10

10 log in or sign up to start earning Butterfly Credits today!
learn more »
earn credits for web search

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

Groups > .Electoral Reform > Discussions > Topic: instant runoff voting
Topic: instant runoff voting

powered by Care2.com • Care2 Home • E-cards & Fun • Shopping • Healthy Living • News Network • Petitions • Click to Donate


Freediver O.	instant runoff voting May 30, 2005 4:48 PM Instant runoff (aka preferential) voting is the most important improvement to the voting process since the first tribe decided to elect the popular leader. Most of the more visible problems with modern democracies lacking this devlopment would resolve themselves after a few election cycles if instant runoff elections were used. Traditional runoff voting has two elections. In the first election people vote for who they really want to represent them. In the second election only the two most favoured candidates from the first election compete. Instant runoff voting is a similar concept, but works much better. It gives the minor parties the power they deserve and leads to a truly representative democracy. No two political parties can represent the will of a diverse people and you shouldn't be satisifed with that. good interactive animation of how IR voting works: http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/ another good link: http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ Howard Dean explained his position on IRV in his book, "You Have the Power." summary group: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=1952&pst=14526&archival=1 [ send green star]
Durham W.	British Columbia, Canada May 30, 2005 5:29 PM put the question to the electorate in this year's provincial elections. A majority voted for the single transferable vote system but 60% majority was required and only 57.39% was received. However, it won a majority of 50% + in 77 of the 79 ridings. It is very likely that the legislature will look at this anyway since it was so close. http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/ge2005/refresults.htm BTW, the election results were available within about 99% accuracy within 2 hours of the polls closing. We still use the old mark an X on a piece of paper and throw it into a box. The box is opened, two officals count it while scrutineers from the candidates look on and examine anything they wish. I really do not understand why the country to the south of us has so much problems with the technicalities of their voting system. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Deb H.	Which One? May 30, 2005 7:18 PM There are quite a few countries to the south of Canada that have issues with their elcetions. If we single individual countries out for ridicule, how are we going to have a meaningful international discourse on best practices in democratic electoral processes? I don't believe there is a system of government on the planet that couldn't benefit from a little spring cleaning. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Durham W.	Sorry May 31, 2005 12:47 AM I needed to include the word "immediate" in there or "bordering".... of course, part of the USA borders our northwest as well .... I made a statement of fact I thought. It was not ridicule. It is a factual matter that there are many problems with voting appliances or machines in several of the states of the USA. There are no hanging chads in Canada. There are no machines which can render a cast vote as spoiled because it has mechanically altered the paper due to poor design. There might be two X's where there should only be one, so that is a spoiled ballot and is readily visible. There might be an X between two circles, which may mean that one will need to determine whether it is closer to one or the other. The decision is made on the spot with a scrutineer from each candidate viewing the process of the decision making. The same as in the USA, should an election be close, there will be an automatic recount or a candidate has the right to request a recount. Our electoral district has about 16,000 voters casting a ballot with 5 candidates running and the vote was reported in less than two hours. All that refers to is the logistics or techniques of actually casting a vote. That part of the system does not even appear as a blip on our screen in this country. The key point of this discussion is intended to be the method of selection of the representatives. My apologies for digressing a bit. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	May 31, 2005 1:21 AM I am also baffled as to why the US can't seem to get it's elections sorted out. It gets a lot of attention here on care2. I'd assume it has something to do with the strong two party system, which leaves out a lot of the checks and balances that other parties provide and tends to divide the two major parties. [ send green star]
Ursula M.	Tuesday, May 31, 2005 May 31, 2005 9:44 AM I'm not at all amazed that we have so many problems. There is always something rotten in how our election process is run. Witness the 2000 election in the state of Florida. Both sides are capable of cheating. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Jon T.	May 31, 2005 11:45 AM I assume that instant runoff voting is a system of proportional representation and is a voting system such as alternative vote or the generally superior single transferable vote system. I look at the fair vote web site but they seem to have forgotten to actually put a description on their web site! In the UK we have one of the few supposedly democratic systems to rival the US one in it's unfairness to anyone outside bipartisan politics. The absurdity of our system was shown in our most recent Pariliamentary elections due to the emergence of my party the Liberal Democrats as a major third force in British Politics (actually in Scotland and Wales we also have significant Nationalist parties as well). Anyway the Labour party was returned with a majority in Parliament despite only getting just over 35% of the vote. This was due to the way each seat elects its own MP on the first past the post system. % of the vote: Labour 35.2%, Conservative 32.3%, Lib Dem 22%, other 10.5% (Nationalist, Green, Independants, N Ireland parties etc.) Number of MPs Labour 356 (55.2%), Conservative 197 (30.5%), Lib Dem 62 (9.6%), Other 30 (4.7%) Democracy at work? Hardly... And this doesn't even start to cover the fact that the Greens poll at least 1-3% wherever they stand (over 10% in one place and don't get any MPs (I reckon under PR their vote would also go up as more people would see that they would be worth voting for). [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	May 31, 2005 3:54 PM Ursula I suspect GWB may have lost Florida in 2000 if they had had instant runoff elections, because people who voted for Nader would have directed their preferences to Clinton (hope I got the right opposition candidate). Jon I'm going to do a glossary of terms as people seem to use different terms in different countries. The Chris Gates website linked above gives a good introduction. I think the Greens get about 10% for the lower house seats here. For the Senate, they get a Senator in in a few states and come very close in the others, which means 1/7th of the vote after preferences have been delivered. [ send green star]
Freediver O.	May 31, 2005 4:23 PM There is a potential flaw in instant runoff voting, although I can't imagine people ever voting this way. Suppose an election gives the following distribution of first preferences: A: 40% B: 35% C: 25% Candidate C's votes would get distributed to the other two candidates in the runoff and either A or B would win. But if everyone who voted for candidates A and B put C as their second preference, then candidate C would win in a runoff election with either candidate A or B. Candidate C should be the winner. I doubt this would ever happen because you tend to get two major parties just either side of the middle of the political spectrum, with the minor parties taking more extreme positions or single issue positions. [ send green star]
Margaret O.	Thank you for the invite. June 01, 2005 11:21 AM freediver, thank you for the invite. Obviously we have a problem with the election process when the majority vote against someone and they still get elected. I think that just like when you pass thu a toll booth you receive a receipt so should the election booth give you a receipt, doesnt have to have you name on it but would print out who was your choice and a number. In the case of fraud I mean question you could simply come back and feed your slip back in to be recounted, everyone would be urged to keep the slips till at least a month after the election. two parties also simply does not cut it, I really see very little difference between the existing two except that the present one is extremely bad that it makes it appear to be a difference now. I would like to see a election where several people could be on the slate and the winners would have to manage to make it work jointly. Perhaps I am a dreamer, perhaps you want me to leave this group now, well anyway I am here and that is my 2 cents worth. Believing in Peace not pieces, peace and Love Margaret [ send green star] [ accepted]
Jon T.	June 01, 2005 1:38 PM I think the system that needs to be used will depend on the election. For a presidential election then alternative vote is the most logical system as you are only electing one person. This seems to be what instant runoff voting is. Yes Freediver, you can get the situation you describe but C gets eliminated as more people chose the others as their first preference, i.e they prefered one of the others to C. Where you are electing to a multi member insititution, Senate, Congress, Parliament, then single transferable vote with multi member constituencies is more suitable as it delivers the closest to actual proportions of votes cast whilst retaining a constituency link. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Eleanor B.	Greens! June 01, 2005 5:42 PM They got what? A quarter of a million votes, I think, and not a single MP. I am not up to speed on this because I never thought I'd have the chance to talk about it. (Thank you, Ruth, for inviting me. How did you know?) Labour got 35% or so of the vote but they got about 22% of the possible votes. Less than a quarter of the people wanted them. But we're stuck with them again. They won't agree to reform. They are there forever without it. There is PR to the Scottish Assembly. But it's meaningless. And the Labour Party will dominate up here it feels like forever. But at least other parties are getting a look in. If only there was anybody with half a brain in the building, it could make a difference. But there isn't. They are an embarrassment. John MacLean must be birling in his grave. xxxx [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	June 01, 2005 5:49 PM Thanks Eleanor. Could you give us a rundown on how the UK electoral system works - like what was done in the Australia and the British Columbia thread? You can start a new thread. [ send green star]
Eleanor B.	Just done it! June 03, 2005 2:08 PM Thanks. Have done a thumbnail sketch of first past the post UK system. [ send green star] [ accepted]
	Freediver June 03, 2005 7:35 PM Thanks for the invite, stopped by to check the place out. Have to admit I'm not knowledgable on this subject, I had it explained to me once but it was a while ago. So if don't mind, could you explain to me why our two party ystem is inherently inferior to the system you describe? It seems to me that istant runoff elections also have certin disadvantages peculiar to themselves, for one the "head scratch" effect as in "how in the heck did that guy win?" If we Americans can't manage to get an election right with only two viable canidates on the ballot, how would adding more and further complicatng things help?? [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	June 05, 2005 4:07 AM Basically it's not as 'democratic,' or 'representative.' Instant runoff voting is really not as complicated after the first time you do it. You just have to rank all candidates in order of preference. People also seem to understand how people end up getting elected. It makes more sense than having a person elected when the majority of voters would have preferred another candidate. For our senate, which can have up to 100 candidates, we do make things easier by allowing people to vote for one person or party, and allowing that party to distribute the preferences. I'd hope people only do this when they vote for the major parties, but if you really believe that a minor single issue party is more important than anything else, then the power you give them in this case is justified. Anyway, back to the problems with the two party system. If there is an issue that the people really want resolved (such as electoral reform, the electoral college, bribes (aka political donations), transparency in the political process, no more cheating at elections) but neither major party wants to do it because they stand to lose more than they gain, then you are basically screwed. There are deeper problems as well. Without minor parties to represent the interests of extremists, these highly motivated people use any means they can to get what they want. They try to control public debate and try to attach their agenda to that of one of the major parties. With no threat from other parties from the same side of the political spectrum who have a more sensible platform, the major parties often end up taking on these crazy policies. What you end up with is the two major parties being pulled away from the political middle ground. As power shifts between the two, you get radical shifts in government. This leads to political instability, and the 'divided nation' syndrome. Because people can't vote for the minor parties, there is no clear mandate on specific issues, and the issues don't even get discussed if neither major party wants to discuss them. Both major parties end up being 'old boys clubs' with no real motivation to change. Our system is still a two party system, but those two parties are very close to the political middle ground and only get about 2/3 of the first preference votes between them. If they get lazy, there are other parties who can take there place in a single electoral cycle. [ send green star]
	thanks for the info June 05, 2005 4:25 AM it's very difficult for a third party to gain any momentum in this country.....we have the "if you don't vote for Bush or Kerry you're throwing your vote away" mentality. I could have voted Libertarian in this last election, for instance, but didn't...the party didn't have a chance, everyone knew that. So I think anything which leads to a more "representative" democracy, by hich i mean a greater number of voices to be heard, must be a good thing. BUT....trying to look "down the road" a bit on this issue...lets say we did have viable 3rd parties in the US. No party would have a majority in the legislature, to rule effectively one would have to form "coalitions" with other parties...much the way the House of Commons does in the UK. Would Americans go for that? i'm not sure. We're very used to one party having a clear majoriy and being able to go forward with thier agenda without having to make too many concessions to any other party....the backroom dealing inherent in a multiparty system would strike most Americans as shady, i think. We want our leaders to NOT be politicians, or at least to seem like they're not, we want "men of strong principle" and "unwavering vision", to us compromise equals weakness. at least that's how i think my country looks at things. So anything that encourages or forces cooperation, moderation, compromise, etc. would be an awful hard sell in this country, whatever advantages it might have. what do you think? [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	June 05, 2005 4:37 AM If that's what the people really want, that's what they'll get. Proportional representation will give you loose coalitions. Instant runoff voting doesn't have to. You still only get one representative per region, and over here it's only three parties that get representatives into the lower house. The two right wing parties form a permanent coalition (one is for country folk and the other for the city people) and they are pretty much seen as a single party. The media calls them 'the coaliton,' rather than using the party names. The deals do not normally happen after the election like they do in Israel. They happen before the election. The major parties agree to take on certain policies and in exchange the minor parties direct their preferences to them. The minor parties hand out 'how to vote cards' telling people what order to vote in and a lot of people follow that. If a minor party still keeps getting bigger, the major parties (or one party if it is a left/right issue) simply take on the policy platform of the minor party if it can do so without pissing off the other party supporters. In many cases they can't take on these policies so you get strong minor parties but they never really go anywhere. The real power of the system is that it forces the major parties to continually fine tune their policy in response to what the people want, and they get a very clear indication of which way public opinion is heading at each election by the wax and wane of the minor parties. With a two party system the parties really have enough power to dictate to the public what issues an election will be fought on. They try that here too, but it doesn't work nearly as well. [ send green star]
Freediver O.	June 27, 2005 10:55 PM Joachim I've read that Canada is unusal in that it uses the first past the post system, but doesn't end up with a two party system, and that this is a result of social divisions that are strong enough to overcome the tendency for strategic voting. What are those social divisions? Is it along English/French lines? [ send green star]
Eileen S.	Are there Primary Elections within the political parties? March 17, 2006 8:13 AM IRV allows for third parties to influence the platforms of the major parties. Are there primary elections within the political parties that allow them to choose their strongest candidate. What is the procedure that allows parties to chose their candidates. In the US, when it appears early on that a candidate from a particular party is winning the majority vote; some political activist call on their members to change their party in order to vote against them in that party's primary. It is often difficult to change party membership and is not very effective without large numbers of individuals "jumping ship". An individual cannot then vote for candidates within their own party. "Closed Primary's" only allow for a party's members to vote in their primary. Some people believe that "Open Primary's" would allow for all citizens to influence the platforms of the major parties. Open Primary's allow non-party members to vote for or against candidates, regardless of their party membership. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	March 17, 2006 9:08 PM Are there primary elections within the political parties that allow them to choose their strongest candidate. What is the procedure that allows parties to chose their candidates. In Australia there are. It is called 'pre-selection'. How they do it is up to the individual parties. I think it is a vote from the 'members' - ie citizens who have joined the party. This would be heavily influenced by which aspiring candidate is most likely to win votes. Our federal Labor party (the main left wing one) is in serious trouble with this at the moment. There is a lot of faction fighting within the party over who gets preselected. This has turned ugly lately and ended up in the papers. I don't think open primaries is a good idea as you would have people voting who do not have the parties interests at heart. Of course, if you had a party with no real ideology except to get elected, this could work very well. Again, it is up to the parties and I'm sure if it was a good idea then some party would have already tried it. [ send green star]
Eileen S.	Primary's March 20, 2006 6:30 AM Thanks,,,, gotta think about this. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Cathe R.	Instant runoff voting May 31, 2006 10:39 PM Instant runoff voting is what this country needs, since it seems that we are unlikely to to ever to return to popular vote, a plan that makes since to most 7 year olds. However if we do not come up with a Verifiable, accurate election system soon. I'm not convinced that even an intent runoff voting system would be an honest. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	May 31, 2006 10:45 PM By popular vote, do you mean abandoning the electoral college? That is only a small part of the problem. It's the election of all the other state and federal representatives that allows corruption in and dictates the power help by each party. That is also where the minor parties should have a real chance. [ send green star]
Cathe R.	June 01, 2006 2:18 AM You could say that, but look at it this way. If you were running for president of your high school or collage, and you won the popular vote, but due to an electoral collage, you lost, I would think you might change your tune. Can you name one other democratic system where the most votes loose the win? Provided the vote hasn't been rigged? Why should we continue with this system? The run off system is much more fair to all the American voters. There is a possibility of electing a minority president- one way for this to happen would be if the country was so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the vote and no one obtained a necessary majority There is a risk of having "faithless" Electors- Electors who won’t be loyal to their party or candidate The Electoral College may depress voter turnout- because each state is only entitled to so many electoral votes regardless of voter turnout, there is no incentive for states to encourage voter participation Does not accurately reflect the national popular will because it does not elect a candidate by a direct popular vote I am all for a third party candidate even a forth party candidate. But as it stands money talks, I'd prefer to not agree with this, but it is a fact. Until we can get a serious third party candidate with the money to back him/her our country is stuck with largely only two parties and Ralph Nader. With the election of Bernie Sanders- Independent member of the U.S. House of Representative and is running for one of Vermont's U.S. Senate's seat, currently held by Jim Jeffords. He is endorsed by both the Progressive and Democratic parties of Vermont and only nominal opposition from two relatively unknown Republican candidates, Greg Parke and Rich Tarrent. Most political analysts expect him to easily win his Senate Seat. Now if we could only get more like Bernie to run on a third party ticket we would stand a chance of having a more even democracy. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	June 03, 2006 1:06 AM Can you name one other democratic system where the most votes loose the win? That can happen under any FPTP system, and frequently does. I think you get a minorty US president because of FPTP more often than you get one because of the electoral college. The run off system is much more fair to all the American voters. These are two separate issues and shouldn't be confused. You can get rid of the electoral college, or you can switch from FPTP to IRV, or you can do both or neither. There is a possibility of electing a minority president- one way for this to happen would be if the country was so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the vote and no one obtained a necessary majority We usually refer to this as the spoiler effect. It is usually more significant than the effect of the electoral college in US presidential elections. There is a risk of having "faithless" Electors- Electors who won’t be loyal to their party or candidate I don't see why this is a problem. Politicians should not expect any loyalty. That's what keeps them honest. Until we can get a serious third party candidate with the money to back him/her our country is stuck with largely only two parties and Ralph Nader. You need to fix your system first. Otherwise, even if you do get a third party taking over, eventually it will go back to a two party system. [ send green star]
Ruth H.	I don't think I have the right kind of brain to understand this. July 09, 2006 5:21 AM In the UK, each constituency, say about 6000 households can have an election, and the parties can put up what candidates they can afford, subject to a pretty confined budget, to provide affordability. It's basic. The one that gets the most votes sends their candidate to Westminster. The boundaries are regularly altered to make sure that the government currently in power has the most favourable spread of interests to get their candidate in. (yes, I know the Boundary Commission is supposed to be objective). To get any other election system, the government in power has to pass a law permitting it. Only a borderline administration can be persuaded to do it. Any government working with a landslide majority won't look at it. Because there is no way of affecting the outcome, most people can't be persuaded to get off their backsides to vote. Then there are the clever dicks who say to their partners, "if you don't vote the same as me both our votes are wasted", or "If you don't vote for the one with the majority, the other lot will get in." Both of these are lies, but the logic is deceptive. A vote for the Greens is another vote for the Greens. Actually, if I thought our local Green candidate would get in, I wouldn't vote for him unless he stops slagging off the opposition and starts talking sensible Green politics. Even when they get in, the established Civil Service can stop them doing what they want to do. Either them or the rich b*******s with their hands in international pockets. I just think that getting people motivated on issues and persuading everyone eligible to vote is a better way of getting the desired result. In our constituency, we have had women MPs since 1922. I have nothing against men, but I tend to the view that men need not apply, however good their credentials. The sitting member of whichever persuasion has always been very good. Even when elevated to the cabinet, they don't stay long because they are too independent and won't agree to have their arms twisted for personal gain. Whatever way you use to elect people to government, you end up with the government you deserve. Especially if you don't vote. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	July 09, 2006 8:38 PM It would be a lot easier to encourage people to vote if they didn't feel like they were throwing their vote away by voting for a minor party. Maybe in the long run it would make a difference. But in the long run they can turn up to the polls. Their vote isn't going to make a difference at this election. [ send green star]
Bac H.	July 11, 2006 10:44 AM It appears that Ruth has exactly the right kind of brain to understand this, and a pretty good understanding of the failings of the system she now has. Things will change when a party out-of-power starts promising to reform the system in order to get elected. A party will make those promises and act on them if voters know and care about the fact that there are better ways to run elections. Learning and asking questions about the better alternatives and educating your friends and family about them is something everyone of us can do to help make that change. There is no best way to draw boundaries, and no good way to assure that boundaries won't be drawn objectively or neutrally. Some better alternatives are to either eliminate the boundaries entirely with a form of proportional representation, or to reduce the effect of boundaries by having multi-member constituencies. If constituencies are combined so that anywhere from 3-6 members are elected from a constituency, a voter has a better chance of having at least one of them more closely represent that voter's positions. A variation on IRV called single-tranferrable vote (STV) is one good way to elect several members from a constituency and have the chosen members reflect the diversity within the constituency. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Christian B.	October 02, 2006 4:51 AM Brazil's leader forced into run-off election By Harold Olmos, AP Published: 02 October 2006 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1781230.ece [ send green star] [ accepted]
Bac H.	October 02, 2006 9:24 PM 48.7% for Silva + 41.6% for Alckmin = 90.3%. What happened to the other 9.5% of the vote? Any speculation how this election might have gone if it had been run under IRV? With or without the last-minute scandals? [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	October 03, 2006 5:37 PM Silva would have won it. There's no way the other guy would have got enough of the preferences to get 50%. [ send green star]
Rev. Ty R.	October 13, 2006 10:00 PM With the U.S.'s two major parties it seems the only fair way of voting would be run off. Try telling this to the politicians though! I am involved with a political debate forum also and this is one subject I have tried to push in the past. Check out this forum if you like: http://www.defendingthetruth.com [ send green star] [ accepted]
Robert K.	Instant Runoff Voting October 30, 2006 1:19 PM Instant Runoff voting is the greatest new intervation to our now flawed and exclusionary voing system to be considered in ages. A voter like me for example could vote for the best man knowing he didn't have a chance to win under present procedures. Then he could vote for his second choice, say a Democrat with a better chance of winning. Then if a voter's first choice the Green Party candidate didn't win for example then his vote would go to the Democrat his 2nd choice and be counted. This way a person could always vote for the best man knowing he would not lose his vote if his 1st choice didn't win. Then too many more people could vote for the best man without fear of loosing their vote altogether and thereby helping to put the man they least wanted into power. A Green Party candidate without a chance to win but an exceptionally good man could be a voters first choice where that voter could (vote his conscience). If the Green Party candidate lost, the vote would be applied other than say to the radically extreme elite *republican and putting him one more vote ahead. Instant Runoff Voting gets my approval 100%.... thanks ~boots~* [ send green star] [ accepted]