Recently opponents to IRV lost a Minnesota Supreme Court case because the Court did not agree with them that IRV took away one person-one vote.
Today's Star Tribune had a letter-writer who argued that IRV would have prevented Jesse Ventura, George W. Bush, and Tim Pawlenty from winning. He argued that since none of these won a majority of votes they would not have won with IRV. I guess he is assuming that all those who voted for the candidate with the least votes would have made their second choice the person who came in second.
Let's suppose in the Coleman-Humphrey-Ventura race that half the voters who voted for Humphrey gave their second choice as Coleman and half as Ventura. Ventura would have still won. My guess is that more than half of the Humphrey voters would have given their second choice as Ventura, disliking a Republican more than Ventura, giving Ventura an even bigger win. On the other hand, what if no Humphrey voter gave a second choice. We still have a non-majority winner.
Showing posts with label IRV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IRV. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Instant run off views put me instantly to sleep
The clamor for instant runoff voting seems to be getting more intense. I find most of the articles on either side to be tiresome, rarely offering anything substantial. Today's Duluth News Tribune had two articles on instant runoff voting (IRV):
"Instant runoff voting lessens impact of voters' choice"
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/116881/
and "Instant runoff voting would make Minnesotans vote count"
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/116769/
The latter is by David Durenberger, former Republican Senator, and David Schultz, a Hamline University professor. Even though their column is better written, I still don't see IRV "as broadening the appeal of major-party candidates and encouraging viable third-party candidates."
Suppose there are four candidates for a particular office and 11 voters. All the voters give only a first and a second choice. The results are
A 5/0
B 3/3 for D
C 2/2 for D
D 1/1 for B
Under IRV no candidate received a clear majority, and so Ds second choice is a vote for B. Now we have
A 5
B 4
C 2
and we still have no clear majority. If you feel up to it, see how many different scenarios you can come up with that give less than certain results.
IRV has been touted as the solution to many "ills", including "spoiler votes", more viability to third party candidates, preventing our current fiasco with Franken and Coleman, and on and on. In the latter case, suppose half of Barkeley's voters gave Franken as their second choice and half gave Coleman as their second choice?
I have long thought the "jungle primary" as used in some Southern states was a better alternative. All the candidates who file for an office are on the first ballot, regardless of party affiliation. If any candidate receives the majority, that race has been decided. If not, the candidates are ranked according to votes and those whose combined votes are greater than 50 percent, go on to the next election.
This does eliminate the "spoiler" candidates of open party primaries. That is, voters who gave neither a dime or some time to a party get to decide a party's candidates.
Many say we have poor turnout to elections and that repeated elections will be a burden on many. This is very strange from a nation that talks about the sacrifice of people in the military to defend our freedom but can't make the sacrifice of a small bit of time to vote to defend that same freedom.
"Instant runoff voting lessens impact of voters' choice"
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/116881/
and "Instant runoff voting would make Minnesotans vote count"
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/116769/
The latter is by David Durenberger, former Republican Senator, and David Schultz, a Hamline University professor. Even though their column is better written, I still don't see IRV "as broadening the appeal of major-party candidates and encouraging viable third-party candidates."
Suppose there are four candidates for a particular office and 11 voters. All the voters give only a first and a second choice. The results are
A 5/0
B 3/3 for D
C 2/2 for D
D 1/1 for B
Under IRV no candidate received a clear majority, and so Ds second choice is a vote for B. Now we have
A 5
B 4
C 2
and we still have no clear majority. If you feel up to it, see how many different scenarios you can come up with that give less than certain results.
IRV has been touted as the solution to many "ills", including "spoiler votes", more viability to third party candidates, preventing our current fiasco with Franken and Coleman, and on and on. In the latter case, suppose half of Barkeley's voters gave Franken as their second choice and half gave Coleman as their second choice?
I have long thought the "jungle primary" as used in some Southern states was a better alternative. All the candidates who file for an office are on the first ballot, regardless of party affiliation. If any candidate receives the majority, that race has been decided. If not, the candidates are ranked according to votes and those whose combined votes are greater than 50 percent, go on to the next election.
This does eliminate the "spoiler" candidates of open party primaries. That is, voters who gave neither a dime or some time to a party get to decide a party's candidates.
Many say we have poor turnout to elections and that repeated elections will be a burden on many. This is very strange from a nation that talks about the sacrifice of people in the military to defend our freedom but can't make the sacrifice of a small bit of time to vote to defend that same freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)