How can we change the voting system in America?

[Zarxrax]

The voting system we have now is horribly broken, and I think pretty much everyone would agree. Our current voting system is the #1 reason why is it difficult to get good people like Ron Paul elected. We definitely need a new system, and Instant-runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) is often mentioned as a solution. It sounds like a good solution to me as well.

How do we change it though? Is this something done at the state level, or is it something voted on by congress? However it's done, I think that it is vitally important that we get Instant-runoff voting, or some similar style implemented across the country.

I think we could get every single Ron Paul supporter behind this, as well as supporters for most 3rd party candidates, and many, many others. If put up to legitimate vote, I would imagine a sweeping majority of Americans would support this. How can they stop us then?

Right now, the number 1 thing to focus on is getting Ron Paul elected in the primaries. But at the same time, or maybe after we achieve success there, I really think we need to try and organize and put a lot of effort into changing the voting system used in the US. So far, I've heard a lot of talk from people over the years, but I've never really seen anyone DOING anything about it. Let's change that.

[Mahkato]

It's mighty hard to vote a good system into place with a bad system, isn't it?

[Zarxrax]

Yep, and that's why I think we need to spearhead this using the power of the Ron Paul revolution. There may never be another opportunity like this.

[Richie]

I believe the voting system is handled on a state-to-state basis. I'll tell you what we need - hand counted paper ballots, by normal citizens in the open.

[mmarcman22]

It's easier to have a coup, I didn't say that out loud did I

[Goldwater Conservative]

I'm partial to approval voting myself. I think we'd be surprised at just how "viable" a non-establishment candidate could be if we weren't scared into voting for the lesser of evils.

I liked IRV when I first read about it, but I've also read that it has some counterintuitive effects. Still, I'm so sick of plurality voting and I'd be surprised if IRV was any worse.

[MsDoodahs]

If voting worked, it would be illegal.

[LibertiORDeth]

It's easier to have a coup, I didn't say that out loud did I

Lol yes you did. More bloody, however.

[Zarxrax]

I'm partial to approval voting myself. I think we'd be surprised at just how "viable" a non-establishment candidate could be if we weren't scared into voting for the lesser of evils.

I liked IRV when I first read about it, but I've also read that it has some counterintuitive effects. Still, I'm so sick of plurality voting and I'd be surprised if IRV was any worse.

I'm not really sure if I like the idea of approval voting, as it would seem that the winner would often tend to be the most moderate candidate, who is able to win approval from all sides. As a voter, I also wouldn't really feel like I had all that much of a say in who really wins, since it doesn't let you rank your preferences. I think its a definite step up from plurality voting though.

I haven't heard any bad things about IRV voting. I'd be curious to know what the cons of it are. I'm unable to think of any.

[Man from La Mancha]

I have this movie and it was made by Hallmark about a true story of WW2 vets demanding a fair vote count and the took the town to do it

[QUOTE]The Battle of Athens, Tennessee

As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort Against Corrupt Government Officials.

Published in Guns & Ammo October 1995, pp. 50-51

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution -- Article 1, Section 26 -- recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had: accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff's department from fines - usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

The wealthy Cantrell family of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it provedhttp://www.votefraud.org/News/2000/3/033100.html

[user]

IRV does have some flaws. I think SSD is probably better. Changing the voting system is important, but to have even a reasonable chance at succeeding, we should focus on returning more power to the states first, and then working at the local level. SF already uses IRV, for example.

[Zarxrax]

IRV does have some flaws. I think SSD is probably better. Changing the voting system is important, but to have even a reasonable chance at succeeding, we should focus on returning more power to the states first, and then working at the local level. SF already uses IRV, for example.

I'm assuming this is the SSD method you are referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method

It certainly seems very interesting, though the explanation of it is very technical and confusing. In what ways is it superior to IRV? Also, can this method allow for ballots to be counted by hand? Electronic voting systems are definitely something to be concerned about, and I would oppose this method of voting if it required moving to an electronic system.

[user]

I'm assuming this is the SSD method you are referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method

It certainly seems very interesting, though the explanation of it is very technical and confusing. In what ways is it superior to IRV? Also, can this method allow for ballots to be counted by hand? Electronic voting systems are definitely something to be concerned about, and I would oppose this method of voting if it required moving to an electronic system.
Yes, one of IRV's biggest flaws is that voting for someone can make that person lose. SSD doesn't have that flaw and I believe it also takes more of the voters' preferences into account than IRV does. Both IRV and SSD use the same kind of ballot, where voters rank the candidates, so they both allow for ballots to be counted by hand or read by an optical scan machine instead of full electronic voting.