Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Instant Runoff Voting passes first major hurdle
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) passed its first major hurdle today in special metting of the Rules Committee of the SF Board of Supervisors. The Committee voted to recommend to the full board that the initiative be placed on the March election ballot. IRV at the national level would have allowed people to vote for Nader 1st, Gore 2nd, without worrying that they might throw the election to W. The Green Party is a driving force in this campaign.
What is Instant Runoff Voting?
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a simple voting method used to select a single winner from a list of two or more candidates. By collecting more meaningful information from voters, it gives them a greater power of choice and measures their will more accurately. Invented in the United States, this method has been used in Australia and Ireland for many decades.
How does it work?
IRV allows voters to rank the candidates they find acceptable. To determine the winner, voters' first choices are counted. Votes for the last-place candidate are reallocated to the second choices on their respective ballots, and this process is repeated until someone has a majority.
Instant Runoff Voting is better than plurality elections because:
* IRV ensures majority rule.
* IRV eliminates the "spoiler" problem.
"Spoiler" candidates or "split votes" would no longer threaten major candidates. The Nader-vs.-Gore and Perot-vs.-Bush dilemmas would not have existed with IRV.
* IRV promotes positive campaigns.
With more candidates, and a need to get 2nd- and 3rd-choice votes, attack ads will not pay off.
* IRV boosts voter turnout.
Experience has shown that turnout increases when voters have more choices.
* IRV makes votes count.
IRV increases the likelihood that one's vote will be decisive.
IRV is also better than "two-round" runoff or primary elections because:
* IRV saves money.
Election officials and taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for a second election.
* IRV saves time.
Voters do not lose work or family time voting a second election.
* IRV is decisive.
Voters are not let down by an inconclusive first election.
* IRV makes campaigning easier.
With IRV, candidates don’t have to raise money for two races.
* IRV is more accurate.
IRV eliminates one candidate at a time, minimizing "spoiler" effects. Voter turnout is high in the decisive election, unlike two-round runoffs.
But...
* Does IRV require expensive equipment?
No. Many counties already have IRV-compatible equipment. Paper IRV ballots are commonly used overseas.
* Is IRV too confusing for voters?
Where IRV has been adopted, it has endured for decades, so voters are comfortable with it. IRV is one of the simplest voting methods in use.
For more info:
sfgreenparty.org
http://calirv.org
fairvote.org
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a simple voting method used to select a single winner from a list of two or more candidates. By collecting more meaningful information from voters, it gives them a greater power of choice and measures their will more accurately. Invented in the United States, this method has been used in Australia and Ireland for many decades.
How does it work?
IRV allows voters to rank the candidates they find acceptable. To determine the winner, voters' first choices are counted. Votes for the last-place candidate are reallocated to the second choices on their respective ballots, and this process is repeated until someone has a majority.
Instant Runoff Voting is better than plurality elections because:
* IRV ensures majority rule.
* IRV eliminates the "spoiler" problem.
"Spoiler" candidates or "split votes" would no longer threaten major candidates. The Nader-vs.-Gore and Perot-vs.-Bush dilemmas would not have existed with IRV.
* IRV promotes positive campaigns.
With more candidates, and a need to get 2nd- and 3rd-choice votes, attack ads will not pay off.
* IRV boosts voter turnout.
Experience has shown that turnout increases when voters have more choices.
* IRV makes votes count.
IRV increases the likelihood that one's vote will be decisive.
IRV is also better than "two-round" runoff or primary elections because:
* IRV saves money.
Election officials and taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for a second election.
* IRV saves time.
Voters do not lose work or family time voting a second election.
* IRV is decisive.
Voters are not let down by an inconclusive first election.
* IRV makes campaigning easier.
With IRV, candidates don’t have to raise money for two races.
* IRV is more accurate.
IRV eliminates one candidate at a time, minimizing "spoiler" effects. Voter turnout is high in the decisive election, unlike two-round runoffs.
But...
* Does IRV require expensive equipment?
No. Many counties already have IRV-compatible equipment. Paper IRV ballots are commonly used overseas.
* Is IRV too confusing for voters?
Where IRV has been adopted, it has endured for decades, so voters are comfortable with it. IRV is one of the simplest voting methods in use.
For more info:
sfgreenparty.org
http://calirv.org
fairvote.org
For more information:
http://calirv.org
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
In particular, it does NOT guarantee "majority choice". It only seems to do that because you throw away ballots when all "acceptable" choices on them have been eliminated and pretend these people never voted. So sure, the eventual winner is elected by a majority of those whose ballots remain to be counted. NOT necessarily by a majority of those who voted in the first place. That would be true only in variants where voters are required to supply preferences for ALL candidates (even those unacceptable to them).
For OUR typical political divisions, two large factions close to each other in the middle, minor factions distributed farther left and right this voting scheme works wonderfully as advertised. Switch that around to a society where the large parties are at the extremes, a bunch of small moderate parties in the middle, voters for which find any of which acceptable but not the extremes, and it breaks down.