Dean just called for Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV)

[welshTerrier2]

he said that would bring more people into the political process including third party voters ...

kudos to Dean for that position !!

[CTLawGuy]

1. that's awesome :)

is there a link somewhere?

I'd like to read more.

Thanks :)

[welshTerrier2]

3. C-Span2

he's speaking at a forum called "Campaign for America's Future" ...

their website is: www.ourFuture.org ...

they already posted videos of yesterday's major speeches ... i expect they'll do the same for Dean's speech when it becomes available ...

[mike_c]

2. IRV would be one of the best things to happen to American politics...

...in over two hundred years. Of course, the political establishment will fight it tooth and nail.

[jean]

4. here's a reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[Dinger]

8. Thanks! And I LOVE That Pic Of Galloway! (nt)

[dweller]

5. Stephanie Miller just hinted

he'd be calling in to her show today...

hasn't as of yet.
dp

edit: said coming up next after break.

[Dinger]

6. I Plead Ignorance, What Is Instant Runoff Voting?

Thanks- I'm dumb.

[janx]

7. See post #4. n/t

[welshTerrier2]

9. here's my understanding of IRV

i found the wikipedia explanation a bit confusing ...

let's say there's an election between bush and kerry ... but the Greens have a candidate, the Libertarians have one, and there's even an Ozzie and Harriet Party on the ballot ...

suppose you just love the Ozzie and Harriet candidate because they want to give everyone free ice cream ... but you know that if you would for this enlightened position, you would be "wasting your vote" because your candidate has zero chance of winning ...

the result? the party that had that great idea does not receive your vote and suffers in future elections because they failed to reach some type of vote threshold ... perhaps they would not be eligible for public funding or whatever as a result ...

but IRV could change all that ... with IRV, you would get to cast more than one vote ... for example, you could vote for Ozzie as your first choice, the Green candidate as your second choice, and Kerry as your third choice ... the party of your first choice would now get some recognition ...

if your first choice candidate failed to win, your vote would then be transferred to your second choice ... if that candidate wins, that's it ... if your second choice candidate failed to win, your vote would move to your third choice and so on ...

the benefit of IRV is that it would promote fresh ideas from minor parties ... it would allow voters to vote for what they believe are the best candidates without forcing voters to choose between their "real preference" and their most realistic preference (i.e. those with a chance to actually win the election) ...

at least that's how i understand IRV ... any other takers ???

[karynnj]

10. Thank you for the well written explanation

It is a very interesting idea. It also would be interesting in the primaries. It builds in a AB(candidate X) feature. For 2008, imagine that the strongest candidate (who we will call X) had the most votes, but was almost never the second choice of the people who voted against X. Assume also that there is a candidate Y , who has fewer votes than X, but is the second choice of virtually everyone who didn't vote for X or Y. Y becomes the ABX candidate automatically

The algorithm for re-allocating votes needs to be tested. US history has an example of unintended consequences. Initially the President and VP weren't voted as a team, but depended on the number of votes. Leading to a tie in an early election. Whatever rules they come up with should be tested by simulating voting behavior using either computer models or volunteers.

[nancyharris]

14. but in a general election

it could be disastrous.
I and millions of others voted for John Kerry. If we had voted for Ralph Nader as our second choice wouldn't all of our votes be switched to Nader in a Kerry loss?

[AllegroRondo]

22. Not exactly

During each round of counting, the candidate with the least votes is thrown out and has their votes re-distributed to the voters' next choice. So in a 3 way election between Bush, Kerry, and Nader, if Nader came in 3rd his votes would get redistributed (probably to Kerry). The Kerry votes would not get redistrubted because he was in second place at the time.

[Lone_Wolf]

12. You are correct...

If we had instant runoff voting in 2000, then Gore probably would be in the White House right now. That is... IF the election was honest.

[nancyharris]

13. Not sure it makes sense

I might be missing something but at what point does someone win a IRV election? If candidate "A" wins the first count, is it possible for her to lose because votes from candidate "D" and "E" were switched to candidate "B"? What happens then to the second choice votes of the people that originally voted for candidate "A". Seems like winning/losing could go on forever.

[Lone_Wolf]

15. Here's a site with a good explanation of it...

http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/votesequence.html

[welshTerrier2]

16. good question !!

i think my explanation omitted an important detail ... again, this is only my understanding of how it works ... absent the following detail, you are right that there would never be a resolution ...

so here's the new piece of information:

you keep going until someone obtains a MAJORITY ... not a plurality, a majority ... and i think, but i'm not sure, that lowest vote count candidate is eliminated ... that candidate's second choice votes are then distributed to the remaining candidates ... if no candidate gets a majority, the process is repeated eliminating the lowest vote count candidate and redistributing their second choice votes ... this process is repeated as many times as necessary until someone gets a majority ...

so, let's say you're using IRV in a Democratic primary ... looking at first choice votes only, let's say Kerry gets 45%, Dean gets 36% and Ozzie gets 19% ... Ozzie would not make it to round two ... then, you would look at the second choices only for the Ozzie voters ... let's say that 16% went to Dean and only 3% to Kerry ... in that case, Dean would win with 52% (the original 36% plus the additional 16%) ... Kerry would finish second with 48% (45% plus the additional 3%) ...

does that make more sense ??? thanks for a good catch !!

the logic is that, if Ozzie wasn't viable, 52% of those voting preferred Dean to Kerry ...

[ClassWarrior]

17. It's not a new concept - they have it figured out, and it's solid.

I'm no expert, but I'm sure the links on this thread will go a long toward explaining.

NGU>

[FreedomAngel82]

25. Sounds interesting

I've never heard of this before.

[Lone_Wolf]

11. Wow!

I know Dean was against IRV when he debated Ralph Nader on NPR in 2004. It's good to see him change his position. It looks like he researched it.

He's right, I think it would strengthen 3rd parties in the US... and I also think it would benefit the Democratic Party... It's a win/win situation.

[Darkhawk32]

18. We should do it for the Presidential Primary in 2008... show everyone ...

how an election is SUPPOSED to run. Go Howey!! :bounce:

[janx]

20. Do you remember when the DNC called for advice/ideas

from Dems re the primaries not too long ago?

We responded. They listened.

[Rambis]

19. I support that big time Yeah!

What we have isn't working so....

[Idioteque]

21. *Sigh* I have to do this every time an IRV thread comes up...

In my opinion, Condorcet is better than IRV in almost every way.

Condorcet: A better election method

What is wrong with IRV?

Thanks to Election Methods

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. Bookmarked to read during the toddler's nap.

Thanks! I'm unfamiliar with the topic so will be approaching with an open mind.

[faithnotgreed]

24. lets just get whatever is best for democracy! and get moving on it now

im always grateful when someone speaks out for democratic voting but it can be a confusing subject even for us who are interested

and i see someone here has posted why irv is not the best method.

i just want something that can fairly count the votes and those votes can be paper verified
and lets get working on that asap

[Eloriel]

26. He's been doing this for months if not longer

I heard him in Atlanta in January, and he mentioned it along with what he saw as some of its benefits.

But glad you've found out and are happy.

[brooklynite]

27. Sigh! None of this is a good idea in the public conversation...

I'm not casting any aspersions on consideration of IRV or any other voting method. However, having the DNC chairman spend his time talking about this is a waste and a distraction. First, it takes time away from discussing the critical voting issues (voting machine issues, COI of Election officials serving in campaign roles, improper purges of voting roles). Second, it is a concept that, in my opinion, is too hard for the average voter to grasp (I'd like to think that most people spend as much time as I do researching candidates and issues, but 30 years of work on political campaigns has taught me otherwise). Finally, its one of those ideas that gives the Republicans the opportunity to tar us as "pointy-headed intellectuals" out of touch with the "real" issues affecting America.

[librechik]

28. good thinking!

I'll support that