If the U.S. had IRV voting

[BayCityProgressive]

would you guys support parties like Green Party www.gpus.org , or Socialist Party USA www.sp-usa.org or another third party?

[corporatewhore]

1. All ready do support the Green party

but would love the None of the Above option for instances like
Corporate whore who'll screw you
corporate whore who'll will atleast try not to appear as one and screw you a little less

[BayCityProgressive]

2. I support both of these parties

but due to the two party system often vote Dem.

[CalebHayes]

3. Green party 2nd

I'm still a Democrat. But I like the greens. Most of them are good people and I usually agree with them. I tell you what though... They need someone new. Nader really sucks as a presidential candidate. Dennis would be pretty good though. He sounds like Bobby Kennedy... That gets me every time.

[corporatewhore]

4. i agree the greens need a new cannidate

I think that Jello biafra would be better green party leader than nader.He ran as a green in 2000 but then dropped out. read his platform
http://www.angelfire.com/punk/jello2000/platform.html now who would he have as his VP??

[pnorman]

5. Here's one example of IRV:

DemoChoice Web Poll: President Preference Poll - December 17
1 candidate will be elected with 2,770 ballots cast.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Round 1 50%

Dennis Kucinich 1,519 (54.8%)

Howard Dean 845 (30.5%)

Wesley Clark 261 (9.4%)

Ralph Nader 26 (0.9%)

John Kerry 25 (0.9%)

George W. Bush 24 (0.9%)

Carol Moseley Braun 19 (0.7%)

John Edwards 15 (0.5%)

Hillary Clinton 15 (0.5%)

Joe Lieberman 10 (0.4%)

Richard Gephardt 6 (0.2%)

Al Sharpton 5 (0.2%)


Results
Joe Lieberman Defeated
Dennis Kucinich Elected
Wesley Clark Defeated
Howard Dean Defeated
Al Sharpton Defeated
Carol Moseley Braun Defeated
John Kerry Defeated
George W. Bush Defeated
John Edwards Defeated
Ralph Nader Defeated
Hillary Clinton Defeated
Richard Gephardt Defeated
http://www.potuspoll.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been getting these POTUS IRV emails for the past few months, and each time I check, Dennis looks better. I imagine the list of voters is skewed as compared to the "general population" (Wazzat"??), but I don't think this poll is rigged in any manner. What it seems to be telling us all here is: "VOTE FROM THE HEART! You may be surprised.

pnorman (I'm putting this here so I can locate it later by Search)

STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/

[RandomUser]

6. IRV has flaws, too

The two major flaws of IRV are that it's (1)prone to strategic voting and (2)fails to assign proportional preferential weights.

Our current plurality voting system is probably the worst, but IRV is kind of bad, too. There is no perfect voting system. They all have flaws, and they can all produce counter-intuitive results. Personally, I'd like a hybrid system of IRV and some of the other types.

Here's an analysis of various voting systems. http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/altvote.html

As you can see, IRV is a pretty crappy system, too.

I've voted Green, Republican (yes, flame away), and (90%)Dem. I vote for the person first and foremost, not party. I've been a registered Dem since I registered to vote, and my voting record is 90% Dem. But I'm an American first, and a Democrat second. I'll vote for whoever I believe to be the best person for the job, whether that person is Green, Dem, or even Republican.

Thus, an IRV system would not change my voting pattern in any way. I'll still be voting Green, Republican (yes, I still intend to), and 90% Dem. I voted Nader in 2000. I'm voting Clark in 2004.

[pnorman]

7. This discussion is moot of course.

We won't even see the abolition of the Electoral College for a long time to come. Just ask a Bush loyalist about it, and be prepared for a blast of ill-digested twaddle about "the intent of our Founding Fathers, yada yada". I'll try to study that analysis, but when it gets too complicated, better forget it. To me at any rate, IRV should work to the extent that almost everyone (including the losers) should feel that it was fair and square.

Not that it's directly relevant to this discussion, I too voted for Nader. I made that decision directly after Labor Day of that year. On my printer at this moment are three stickers: "Union Yes!", "Protest WTO, NOV 30, BE THERE!", and "Vote Nader". On the Nader one I had attached the legend "NO REGRETS!". Had Gore campaigned as a DEMOCRAT, he probably wouldn't have lost ANY votes thereby, but he would have won practically ALL of the Green votes. Would the BushCo gang have DARED to steal THAT election? I report, you decide FAIR AND BALANCED.

In ANY event, it was Karl Rove, James Baker, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and a compliant media, who stole that election. Try to remember that, you guys who are up all night thinking up new invectives for Nader.

pnorman

STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/

[RandomUser]

8. The other systems are much better than IRV

Some scientific organizations, people who know much about mathematics and thus the mathematical models of voting, eschew IRV during their own intra-organizational votes in favor of Acceptance voting. That's not a perfect system either. But there are lots of voting systems, each with their own flaws.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Approval voting has issues too

Namely that you can wind up with three people tied for first place. It is very good for selecting a field of viable candidates to go on to another round, but I wouldn't want to use it at the polls. All those runoffs would cost and arm and a leg.

[RandomUser]

16. Yep, it does

I personally favor a modified hybrid system of IRV and some of the other systems. Specifically, IRV doesn't allow for different proportional preferential weights, and I'd like to see that changed.

[pnorman]

12. MATHEMATICS??

That would be the KISS OF DEATH. You might as well describe it as MARXIST, in our mathophobic culture. If there's any hope at all of replacing the present system with with a better one, it would be to offer one that can be explained in reasonably simple terms. IRV is, I believe, at the outer edge of "simple". I just woke up (for a piss-call) and haven't read that article yet, but I expect all the others are a good way beyond "simple".

But that IRV poll I posted earlier, skewed as the voter population may be, seems to indicate that Dennis is FAR more viable than the so-called "media" would have us think. THAT's where I had hoped this discussion would lead.

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/

[LWolf]

14. Dennis also supports IRV.

As do I. There are too many people who don't vote their real choice for fear of "losing." IRV would allow people to vote their true choice without risk. And electing a few more people who are not firmly entrenched in the bureacracy of the two-party system could only help.

I think this democratic primary, with it's huge field of candidates, would have been a perfect place to start.

[RandomUser]

15. You do realize this isn't about candidates, right?

But that IRV poll I posted earlier, skewed as the voter population may be, seems to indicate that Dennis is FAR more viable than the so-called "media" would have us think. THAT's where I had hoped this discussion would lead.


If I wanted to talk candidates, I would be in the new 2004 primary forum.

And no analysis of voting systems, including IRV, is every simple. Obviously, when you're discussing analysis and the fairness of voting systems, you're not trying to talk to the general public who don't care about IRV, and don't even vote when it's simple plurality right now. I don't deny your point that IRV is better than plurality. I'm only pointing out that IRV has major flaws, too, and is not a silver bullet.

I thought we were discussing which are the better voting systems, not which is more likely to pass, since we seem to agree that it's a moot point and won't happen anytime soon.

[pnorman]

17. I see this on my union BBS frequently,

as well as on the related listserves. Namely: One person starts a thread, and it diverges ... not off on a tangent, but on a side trip ... to the irritation of the original poster. I Feel Your Pain, having been in that position a few times myself. But I meant no disrespect. I also admit to, being a relatively sparse poster here, not having gotten around to reading the Rules.

Back to the subject: I wasn't looking for a Silver Bullet (or an Oaken Stake through the Black Heart of those who have hijascked the Presidency). But I AM looking for something that has a "reasonable" chance of acceptance at some time in the future. Those criminal CREEPS are staying in power by juggling a lot balls in the air. If they should slip, their devoted audience will wake up from their trance; and they'll be out for BLOOD. If so, the liberal-left should have some practical solutions ready. Otherwise, it may be regarded as too "timid & ineffectual". A Huey Long could make hay then.

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Abolishing the EC

could also cause problems. We may be better off reforming it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Greens first, socialists 2nd, dems 3rd

But actually where I live it would be Dem first by default since there are frequently no third party challengers.

BUT, IRV has problems and could conceivably cause third party candidates to lose a race, which is why at the moment I prefer the more complicated but more fair borda voting. (You rank candidates, but the rankings are also weighted with point values which can be tallied as well. More details from the links on my website.)

[JanMichael]

13. SP-USA. Because, well, I'm a Socialist...

...who is a member of the SP-USA but is voting Dem (have always voted Dem. I wasn't so far Left until after 2000) because we have a lousy Plutocratic two party system and the Dems, most of them anyway, are MUCH MUCH better than the Repukes.

I can't imagine a second Bush term. The possibilities are too bizzarre, terrible, to contemplate this early in the morning.