Urgent note to Tricky!
Would you consider moving to New Mexico (at least for a few months)? You're one of the few people I can think of who might be able to make this interesting idea for IRV a reality. If you haven't already seen this, it's from the July 12 issue of The Nation (available on-line at http://thenation.com , but only if you're a subscriber to the magazine)
Let's say the result is Kerry 44%, Bush 37%, Nader 12%, Badnarik 6%, and miscellaneous others 1%. Under the present rules, in most states all the electoral votes would go to Kerry. But with IRV, it's possible to do an instant runoff using the ballots already cast. For the first round of this, Badnarik and misc. others are eliminated. Any ballots with one of them as # 1 choice is re-examined to see who the second choice would be. If there is another candidate listed on the ballot who has not yet been eliminated, the vote is reassigned to that candidate. Since your first choice was Nader and he has not been eliminated yet, you are not affected by this and your vote continues to go for Nader.
Let's suppose the result of this first round redistribution is as follows: Kerry goes up 1 point to 45%, Bush goes up 2 points to 39%, and Nader goes up 4 points16%. Again, there is no winner, so another round will be needed. Nader is eliminated, and all Nader ballots are re-examined to see if the voter has indicated a preference for one of the remaining candidates (in which case the vote is re-assigned to that candidate). In your case, you did, and so your vote goes to Bush.
Interestingly, the count shows that most of Nader's voters, like you, listed Bush as their next choice. The 16% divides up as follows: 12 % goes to Bush, 4 % to Kerry. The final tally is Bush 51%, Kerry 49%! [color=f7f7f7]NOTE: Although this example is purely hypothetical, I want to assure people that the fact the voting machines involved were made by Diebold had absolutely nothing to do with the surprisingly large amount of votes that wound up being re-assigned to Bush.[/color]
One good thing about IRV is that, in general, you are not penalized for voting for the person you really want instead of the person you think is more likely to win. That's not always completely true, but it's much more true under IRV than under current US voting processes.
Instead of holding one's nose and making a choice between 2 candidates one dislikes, one is actually free to vote for the candidate one would like to see win. Can you imagine what the effect would be if this kind of thing became widespread?
Obviously, IRV is not a miracle or a cure-all for the problems of voting. As noted in the article, Australia already uses a form of IRV, and paradise hasn't been achieved there yet. Even so, IRV seems to me to be an improvement on the present US system and an experiment worth trying.
Would you consider moving to New Mexico (at least for a few months)? You're one of the few people I can think of who might be able to make this interesting idea for IRV a reality. If you haven't already seen this, it's from the July 12 issue of The Nation (available on-line at http://thenation.com , but only if you're a subscriber to the magazine)
For those not familiar with the process, IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference when casting their ballots. Let's say you like Nader, think Badnarik as president would be a hoot, could tolerate Bush, and loathe Kerry. Instead of having to choose between voting for Nader who you really want or Bush you think is electable, you are free to do both. What you do is mark your ballot Nader-1, Badnarik-2, Bush-3. When the time comes to tally the votes, your vote goes to Nader.
Let's say the result is Kerry 44%, Bush 37%, Nader 12%, Badnarik 6%, and miscellaneous others 1%. Under the present rules, in most states all the electoral votes would go to Kerry. But with IRV, it's possible to do an instant runoff using the ballots already cast. For the first round of this, Badnarik and misc. others are eliminated. Any ballots with one of them as # 1 choice is re-examined to see who the second choice would be. If there is another candidate listed on the ballot who has not yet been eliminated, the vote is reassigned to that candidate. Since your first choice was Nader and he has not been eliminated yet, you are not affected by this and your vote continues to go for Nader.
Let's suppose the result of this first round redistribution is as follows: Kerry goes up 1 point to 45%, Bush goes up 2 points to 39%, and Nader goes up 4 points16%. Again, there is no winner, so another round will be needed. Nader is eliminated, and all Nader ballots are re-examined to see if the voter has indicated a preference for one of the remaining candidates (in which case the vote is re-assigned to that candidate). In your case, you did, and so your vote goes to Bush.
Interestingly, the count shows that most of Nader's voters, like you, listed Bush as their next choice. The 16% divides up as follows: 12 % goes to Bush, 4 % to Kerry. The final tally is Bush 51%, Kerry 49%! [color=f7f7f7]NOTE: Although this example is purely hypothetical, I want to assure people that the fact the voting machines involved were made by Diebold had absolutely nothing to do with the surprisingly large amount of votes that wound up being re-assigned to Bush.[/color]
One good thing about IRV is that, in general, you are not penalized for voting for the person you really want instead of the person you think is more likely to win. That's not always completely true, but it's much more true under IRV than under current US voting processes.
Instead of holding one's nose and making a choice between 2 candidates one dislikes, one is actually free to vote for the candidate one would like to see win. Can you imagine what the effect would be if this kind of thing became widespread?
Obviously, IRV is not a miracle or a cure-all for the problems of voting. As noted in the article, Australia already uses a form of IRV, and paradise hasn't been achieved there yet. Even so, IRV seems to me to be an improvement on the present US system and an experiment worth trying.
and I have voted republican frequently, so again I would rather have a real runoff myself. Because while I might vote for democrat A, I might of might not vote for the democrat B depending, because I might vote republican C. For example, I voted for Jim Edgar for Govenor twice because I really despised the democratic nominee, but had I been able to vote for a different democrat in the runoff, I mighyt have done so.