I cannot stress the importance of “Instant runoff voting” (IRV) enough! Some places in America have IRV and it works great there. This is something that I want to be nation wide. Imagine being able to vote for they guy you really want to win but know he wont as well as vote for the guy you think will win but aren’t that enthusiastic about.

With IRV you will never ever “throw away your vote”.

Is there anyone here against IRV? I have yet to meet anyone who is.

__________________

I am not sure to understand what this "IRV" is.

You make two choices, one of a candidate you'd like to see to win, and the one, your reason demands you to vote because the first one will not win anyway?

And how should this votes be counted? Or should this be only a test voting?

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

This is an essay I wrote about IRV in my freshman year in college: (Pardon the fluffiness, I was supposed to make it over 2 pages and I was having a hard time because I was a amateur in writing.)

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

Instant runoff voting (IRV) is voting reform that allows voters to rate candidates from most favorable to least favorite (example: vote #1 for most desired winner and vote #2 for second etc.) rather than only one vote per candidate. Without IRV, elections involving more than two candidates, can result in a winner of an election receiving less than fifty percent of the votes. In cases using IRV, where no candidate gets more than fifty percent of the vote, the candidate with the fewest number one votes will be eliminated. The second place winner from voters who voted for an eliminated candidate will then be transferred to the remaining candidates. Ballots are then recounted and additional candidates are eliminated until there is a winner with more than fifty percent of the votes. IRV is the best voting system and should replace the less accurate one-vote system used today in elections involving more than two candidates.

Some election administrators believe that if IRV were introduced in every state in the country then it would cost more money than it is worth replacing all the current voting machines. It may be true that IRV might be more costly at first, but in the long run it will save money and be more timely. Some elections in the United States hold runoffs weeks after the first elections. With IRV, all the runoffs are held in one election and thus saves money by avoiding repeat elections.

Because IRV only uses the lesser place votes from the ballots of the candidates with the fewest number one votes, it provides more breathing room for independent and third party candidates. If IRV were used during the 2000 and 2004 elections, perhaps Ralph Nader would have received more first choice votes. Those who wanted to vote for him but did not because they felt he could not win would feel differently with IRV. Assuming Ralph Nader still came in third place or lower during either of the 2000 or 2004 elections, and the leading two candidates received less than half of the votes each, then all of the remaining voters for Nader would still have a voice as to who else they would want to win the election. This way, Nader and the people who vote for him, would not be accused of tilting the election one way or the other. IRV promises the winner of an election has the majority of votes. Because of the great impact the third party voters provide with IRV, It can also change the way politicians will run for office.

IRV can greatly decrease negative campaigning because people running will need secondary votes as well as first place votes. By attacking fellow candidates with negative campaigning, many politicians will lose their opponent’s voter’s second or lesser votes. With the absence of negative campaigning, politics can loose some of its “dirty” or “nasty” stigma to non-voters, thus creating the potential of more involvement in the election process.

Instant Runoff Voting is the best system of voting and should replace all singular voting systems. Elections could become lighter hearted, which may draw more voters. Third parties may become more involved providing extra opinions and more debate. In elections where two or more candidates are running, the winner is ensured the majority of votes. And finally, IRV saves time and money. It is time for elections to satisfy the voters and IRV will make that happen.

__________________

They do use that in some countries. It's either Ireland or Australia, I can't remember which. I had an exam question on it...

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Hm, this IRV sounds interesting for elections where its all about electing a single president or a comparable thing.

Especially in the American context, it could be helpful.

The question is however, in how far the established large parties should have an interest in making a reform that mostly harms just their own position.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

I really can't see them doing that if it hurts their position.
although it might benefit the democrats, since they'd get all the Green votes. And I suppose the Republicans would get the Libertarian votes, but I doubt except in a few places that really matters.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Exactly. The only way this will ever pass and be used for a presidential election is if it passes on a local level nearly nation wide first. This would be a move to fix all kinds of crazy problems in the American voting system. Too bad the only people who the elite see benefiting from this is competing third parties and the average dissatisfied voter.

More people should know about this so that whenever we get a chance to vote on a new voting system people will vote on the thing that most closely resembles IRV.

__________________

Well, I wish you good luck with that Seer.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

IRV sounds alright. I prefer the way the French elect their president, though. There are two rounds. The first with a lot of candidates (one from each party). The two candidates that have the most votes the first time, will advance to a second round, which is more like the American system. That way, you will never 'throw away' your vote.

__________________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences" (William I. Thomas)
--
Your premier source of Dutch opinion.