There's one thing that would help our democracy above all others:

[cali]

IRV

[babylonsister]

1. I give up. nt

[L. Coyote]

2. Instant-runoff voting?

Shouldn't that be: There is one thing that can help our Republic, restoring democracy!


=====================
Instant-runoff voting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system most commonly used for single member elections in which voters have one vote, but can rank candidates in order of preference. In an IRV election, if no candidate receives an overall majority of first choices, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are redistributed to the continuing candidates according to the voters' indicated preference. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority (more than 50%) of those votes cast for continuing candidates. The term 'instant runoff voting' is used because this process simulates a series of run-off elections.

..............

========================

Frequently Asked Questions About Instant Runoff Voting
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm

[cali]

5. Yes!

I think it's a vital component to restoring real democracy.

[renie408]

11. I like 'Isolate Republican Vampires' better. n/t

[spanone]

3. Irv who?

[cali]

6. Irv Schultz

nah, he wouldn't be much of a help. Instant run-off voting.

[RufusTFirefly]

4. I don't know about above all others, but it would be a great help!

Fixing Elections

[jpgray]

7. Abso-fucking-lutely

[warren pease]

8. Public financing of all campaigns; no private money from any source allowed. n/t

[cali]

9. that too.

and in conjunction with IRV, what a difference it would make.

[renie408]

10. Idiot Removal Vehicles? Isolate Republican Vampires? Instant Rolling Voting? n/t

[Zandor]

12. Utter nonsense

Democracy has operated just fine for many years without this scheme. Sad that some want to re-invent the electoral process in an attempt to defeat Hillary.

[cali]

13. What a surprise!

What's your objection to IRV? We have it in the largest city in my state (granted it's Vermont) and people love it. Why do you hate democracy, Zandor?

Oh, and this has fuck all to do with Hillary as IRV isn't even a remote possibility for 2008, genius.

[renie408]

14. Nah, I don't think its democracy. I think its just you.

Say 'It's Friday' and see if he argues with you.

[Emit]

16. lol. n/t

[cali]

19. You're right. He's right.

Democracy's working just fine. It's just me.

[Zandor]

20. An anti-Hillary fantasy

Somehow an almost-majority is circumventing the will of 'most' to defeat Hillary in the minds of some.

I love democracy, you're the one tinkering, potty mouth.

[cali]

23. One more time, prud(ding) head

this has jackshit to do with Hillary. Now answer the question, without obsessing about your dear leader; what's wrong with IRV?

[Zandor]

25. It has everything to do with Hillary

But we will agree it won't happen in 2008.

With IRV, you could end up with a winner that is the first choice of relatively few people. A candidate that is the next-to-last choice for a particular voter could ultimately end up getting their vote in a final. It would carry as much weight as a vote for the other candiadte rooted in a top preference.

And, no, it doesn't fix voting irregularities like those we saw in 2000 and 2004.

[cali]

26. Really? explain how it has anything whatsoever to do with

Hillary, as you concede it won't happen in 2008?

[Zandor]

27. The idea feels good to some because it may have hurt Hillary

And I laid out my objection.

[renie408]

29. Ok,

I just read up on how IRV works. It seems like a pretty good idea to me. The reason you don't like it is that Hillary is a love/hate candidate. She might get the most 1st place votes, but without a clear majority (51%). And is unlikely to be the second choice of people NOT voting for her. Is that it? But isn't it over all more fair that plurality voting?

[Zandor]

31. You got it

What if you ended up with 49% for Hillary (all 1st preference) and 51% Edwards (only 10% first prefernce, most lower). An extreme example, but you see the point.

It gives equal weight when it shouldn't.

[renie408]

34. Nooo...I think it offers consideration for how much somebody

wants candidate X and doesn't want candidate Y.

Think about it. If Hillary is the number one choice of a slim majority, but the number six choice of everybody else (which is a likely scenario), then there are more people who would really HATE having her as the candidate than people who really LIKE having her as the candidate. IRV would allow for the most accurate gauge of the entire voting populace. Just because you are in that slim majority who would actually like her to be the candidate doesn't mean that the feelings of the rest of the voting public should just be thrown away.

[Zandor]

35. But equal weight is given

to lower preferences as rounds go on. In my example, much of the 51% could be lukewarm, the 49% fervent.

I can see both sides.

[renie408]

36. From what I have read, it sounds like a good idea.

I have been really frustrated by the 'winner take all' result that comes from the way we elect people. And, honestly, Hillary is a good example. Her winning the nomination could be very divisive. There are people who are enthusiastic about her. But it seems like there are MORE people who are absolutely sickened by the idea of her winning. Those people are spread out over the other candidates. But shouldn't their revulsion count for something?

[renie408]

28. "Potty mouth"?? Mama, get off the internet!! n/t

[Zandor]

32. In jest n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. No! No! NO! It would give the voters too much power!!!

And, we certainly wouldn't want the rabble to have any say in anything as important as running the country.

[cali]

17. *snort*

El Zandor certainly seems to think it's a BAD idea.

[blm]

18. Nope - open the books on BushInc's covert and illegal operations the last 4 decades

and have a 3 month long TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION HEARING. Only facts and documents allowed - no spin from pundit class.

THAT should do it.

[cali]

22. huh? are you saying IRV is not a good idea?

Are you saying that a month long hearing on bushco would do more for democracy than IRV. And the two aren't exactly opposing concepts.

[blm]

24. If the question is 'above all others' I side with laying open the books.

After what this country's been put through, you can damn well expect that eyes and brains would pop open when they hear what has been happening in their name.

[porphyrian]

21. Instant Runoff Voting would go a long way to making things better. - n/t

[nam78_two]

30. I could not agree more-IRV is one of the best ideas in this regard out there.nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. The problem, of course, being that the politicians who could instittute IRV won't.

Kind of like the multitude of "Campaign Finance Reform" laws that fail to keep the money/influemce out of the system.

The voting system used in the United States has been altered many times in it's history.

* Landless white men: 1856
* Non-white men: 1870
* Women: 1920
* Native Americans: 1924 <1>
* Adults between 18 and 21: 1971

Not to mention the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

All of which were accomplished by the people who forced the politicians to change the laws. Often at the cost of lives.

Reforming the voting system to more reflect democracy should be high on the list of any candidate seeking office as a progressive.