Instant runoff voting

In “Two-party system warps our democracy” (7/21, Opinion) Midwest Voices columnist Bob Keith Bonebrake bemoans our political system, in which many citizens vote for candidates they dislike the least because voting for candidates outside the Democratic or Republican parties seems equivalent to not voting at all.

There is an alternative system. Instant runoff voting lets people vote their consciences. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, he or she wins.

If no candidate receives a majority of first-place ballots, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and the votes cast for that candidate are credited to the candidates according to those voters’ second choices.

Instant runoff voting frees minor-party candidates from a “spoiler” role, allows voters to express their honest preferences and ensures a majority winner. It offers a chance to break the stranglehold the two dominant parties have on our political process.

Mary Lindsay
ReclaimDemocracy.org,
Kansas City area chapter
Kansas City

Comments

[CLAY SHENTRUP]

"Just think, if we had been doing "range voting" George W would have been back in Texas the last almost three years."

Well, not necessarily. He quite likely wouldn't have won in the first place.

[CLAY SHENTRUP]

A correction,

I quoted the the wrong line in one of my responses:

"Claim: If a candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, he or she wins.

Reality: Simply false. IRV can elect X instead of Y, even if Y is preferred by a landslide majority over X, and Y got more first-place votes than X. See a particularly nasty (but realistic) example here: http://rangevoting.org/CoreSupp.html"

The Claim should have been:

"Claim: IRV allows voters to express their honest preferences and ensures a majority winner."

[CLAY SHENTRUP]

Engineer,

Do you have any idea how far in debt this nation is? Do you have any idea how powerfully the Federal Reserve is pushing us into hyperinflation by printing worthless money to burn in a foreign desert?

Get a clue man. The GOP is supposed to be the party of low taxes. Spending is just a deferred tax increase. Do you understand basic economics?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul364.html

[CLAY SHENTRUP]

Engineer,

I wouldn't say that the surge (or anything, for that matter) is "working" in Iraq. The entire situation has been a disaster and a total fiasco since it began. There was absolutely no reason at all for this horrendously botched and mismanaged con job.

I'm going to be partisan now. We need Ron Paul to restore us to a nation of laws, not of men. We need our Constitution back. We need to reign in government spending, and protect the rights and freedoms of Americans, instead of using this nonsense about terrorism as an excuse for endless war, and holding us up in line at the airport.

Dear god, when does this madness end? When does the GOP get back to its fiscally sound Constitution-loving roots?

[Engineer]

CRD
Big tax revenues, low unemployment, surge is working in Iraq, we will see who's incompetent.

[CRD]

"Interesting that you know what so many people thought in 2004."

2004 aside, it's certainly evident that most people currently think that Bush is an utter incompetent. Only thing that's surprising about that is how long it took for people to reach that conclusion.

[Engineer]

jack
You are slowing down. Took you much longer to respond than I figured on. Interesting that you know what so many people thought in 2004.

[jack]

eng: Just think, if we had been doing "range voting" George W would have been back in Texas the last almost three years. You should be glad our Nation has a system of voting that allows someone most think is incompetant to win the presidency.

[jack]

"That L Word"? I had always assumed irishguy was male! Little hard for a male to be a lesbian isn't it?

[stone]

wow. clay, that was perhaps, the most impressive, informative, non-partisan post i have ever seen on here. good work.

[kareemcheese]

Thanks for the information, Clay. I'll check it out.

[CLAY SHENTRUP]

My name is Clay Shentrup, with Electopia, and in affiliation with the Center for Range Voting (RangeVoting.org), a voting reform advocacy group, founded in 2005 by a Princeton math Ph.D. and a Colorado engineer. (I am myself a former KU computer engineering student, and I was formerly a Mission resident, though I now live in San Francisco.)

This post is (unfortunately) emblematic of the typical misinformation that runs rampant in the pro-IRV community. While I appreciate your desire for better voting methods (indeed, I believe this is the single most important issue in the world, because it concerns the ability of society to make decisions about everything else), I implore you to look at the facts and see that Instant Runoff Voting is not the answer. Your piece demonstrates several of the typical myths that have misled the public into supporting IRV, one of the worst alternative voting methods, as shown objectively through social utility efficiency calculations: http://rangevoting.org/vsi.html

Claim: Instant runoff voting lets people vote their consciences.

Reality: Wrong. The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, which is perhaps the most important theorem in the field of election science, proves that in all rank-order voting methods (not just IRV), in which a unanimously top-ranked candidate wins, and there is no "dictator" voter, there can be incentives to vote strategically. In IRV, the best general strategy is to vote for one's favorite perceived front-runner, as a vote for anyone else is more likely to harm the voter than to help. This page attempts to explain this in language that the layperson can follow:
http://groups.google.com/group/socorg/web/irv-strategy

The solution is to use cardinal, rather than ordinal, voting methods, i.e. Range Voting - rate the candidates (e.g. 0-10) and pick the one with the best average. Range Voting is simpler, and more robust against strategic voting than IRV. (http://RangeVoting.org/StratHonMix.html)

Claim: If a candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, he or she wins.
Reality: Simply false. IRV can elect X instead of Y, even if Y is preferred by a landslide majority over X, and Y got more first-place votes than X. See a particularly nasty (but realistic) example here: http://rangevoting.org/CoreSupp.html

Claim: Instant runoff voting frees minor-party candidates from a "spoiler" role, allows voters to express their honest preferences and ensures a majority winner.
Reality: Wrong. With IRV, a vote for "Nader" can easily be a vote for "Bush". Your thinking is based on the 2-and-a-half-candidate flaw:
http://rangevoting.org/TwoAndAHalf.html

Claim: [IRV] offers a chance to break the stranglehold the two dominant parties have on our political process.
Reality: Wrong. IRV has seen long-term use in Australia, Ireland, Malta, and Fiji. It has led to duopoly in all cases. In fact, Ireland has been using it to elect their president since 1938, and it has been the Fianna Fail party every year save for one exception - so closer to a monopoly than even a duopoly.

Australia has been using IRV since 1918. Australian political analysts at Australianpolitics.com say IRV "promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents."

So, if you want a massively better and simpler system, you need to drop IRV like a hot brick, and push for Range Voting. Its simplest form, Approval Voting, can be accomplished by merely changing the "vote for one" rule to "vote for one or more".

See a persuasive piece written on the issue here:
http://rangevoting.org/IRV.html

Regards,
Clay Shentrup
Electopia, founder
The Center for Range Voting, affiliate
415.240.1973
clay@electopia.org

[Engineer]

Just think, if we had been doing this in 1992, GHWB would have been reelected.

[GCYL]

“As for "they are working for the other party," the Green Party in 2000 and since has received lots of cash from lifelong Republican Party contributors.” - irishguy

Those who voted for the Green Party believed that they were voting for the best possible candidate. Being thankful that such a choice was given to them I’m sure they could care less if you or the other evil undead were paying their candidate’s bills. You’re upset at finance contributions and these independent voters are upset with your sad choice of candidates. I’m with them. If the Democrats fail to present the best possible candidate for office then let the Republicans finance the best possible candidate.

Actually, you do begrudge others their right to vote because they don’t vote like you.

“Plus, they have received volunteer help and legal assistance from state Republican party organizations in trying to get their candidates on the ballot in key races to serve as ‘spoilers.’" – irishguy

Both major political parties work to restrict, remove or deflect election results from independent political parties. It will be a joyous occasion when all independent parties have finally been removed from the election process. Until then for political expediency both major political parties try to remove independents that they feel are “stealing” votes that should be theirs in the first place. Oh boo hoo, the Greens got fee legal help to counter your efforts.

[GCYL]

“I begrudge nobody their vote.” – irishguy

How very American of you. We’re allowed to vote for any one we want for any reason we want.

“Where I draw the line is trying to duck the responsibility for the consequences of your decision, then blame "the system" for the choice you made.”

Until this right to vote starts impacting my political party election results. Oh yes, the line must be drawn.

“Most "progressives" have long since woke up. This is why the Green Party is pretty much irrelevant today.” - irishguy

Political hack speak for it’s our turn to cry about these stupid independent political parties taking potential votes from us.

[zenozac]

Hey Buddy lighten up. You and I both know Irishguy is not an "L". He is non-partisan!LOL

[BuddyT]

"progressives"..........lol, they just can't bring themeselves to say the "L word".

[irishguy]

I begrudge nobody their vote. You can vote for Clarabelle the Clown for all I care. If they bought Ralph Nader's line that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, and that he, Nader, was the man for the job, so be it.

Where I draw the line is trying to duck the responsibility for the consequences of your decision, then blame "the system" for the choice you made.

As for "they are working for the other party," the Green Party in 2000 and since has received lots of cash from lifelong Republican Party contributors. Plus, they have received volunteer help and legal assistance from state Republican party organizations in trying to get their candidates on the ballot in key races to serve as "spoilers."

Most "progressives" have long since woke up. This is why the Green Party is pretty much irrelevant today.

[GCYL]

“when they were trying desperately to explain away their role in putting George Bush in the White House,”

Typical disdain for political independent third parties. If you don’t buy into the “they’re a waste of a vote” then you have to put up with the “they’re working for the other political party” garbage.

[irishguy]

I thought this cockamamie Green Party idea died out seven years ago, when they were trying desperately to explain away their role in putting George Bush in the White House, against every principle their party was supposed to stand for.