Post by Noah on Apr 6, 2005 22:36:42 GMT -5
"Instant runoff voting" means that instead of choosing one candidate from a list, voters rank all or some of the candidates in order of preference. If the candidate you ranked first failed to win any electoral votes, your vote would go to the candidate you ranked second.
Not surprisingly, the most ardent advocates of instant runoff voting are those who are not registered as Democrats or Republicans. Without it, it's hard to imagine the emergence of an equal third party.
If we had had instant runoff voting in 2000, most of Ralph Nader's 2,882,955 votes would have gone to Gore, reversing narrow Bush victories in several key states. Gore would have had, let us say, a much more decisive victory than he did have, and probably would have wound up in the White House.
However, this assumes that Al Gore in 2000 had just finished serving as Vice President for eight peaceful and prosperous years. And if we had had instant runoff voting in 1992, it's likely that enough Ross Perot votes would've transferred to Bush I to grant him a second term.
Partisan what-iffing aside, it seems to me that instant runoff voting is a good way of expanding the mainstream political spectrum. I also like that it increases the power of the people's will to determine their president.
Whadaya think? And do you think America might ever adopt it?
Not surprisingly, the most ardent advocates of instant runoff voting are those who are not registered as Democrats or Republicans. Without it, it's hard to imagine the emergence of an equal third party.
If we had had instant runoff voting in 2000, most of Ralph Nader's 2,882,955 votes would have gone to Gore, reversing narrow Bush victories in several key states. Gore would have had, let us say, a much more decisive victory than he did have, and probably would have wound up in the White House.
However, this assumes that Al Gore in 2000 had just finished serving as Vice President for eight peaceful and prosperous years. And if we had had instant runoff voting in 1992, it's likely that enough Ross Perot votes would've transferred to Bush I to grant him a second term.
Partisan what-iffing aside, it seems to me that instant runoff voting is a good way of expanding the mainstream political spectrum. I also like that it increases the power of the people's will to determine their president.
Whadaya think? And do you think America might ever adopt it?
