truly trying to sell the idea to the general public (not just debate it on blogs) they should come up with a good answer---would campaigns under IRV have to include instructions "if you only want our candidate, don't mark a 2nd and 3rd choice" the way write in campaigns must include instructions on how to write in a candidate ? (Ballots where a ballot line is marked AND someone's name is written in are counted as double voting and that is not allowed in the current system.)
One question is whether any system would capture partisan but leaning independent voters better than the current one. A lady we knew was an old line Republican (more G. Ford than Reagan or this new right wing variety to the right of Reagan) who decided in 1990 and 1992 that our incumbent Senators had been in DC too long. My guess is that there are more like her than some can imagine. She voted for Lonsdale in 1990 for a change, and wrote him in on the 1992 ballot. Seems to me advocates of changing the way we vote should take such possibilities into account instead of assuming they "know" how people react to voting without asking them.
2:07 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
"Your vote may end up being cast for your second or third choice, rather than your first choice"
That's actually not correct - and the phrase on the IRV site (which I didn't build, btw, contrary to a suggestion up above) - is a disservice.
It's a RUNOFF election. LT, your vote counted for Ben when there were ten candidates. It counted for Ben again when there were nine. And eight. And seven. And so on. Your vote for Ben (and many others) keeps him in play through round after round of run-off voting. In this particular example, Ben made the round of three -- and then fell off. In the final run-off, your choice was Ted or Pete. You didn't have a choice of Ben -- pick Ted or Pete. You picked Ted.
It's simply not accurate to say you picked Ben as your #1, but your vote ended up counting for Ted. Rather, you voted nine times in a row for Ben - and then voted for Ted over Pete.
Does that help? Does it make sense?
2:11 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
campaigns under IRV have to include instructions "if you only want our candidate, don't mark a 2nd and 3rd choice"
And, btw, that is only true if you believe that all the other candidates are equally bad. In other words, if Ben is your choice - but you believe that Ted and Mary are equally bad, then you should vote for Ben and no others.
But recognize then that your vote doesn't carry to Ben in the final run-off between Ted & Pete. Instead, you abstain in that vote - you undervote.
If you believe that Ted is better than Mary (even if Ben is better than both), then you should rank Ted higher than Mary. That choice won't matter if Ben makes the final round, but it will matter if Ted and Mary do. (And why would you want to abstain then?)
2:18 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
LT- I think it's a little premature to be trying to "sell" anybody on IRV, since there is no legislation for it in the works. You're smart enough and engaged enough to follow Kari's explanation above - for now, I'd think that's good enough. These "lots of people" you bring up are pretty much irrelevant until there's a ballot measure for them to vote on...at which point yes, simplifying the message (at the expense of accuracy) will become necessary. But the "substance" of the debate is essential, and any simplification of the message should refer back to it. I think a format like Blue Oregon is better suited to exploring the substance of a system, than to developing marketing slogans. (Could be wrong about that.)
2:24 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
Kari said:
If you believe that Ted is better than Mary (even if Ben is better than both), then you should rank Ted higher than Mary. That choice won't matter if Ben makes the final round, but it will matter if Ted and Mary do. (And why would you want to abstain then?)
Here's why:
I might say, "in the unlikely event that Ted and Mary make the final round, I am confident that Ted would win. I suppose I'd rather have Ted than Mary, since I think she's just awful. But I'm really upset with the direction Ted has taken the state, and do not feel right supporting him in any way. Therefore, I'm not putting a number on either." So I fill out numbers for all the other candidates, but leave those two blank.
In the final analysis, Ted might beat Mary by 68.86% instead of 68.87%. One might say that's my voice being heard.
2:32 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
Here's another example of IRV as applied to a 2008 Dem straw poll run by the good folks over at MyDD. This one has some helpful little graphics to show you how the votes were cast and how they were redistributed to the remaining candidates. This may help demonstrate how it all ends up shaking out. IRV is especially interesting for straw polls because it allows for further analysis like this and this (for the real poll junkies out there).
Jun 23, '06
Evan Manvel: But our current system is pretty bad when it comes to reflecting voters' true desires
As I pointed out in an earlier topic, one of the main reasons for that is the "Bag Man" system we have. Many incumbents receive many, many votes solely because of their ability and reputation for "bringing home the bacon", even of many of those voters oppose these incumbents on more than half of the issues. What we don't get from that is the reflection of voter's true desires", as you've pointed out. Unless the desire is to send senators and representatives just to bring back pork. But just think, if the US Government had far less money to play with, we might actually see our elected legislators be judged on what they stand for rather than "Bag Man" skills.
Evan Manvel: Democracy is a messy sport.
Yes it is, but the results of democracy are also messy, tho' we have few willing to live with that (and I refer to the "mess" of seeing people do what many don't want them to do just because they don't like the idea--such as building a house on five acres out in the boondocks). Try tolerance.
Stella: that's the problem with IRV -- it presumes the average voter is much more sophisticated than she actually is.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that this would remain so. Voters might, just might, actually spend a little time trying to find out about all of the choices. That could last as long as would take someone to look through the relevant portions of the Voters Pamphlet and/or other free voters guides found in libraries, etc. As it stands now, because far more than half of the voters know who they're going to voter for (a Democrat, Republican, Know-Nothing, etc.) and therefore have little incentive to look into the other choices.
But I do agree that the average voter is not as sophisticated as we would like, although I have no desire to treat them accordingly.
Peter Forsyth: For those who agree that IRV is a better system, what do you think of the Open Primary (One Ballot) initiative?
I don't like the idea of the Open Primary. But that's not a general election vote anyway.
Peter Forsyth: To me, the important aspect of both systems is that they increase the ability of all citizens to have their voices heard.
This is the most important aspect of IRV (not Open Primary), and potentially the main selling point if people take a few minutes to try to understand it.
If voters know that their votes will be counted over and over again (or passed on) instead of being dumped as a losing vote in the one and only round, they will be more likely to see that they are casting votes that will count -- because they will count. Not only that, but voters will actually be more likely to vote their actual preferences first, and who knows, that might actually lead to surprises such as a third party candidate winning in the first round, or even later (recall that the current Lord Mayor of London was elected by IRV, and won after several rounds in which he received second and third choice votes from many people to give him the win).
What matters here is a candidate's negative ratings.
Some candidates can get percentages into the high 30s or low 40s in the first round, but have such negatives that they peak right there while other candidates scoring, say, mid-teens at first, could be quite acceptable in general and receive many second, third, and fourth choice votes to put him over the top. And that's important--that the winners in the end will have a majority to point to, handed to him by voters willing to accept him over others even if he would not be the majority's top choice in a winner-take-all election.
One of things I really didn't like about the IRV initiative that was circulated a few years back was that it allowed only three rounds, with candidates receiving less than 10% or so of the vote being eliminated each time rather than just the candidate coming in last each time. That would cheat us of a candidate who might get about 9% in round one, but be the second choice for a majority of voters.
biased name: while i would support an irv system based only on the fact that it could be a step in the right direction (which would be proportional representation)
Oh. no no no. Proportional representation is not the way to go. I prefer electing people based on districts, as individual candidates.
Bob Tiernan
10:18 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
Bob T. said:
This is the most important aspect of IRV (not Open Primary), and potentially the main selling point if people take a few minutes to try to understand it.
Not sure what you're taking issue with here. One possibility is that you share the common misunderstanding (brought on by an unfortunate name choice) that the "Open Primary" is an...open primary.
It is in fact a "blanket" or "jungle" primary, meaning that every primary voter has an opportunity to vote for every candidate. They don't have to choose a certain party's ballot.
If you already know that but have a different point to make, I'd be interested to hear it spelled out.
10:18 p.m.
Jun 23, '06
Stella claims: Have you ever read a survey of voter knowledge. Most Americans can't even name the vice president! Even in a presidential election, polling data show that voters know almost nothing about the top-two candidates.
This is wrong. Go to sda.berkeley.edu (click on SDA Archive) to test this claim. In 2004, 75.7% of respondents correctly identified Dick Cheney as the Vice President. Over 98% of respondents recognized Kerry and Bush, and the vast majority placed Kerry more to the left and Bush more to right on a wide variety of issue.
LT claims at multiple points that we should ask voters whether they understand IRV (or voting systems generally) or how they would respond.
There have been many empirical studies of IRV, as well as real world uses. The system does not seem to pose any major hurdles for the voter. But to the claim that voters must understand all the details of a system, I ask: have you ever probed the technical details of PR systems in Europe? Almost no one outside of the election geeks can explain the math, but elections work just fine.
Jun 24, '06
Have NW Republican or Oregon Catalyst or other conservative blogs been alerted to this. I would be really curious to see how the results shook out with a broader sample.
james
Jun 24, '06
Pete Forsyth: Not sure what you're taking issue with here. One possibility is that you share the common misunderstanding (brought on by an unfortunate name choice) that the "Open Primary" is an...open primary.
It is in fact a "blanket" or "jungle" primary, meaning that every primary voter has an opportunity to vote for every candidate. They don't have to choose a certain party's ballot.
I wasn't aware of that, and I like it even less now. It means that all parties, including Greens and Libertarians, will have their candidates chosen by all voters wiching to participate. This will deny party members their rights to choose candidates representing the party platforms. Would you like, for example, to see a Pacific Party candidate chosen by a plurality or majority of the state's voters? It could very well be a sell out candidate wishing to change the Pacific Party platform to make it more acceptable to the masses. Then the greens will be back where they started -- creating a party based on the principles it currently holds. Same with the Libertarians. We could see a "mainstream" flunky get nominated because of promises to water down the platform. No thanks.
So I guess my point an still stand, i.e. that using IRV in the general election in November (or for local elections if held at another time of the year) creates more participation in the actual election of candidates to hold office. And that list of candidates will be have more variety to it.
Bob Tiernan
11:22 a.m.
Jun 26, '06
Bob, I think I get it. To you, the big difference is the number of people who actually vote in November vs. May, yes? IRV reducing the number of elections we have would be the big benefit? If so, I can't disagree. But I still think One Ballot is a strong step in that direction. It makes all elections single-round "runoff" elections, and adding the "instant" part (along with the multiple rounds) could come with later legislation. In the meantime, the primaries become more meaningful for Independents and people out of step with the majority of their neighbors. That is certain to increase the practical turnout in what are now partisan races. By a huge margin. (Those currently casting non-partisan ballots would be voting in more races.) I believe it would also increase turnout in primaries, but that part is less certain.
Something I'd like to see clarified: are those supporting IRV suggesting that it replace primaries? The way Kari drew up this race (including multiple candidates from the major parties) suggests the answer is "yes." That's what I've been assuming in my comparisons with One Ballot.
However, it's also possible to have primary elections, and then have IRV in the general, among the primary winners and those who qualify otherwise - for example, Kulongoski, Saxton, Keating, Starett, Westlund(?), Morley. (Or Bush, Kerry, Nader, Buchanan, ...) Is anybody promoting that approach?
Jul 3, '06
Here's an interesting development that ties in pretty directly with the discussion of IRV. (Can't believe there's no post for this here already!)
So much for the party primaries, eh? If you don't like the results, ignore them anyway...