How bad is Instant Runoff Voting?

We're Going To Disagree On This one. (0.00 / 0)

Why would we want to give voters to consider a candidate from a party other than our own?

Because the voters WANT to consider a candidate from a party other than our own.

And since the people want it, and since it's not constitutionally prohibited, the people should get it.

Now, you can argue "be careful what you ask for; you just might get it" - but, in a free society, people are free to make decisions affecting them and their government.

Put me down as one strongly in favor of IRV.

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:35:19 AM CST

Part of my point... (0.00 / 0)

...is that the DFL should be putting up candidates who don't give people a reason to consider 3rd parties in the first place.

---

by: Joe Bodell @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:37:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

voters who want to vote for a non-party (0.00 / 0)

are going to vote for a non-party, IRV or not.  They aren't voting to change the system, they are voting for protest, since most of the time the candidate's platform is "look at me I'm not a party!"  Outsider status is becoming a game of one-uppmanship that could get as dangerous as the "candidate I'd best like to have a beer with" persona was.  Look at all the trouble that got us into.

I don't think many people who vote3rd party are going to fill out a second choice.  They are voting for that candidate because they don't want to vote for a party.  And we're totally flattering ourselves with the assumption that if not for the interloper, that would have been our vote somehow.  I just don't think it's true.

Robin is a freelance editor and writer.  Follow her at http://twitter.com/robinmarty

---

by: Robin Marty @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:53:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think a lot of people that voted for Hutchinson 1st... (0.00 / 0)

...would have voted for Hatch second.  And I think that because that's what people have told me.  If we had IRV in the last gubenatorial, while I think it's a possiblity that Hutchinson might have won, I think it's a certainty that Pawlenty would have lost.

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:09:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I hate to say it, but... (0.00 / 0)

....I think if we had IRV in this Senate election Dean Barkley would the the victor right now, hands down. That's not really based on anything scientific, just on the vibe I got from my doorknocking throughout the campaign. If it were safe to do so (i.e., if people weren't afraid to throw away their votes), many people who supported either of the two major party candidates would have voted for Barkley.

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 13:55:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm For IRV (0.00 / 0)

I think it's a great idea, and would help voters feel more vested in the process.  I can see why Republicans fight it, because their base is relatively narrow -- they know most of the independent voters will not list them as the second choice.  But the Democratic party's base is very diverse and would benefit from this system.

Plus, even if it does allow the Independence candidate to win a few more races, is that really so bad?  Peter Hutchinson would have been a reasonable governor, certainly better than Tim Pawlenty.

---

by: Spether @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:38:29 AM CST

A touched surprised (0.00 / 0)

I have to say reading this was a bit of a surprise to me.  I am a huge IRV fan, but I do also agree with Joe's points on who a party, any party should run.

I support IRV not because I think it will help the DFL, nor any other party, but because I believe it will strengthen our system.  I also think if the two major parties have to actually take the 3rd parties seriously I think the electorate will be better served.  Doubting that 3rd party swing voters trend blue is a mistake. All polling on the subject I've seen suggest many more Democratic leaning voters vote 3rd party.  It is a fairly rational conclusion that IRV would help the DFL, at least in the short term.

I don't think the IP or any other 3rd party actually exists in MN at this point. Their organization is weak at best and they only focus on top races. They have been a collective of also-rans, and run-on-a-big-ticketers, just running because they can, but they are not going away anytime soon nor should they. Voters may be a bunch of protesters who just can't stand the 2 major parties, but call me an optimist, but I doubt strongly they are a majority of those voters. I think that there are many people who would fill out an entire IRV ballot and it would change things for the better, or at least our leaders would be able to govern with the support of more than 50% of the populace, something we have not seen in way too many years in the Governor's office.

-jason The UpTake

---

by: JasonB @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:39:51 AM CST

The Truth (0.00 / 0)

It's ok to disagree, but to misrepresent the truth is not acceptable.  For all of you who say the Independence Party has no platform/principles and it's just a "I'm not one of the major party guys" group,  just check this out:

http://www.independenceminneso...

The IP has a thoughtfully developed set of principles upon which candidates run.

So please don't speak factual errors, and if you're willing to take the time to read these principles, ask yourself: Which of these do I disagree with?   If you can't find many, maybe your opposition to the IP shouldn't be so vehement.

And as far as IRV, it encourages greater participation.  Isn't that something we all should embrace, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum?

The Original Gordon

---

by: Gordon @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM CST

I don't get it (0.00 / 0)

That platform doesn't say anything. There is absolutely no specifics anywhere.  It just says some government is good, sometimes, and taxes should be fair.  But it doesn't explain what is mean by either statement.  Republicans think taxes are fair when more people keep more of their money and spend it as they see fit.  Democrats think taxes are fair when each person pays what he or she reasonably can without feeling harm and it is used to pay for things which benefit society as a whole.  Those are specific platforms.  What you linked to was a vague generality meant to appeal to as many people as possible by saying nothing.

Robin is a freelance editor and writer.  Follow her at http://twitter.com/robinmarty

---

by: Robin Marty @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

POV (0.00 / 0)

I think your opinion of IRV all depends on what point of view you use. You're writing about IRV from the point of view of the party that is being "hurt" by third parties. So I see your point of view.

But, I believe IRV isn't about parties, it's about the voters. IRV allows the VOTER to vote for the candidate they want most, instead of the lesser of two evils. We should change the voting system to make it better for the VOTER, not any party.  

---

by: cursedthing @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:57:55 AM CST

Agree with Joe but for different reasons (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you Joe, but for different reasons, not that I think your reasons are bad.

1) IRV is only for certain races, none of them federal.  This will lead to confusion, especially with older and newer voters, leading to more spoiled ballots in non-IRV elections mainly in DFL strongholds where IRV is currently being used.  

2) One Person-One Vote.  It is the basis for our Democracy.  Not One person-Two or Three Votes.  For me, it just seems wrong.  Almost as bad as legislating through Ballot Initiatives.

David E. Kaplan
David E. Kaplan Consulting
David Kaplan can be reached at david@dkaplanconsulting.com.
Follow David on Twitter

---

by: DavidKaplan @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:09:27 AM CST

Instant Runoff is Just Runoff Voting Done Quickly (0.00 / 0)

Right now we have expensive runoff elections in St Paul. Basically there is very little turnout for the first election. In "instant" runoff, at any given moment anyone's one vote only counts once. The difference is two trips on different days to vote. We would have better participation!

Other Good Points of IRV:

In every election race where there have been multiple viable candidates, we have had more positive races and voters who are much happier to vote. This would be very positive for our political environment. Second choices will really matter so we will have more talk about all the good points of all the candidates, which will unite people more instead just sport-team just-my-candidate thinking.

With instant runoff voting, then we will no longer have strategies where small parties are financed just to be a distraction because it will no longer work. Basically people will be working for their best candidate not gaming the system.

With multiple candidates, all candidates will have to participate in debates instead of a major party candidate being able to shut down a debate because that candidate does not want to answer questions or clarify positions.

In Minnesota we will have representation by majority vote instead of minority vote that has been happening in many races! Which means with the expensive runoff option that Georgia is currently going through, still my vote will always count towards picking the winner. No longer will a voter have decide if the polls show a candidate is way down in percentage, if it would be better to pick between the the top two choices. Every vote would always count toward choosing a winner supported by majority of the votes!

---

by: Grace Kelly @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:54:54 AM CST

But again, the problems... (0.00 / 0)

...are if we have IRV for just St Paul and Minneapolis races, who is going to make sure older and newer voters understand that?  Will this lead to a larger amount of spoiled ballots in non-IRV elections in the areas where DFL candidates count on for turn out in state-wide elections?  I think one could make a strong argument that it very well might.

Secondly, the US Supreme court ruled a number of times in favor of "One person, one vote." Does this make for an unfair system where the two major parties Succeed?  Maybe.  But to me, IRV seems like a circumvent of that doctrine.  The fact that it has only been approved in local jurisdictions here in the US and not state-wide or Federally tells me that a push to do so may not get a favorable outcome when it is undoubtedly challenged in the courts or that the general will of the people is not in favor.

My concern, simply put, is in one election, my vote could be counted two, maybe three times depending on who I vote for, with my vote eventually going to the winner, meanwhile, my neighbor's vote is counted only once, and it goes to the looser.

Do I think it would help DFL candidates in the cities and statewide?  Yes.  Do I think that is a good reason to do it?  No.  This strikes me as being fully contradictory to our Democratic model here in the US.  Do other countries do this?  Yes.  But not all constitutions are written and interpreted the same way.

You talk about how IRV will stop parties and candidates from "gaming the system" but i would respectfully disagree Kelly.  I think IRV is itself "gaming the system."

David E. Kaplan
David E. Kaplan Consulting
David Kaplan can be reached at david@dkaplanconsulting.com.
Follow David on Twitter

---

by: DavidKaplan @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:31:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

IRV education... (4.00 / 1)

I traveled to Scotland to watch them implement IRV for their local elections.  They also implemented a new 'first past the post' system for electing MPs to the UK parliament.  The UK elections were a disaster, but the IRV elections had around 1% error which I was told was typical of any UK election.  

Despite implementing 2 distinct election systems, the Scots were able to figure out IRV fairly easily.

You can read about my experience here:

http://www.mnblue.com/search/node/scotland

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 13:06:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Logical fallacy of IRV = multiple votes (0.00 / 0)

David,

First, every time that IRV has been challenged in the courts over teh one person, one vote principle, the courts have ruled that IRV does not violate that principle.  

Secondly, it is simply not logically possible for IRV to violate the 1 peep, 1 vote principle.  Imagine someone suggesting that the primary/general election system allowed some people to vote twice.  Wouldn't you scoff?

In the first round of the election, you rank your candidates. Let's suppose that nobody got 50% +1.  A second round occurs.

A.  If your 1st choice candidate isn't the bottom candidate, you get 1 vote for your 1st in the second round.

B.  If your 1st choice candidate is the bottom candidate, you get 1 vote for your 2nd choice in the second round.

Where is the possibility of someone voting twice in a round of voting?

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 13:15:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, you just hit a hot topic (0.00 / 0)

I disagree totally. Mostly beacuse of your premise.

Why would we want to give people any reason to consider a candidate from a party other than our own?

Beacuse it's healthy for democracy. People should be able to vote for whoever they want to with a free conscience, if our party doesn't put up a candidate who fits those needs then should we really keep constantly asking people to vote for bad candidates beacuse voting third party will elect the bad guy? I've told plenty of people that about Hatch and Franken. Most of those people would gladly vote for them as their second choice but just can't bear to check the box for him in our current system.

Something needs to be done. When you've got candidates winning with vote totals of the mid forties how can they legitimately claim to have the support of a majority of Minnesotans? Unlike a parliamentary system they don't have to form a coalition to make a majority after the election and so as long as you can squeak out a plurality your elected. That's a terrible system.

Let's take Canada as a example, they've got a parliamentary system so obviously it's not quite the same but their Conservative Party won close to a majority of seats but the three major third parties (Liberals, New Democratic Party and a pro-Quebec independence party) struck a deal and will form a governing coalition. That's not really possible to do here but they we're able to form a coalition that represents the overall center-left views that a majority of Canada voted for instead of being ruled by a right-wing plurality.

One solution would be fusion voting like they've got in NYC we're a candidate can appear on multiple lines and thus, for example Tinklenberg and Sarvi would have appeared both as El Tinklenberg, Democratic Party and El Tinklenberg, Independence Party. I firmly believe that would have at least put Tinklenberg over the top. More on that later.

The only real arguments against IRV is it's confusing, expensive and the biggest one, possibly unconstitutional. Personally I do not think that it is but in the current composition of the court I would not be at all suprised to see it struck down as violating one person, one vote.

---

by: Populista @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:09:39 PM CST

Also (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you totally on finding good candidates. One thing I've been thinking about, has being overly negative hurt Franken, Tinklenberg, Madia and Hatch? Or was it other factors.

---

by: Populista @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM CST

Candidate review (0.00 / 0)

On the issue of finding good candidates, I offer this assessment:

Franken was a poor choice who came with a lot of negative baggage such as all of his comedic writings.  Sorry, you might have liked his writings, but they didn't set him up as a good general election candidate. The sad thing was everybody knew about all of his negative baggage before he was nominated.  It wasn't like the surprise skeleton out of the closet at the 11th hour.  It was pure arrogance from the DFL to nominate Franken.

Tinklenberg was a solid choice, but the cards are stacked against a DFLer in the 6th district.  It's like the Republicans fantasizing about winning in the 5th.

Madia was a superb candidate - bright, fresh, innovative, articulate, hardworking, etc.  And he had a legitimate shot at winning.  But it was still an uphill battle in a reliable Republican district that has returned a Republican to Congress for decades.  Democrats got caught in a flight of fancy, almost starting to believe it was a sure win. Sure 3rd district voters broke party lines for higher offices, but they came home to the GOP for Congress and lower level offices.  Madia deserves a lot of credit for making it closer than anyone has in recent history.

Hatch had the election in the bag, until he blew his top a week before the vote.  What irony for a hot head who had held his temper up to that point.  It was a Democratic landslide year.  He could have been governor and Pawlenty would have been a partner in some private law firm had Hatch kept his cool.

The Original Gordon

---

by: Gordon @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 13:10:05 PM CST

Also (0.00 / 0)

Bachmann's negative ads on his time at MNDot drove anti-Bachmann voters away from him and they voted for Bob Anderson who didn't campaign. If Tinklenberg had the IP line as well he would have won.

---

by: Populista @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 13:50:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am generally in favor of IRV.... (0.00 / 0)

....but one thing that I PERSONALLY would not like is: What if I ONLY like ONE candidate?

I mean, there is a REASON why I am supporting MY candidate, why would I want to "legitimize" a candidate from a differing party, especially if the other parties are ideologically incompatible with my views?

I think IRV would work best if there were multiple and diverse third parties. That might prove damaging to the major parties, but then again a little increased competition might make them better.

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 14:05:38 PM CST

bullet balloting... (0.00 / 0)

lams712,

Good point.

When someone votes for only 1 candidate, I've heard of it referred to as bullet-balloting.  It just means that if you're candidate drops, you're voice wouldn't be heard in any subsequent rounds.  If you picked the winner ... well ... it doesn't reall matter, does it?

However, the effect of an IRV election is that candidates aren't going to be so negative and nasty because they want you to choose them as your second choice.  If candidates are trying to appeal beyond their base as opposed to playing to them, it might make a difference, don't you think?

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 15:31:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for.... (0.00 / 0)

.....basically answering my question with two REALLY GOOD points. The OPTION is there for a person to vote for their one candidate and risk their voice not being heard in subsequent rounds, but the clincher (and your second point)is that with IRV, candidates will be forced to work "beyond their base" in order to become a desirable second choice. A political race free of (or of significantly LESS) negativity and multiple QUALITY choices would NOT be a bad thing at all.

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 16:13:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]