The vote should be one of IRV. The voter lists his preferences in order. If his first choice gets the fewest votes, his second choice gets his vote. The process is repeated until a candidate gets a plurality.
This does complicate the counting of votes. However, it improves the public dialogue, and encourages political participation.
Comments (6)
it would also more accurately display the attitudes and beliefs of the voters
I like this idea. We really need a system where 3rd (4th, 5th) parties have some chance.
With something like this, if I really believe in a candidate's ideas, but also have to choose between a Repub and Demo likely to win, at least I don't have to compromise or 'throw my vote away'.
Instant Runoff Voting does not work as well as advertised, and has unintended consequences . Promises that IRV will save money, reduce negative campaigning, simplify elections, or provide a majority all in one election - are just not true.
What are the problems with Instant Runoff Voting? IRV is not "as easy as 1-2-3", it actually hurts third parties. See how Instant runoff voting has impacted San Francisco, the largest jurisdiction in the US to use it. Implementation of IRV corresponds with drastic drop in voter turnout in San Francisco's mayoral contests; IRV consistantly suffers from majority failure and several states' fiscal analysis show that IRV creates new and high costs in elections. Additionally, IRV increases reliance on more complex technology, making audits and recounts more prohibitive, further eroding election transparency.IRV does not help racial minorities and may even impede them IRV may negatively impact the disabled. Instant Runoff Voting Fails to Meet its Hype. See our frequently updated news page .
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/
IRV/RCV is a really bad idea. I was an observer of the 2007 IRV pilot program in my county, and it didn't work as advertised. In fact, our county BOE wasn't able to follow what they called the relatively simple IRV tabulation procedures as written, missed some votes entirely, screwed up the count, and then did a secret recount that gave the election to the candidate who did not get a majority of the 1st column votes cast. So it's not true that IRV ensures a majority winner in one election.
I've done analysis of IRV elections in other jurisdictions and have seen the problems with majority failure and how IRV costs more than backers claim. And from an election integrity standpoint, IRV is a nightmare! In the recent Aspen elections, they brought in some freelance election company to run the IRV elections since it was too complicated for the local election board to do. They used the wrong software, and in tests did the count in ascending order - so the guy with the lowest vote count won!
Check out my blog for more info about IRV - http://noirvnc.blogspot.com/
Chris Telesca
Wake County Verified Voting
The current imbroglio in Iran should give pause to those who wish to make elections less transparent, and the tallying of votes more difficult to witness or verify.
Iran may just have had a stolen election, which is a really big deal. Well, the US had stolen elections in 2000 and 2004, and, look at the consequences! Election fraud is a catastrophic event. The advantages for elections that the advocates of IRV propose are frivolous by comparison. This country still has a very long way to go to ensure that elections are honest, transparent, and verifiable. Pushing ill-conceived fads such as IRV, that make the tallying of votes several times more complicated and almost totally opaque is thoughtless and irresponsible. It takes us backward to elections that are more vulnerable to fraud and far less susceptible to verification. To advocate IRV, one must have absolute faith in the competence and integrity both of election officials and election technology. There is no justification for having such faith any more than there is in having faith in all lawyers, in all politicians, or in all computer programmers.
Presently there is no software available that can transparently collate IRV. Nuff said?