Instant Runoff Voting

[Mnementh]

Ok, so Zera was talking about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) on the forums and with me privately a while ago, and at that time I thought it was a great idea.  I still think it is a good idea, and am curious what others think.  Here in Seattle, we had something similar to this, where we could vote for any candidate regardless of party during the primary and the two candidates receiving the most votes would face off during the general election.  Well, the political parties challenged that and now we no longer have that kind of ballot.

So Pierce County, which is just to the south of Seattle's King County, is using IRV for this coming presidential election and I'd really like to see it adopted countrywide.  If you're not familiar with it click on the following link: http://instantrunoff.com/.  I think it is amazing, and should be immediately implemented (or at least as quickly as possible).  I'd also like to see voting be open over three days (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) and have bus vouchers available in low-income areas as well as for the elderly.

So I'm curious...what are some arguments that could be made against this system?  You don't necessarily have to believe the argument, I'm just trying to find some things about it that people may not like or agree with.

[Blade]

I want instant run-off voting. I like your 3-day voting period, too.

[Zeradul]

Yea, its an amazing thing.  It is what DEMOCRACY is supposed to be!  The only reason we didn't have it from Day 1 in America is we lacked the ability to have that complex of a voting system.

All of the 'cons' with it are no more than misunderstanding what it is.  I have never heard a valid 'con' that held water.  Not that one may not exist, but I have looked at it closely and it appears flawless!!!  The only people who don't like it are the people who benefit from bullying you when they say, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and A vote for Perrot is a vote for Clinton"

IRV replaces that reality, with a FAIR system.  I have never campaigned hard for anything or anyone until IRV was on the ballot here in the Twin Cities in the fall of 2006.  I busted my ass to let people know not only what it is, but that it is the most important thing that has ever been on the ballot.  IRV is crucial to anywhere calling itself a democracy.  Without it you're bullied into voting for the lesser of two evils instead of someone GOOD for the office of President.

IRV won here, 70 to 30.  When people have it explained to them, it is a NO BRAINER.

------

With that said, all voting systems should be digital machines that record data electronically, AND stamp out physical punch cards that can be used to check if the machine was counting correctly.

[Merc248]

wow.

i want this in seattle

[DragonMage]

This sounds amazing.

[zipfruder]

considering florida 2000, why is this better than Single Transferable Vote?

[Mnementh]

Link?

[Zeradul]

I looked it up, here's a link.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

I browsed through the description and it appeared to be exactly the same as IRV, and I couldn't figure out what difference there was, AND there was no mention of IRV, except for at the bottom where it said "See also, IRV"  So clicking that link yielded this explanation:

When the single transferable vote (STV) system is applied to a single-winner election it becomes the same as IRV.  For this reason IRV is sometimes considered to be merely a special form of STV. However, because STV was designed for multi-seat constituencies, many scholars consider it to be a separate system from IRV, and that is the convention followed in this article.

IRV is usually known simply as "STV" in New Zealand and Ireland, although the term the 'Alternative Vote' is also sometimes used in those countries. IRV is sometimes referred to as the Hare system, after Thomas Hare, one of the inventors of STV.

But I'm not sure what zip meant as far as Florida in 2000.