Has anybody heard of Instant Runoff Voting?

[Noble]

I don't mean to dilute the issues at hand here, and I don't know if Ron Paul even has a position on IRV... but I think its an important issue for the nation.

In a nutshell, you don't cast one vote, you rank candidates in order of preference.
This eliminates the "Throwing your vote away" argument.
It also eliminates the "He can't win" argument. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
This is very similar to how they do it in Australia.

We talk about how we need election reform, the two party system, how fucked up the primaries are, we talk about everything except how many problems IRV would solve simply and easily. This is a REAL, EASY solution if we can generate public support.

Step by step, here's how it works...

You rank your candidates in order of preference and cast your ballot.
*IF* your candidate doesn't capture a majority of the vote, your vote automatically moves to your second choice.

This means we could all vote for Ron Paul, and if he doesn't get enough votes to win, it moves to our second choice and nobody's vote would be wasted.

It would shake up the administration because suddenly a third party candidate could win honestly and legitimately.

I think we need to raise awareness of this amazing method of voting which does not have nearly enough exposure or support.

I encourage you in this forum to debate why it would or would not be a good choice, cause I want to make this a popular idea and get it voted on.


Edit: Does anyone know how this differs from the constitutionally defined method of voting?

[Redcard]

The presidential election, through the use of the Electoral College, does not have runoffs.

[honkywill]

I support it.

I'd actually drafted the idea in my head when I was younger only to later find out that it does exist.

[FreeTraveler]

I support it.

I'd actually drafted the idea in my head when I was younger only to later find out that it does exist.

It's great... except if you think trying to elect Ron Paul to the White House is a tough battle, wait till you tie into this one!

[Noble]

Why couldn't the electoral college be made to work with IRV?

Just use IRV on a state level used to decide the electoral college's votes.

[jdmetz]

Actually, Instant Runoff Voting has some really bizarre consequences. Look at this site about simulated elections using voting methods: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ The graphs show a certain number of candidates and plots them on a 2-d graph, then simulates elections with the average opinion at each point on the graph, and colors the result base on who won.

Based on this, I think the easiest to implement fair system would be approval voting (you can vote for as many candidates as you approve of, and the winner is the one with the most votes).

[Joe3113]

It's great... except if you think trying to elect Ron Paul to the White House is a tough battle, wait till you tie into this one!

We have IRV in Australia at all levels. If there was IRV in the US, Ron Paul would have won the nomination by now.

It completely removes the "He can't win" / "Wasted Vote" mentality propagated by the MSM.

[honkywill]

<3 aussies

[Noble]

OH, IRV also eliminates the "Nader split the vote" type of issue...

I have no idea how to read these colorful graphs linked to me above...

[Redcard]

Why couldn't the electoral college be made to work with IRV?

Just use IRV on a state level used to decide the electoral college's votes.

Because if the electoral vote is still split, then runoffs won't be used. That's what I was trying to say. It won't really change how things go here. Besides, IRV is useful in situations where someone might or might not get a majority. A person doesn't need a majority to get electoral votes, just a plurality.

[Noble]

Yeah, but it would still be beneficial because it eliminates these common arguments...

"He can't win, I'll be wasting my vote"

and

"You'll split the vote"

We desperately need to address these two things in our voting system. There ARE better solutions we can see in the link jdmetz posted.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Based on this, I think the easiest to implement fair system would be approval voting (you can vote for as many candidates as you approve of, and the winner is the one with the most votes).

Agreed, but the way I phrase it to not confuse people is that you can give a thumbs up or thumbs down (or abstain) to each candidate, just like you can do on each ballot initiative or referendum. The candidate with the highest approval rating wins, so it'd be like:

Ron Paul - 60%
Hillary Clinton - 55%
John McCain - 50%

[Cleaner44]

This needs to be our goal in each state. If each of us can convert our states to use runoff voting then we will be able to overcome the corruption. Imagine if we could eliminate the bullshit of people voting for who they think will be the winner instead of who is the best candidate.

[Redcard]

We need the electoral college gone too. As I said before, the winner of each state GETS the EV. It doesn't require a majority, just a higher percentage. For example..

These are the candidates

A
B
C

As it is now, votes look like this

A A A A
B B B B B
C C

And B wins right?

Well, with IRV, you'd think peoples votes won't be wasted.. but, it doesn't work in situations where the winner is given based on the MOST votes and not a MAJORITY vote.

So pretend that we have the same thing as above, and the voters have all voted the C candidate as the number two position. (Except, of course, for the C Primary voters)

Here's how it looks.

AC AC AC AC
BC BC BC BC BC
CA CB

Now, that equals 36% for A, 45% for B, and 18% for C. (1% is basically rounding)

And that's it. B wins the electoral votes.

[Joe3113]

This is how we do it Downunder...

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/howpreferenceswork.htm

IRV is also known as Preference voting btw.