[Speed Gibson,
Friday November 17, 2006 at 10:27pm]
Instant Runoff - Wrong Answer
The Minneapolis Star Tribune denies it, but their Editorial for instant runoff voting smacks of a dish best served cold to Peter Hutchinson. But for third parties, a number of their golden boys might well have been elected, Mike Hatch, Al Gore, maybe even Skip Humphrey.
This frustration is understandable. When the major party votes split about evenly, the third party vote can decide elections, even the Presidency. They don't decide by winning outright, however. They do it by drawing votes away from a major party, one more than the other.
Though there's nothing in our Constitutions about it, our elections have evidenced a two party system from the beginning, or more specifically, no more than two major parties. As such, the contest should be between them, not brokered by small factions.
The third (and fourth and fifth and ...) parties argue that the major parties actively limit the competition. I bought into this during my brief fling with the Libertarian Party, but I think it's systematic. If we could eliminate all political parties and their memory with a mass Vulcan mind meld, we would soon find we had two major parties once again.
If there is a problem, and I agree there is, the Star Tribune's solution isn't the solution. It's a cute way of sweeping those annoying third party votes under the rug so that the winner gets a true majority and the "mandate" that goes with that.
Rubbish. Had Pawlenty still won under this system, the Democrats would still brand him a 46% Governor as they do now. Had Hatch won under this system, the Republicans would have branded him a 45% Governor, and cried foul that the candidate with the most votes lost.
Another problem with instant runoff is that, according to the Democrats anyway, voters are already struggling with simple "pick one" voting. Butterfly, punch card, and electronic voting systems are too confusing to voters, they say, even for the vote counters apparently. Now you're going to throw multiple choice at them?
The real cure would be to hold non-partisan primaries, where the top two candidates move on to the general election. This practice is in wide use in municipal elections and nobody is having any trouble with it. Minneapolis is in fact taking a step backward in adopting instant runoff. A possible compromise would be to also pass on to the general election anyone getting, say 10 percent or within 10 percent points of second place, but even this is a negative in my opinion. Write-in's are allowed only in the Primary, moving on if they take first or second.
This could mean Democrat vs. Democrat, or Democrat vs. Green, or Republican vs. Libertarian here and there, and if they're the top two vote-getters in the Primary, more power to them. Connecticut's Senate race effective demonstrated this, with Democrat Lieberman vs. Democrat Lamont.
Another benefit is that it ends the nonsense and wasted time spent hearing minor candidates in debates and advertising. Peter Hutchinson was an exception, truly adding to the debate, but most simply got in the way.
Non-partisan primary elections, already proven, would provide simpler, fairer elections. The more complex instant runoff would only add to the dissatisfaction.
This frustration is understandable. When the major party votes split about evenly, the third party vote can decide elections, even the Presidency. They don't decide by winning outright, however. They do it by drawing votes away from a major party, one more than the other.
Though there's nothing in our Constitutions about it, our elections have evidenced a two party system from the beginning, or more specifically, no more than two major parties. As such, the contest should be between them, not brokered by small factions.
The third (and fourth and fifth and ...) parties argue that the major parties actively limit the competition. I bought into this during my brief fling with the Libertarian Party, but I think it's systematic. If we could eliminate all political parties and their memory with a mass Vulcan mind meld, we would soon find we had two major parties once again.
If there is a problem, and I agree there is, the Star Tribune's solution isn't the solution. It's a cute way of sweeping those annoying third party votes under the rug so that the winner gets a true majority and the "mandate" that goes with that.
Rubbish. Had Pawlenty still won under this system, the Democrats would still brand him a 46% Governor as they do now. Had Hatch won under this system, the Republicans would have branded him a 45% Governor, and cried foul that the candidate with the most votes lost.
Another problem with instant runoff is that, according to the Democrats anyway, voters are already struggling with simple "pick one" voting. Butterfly, punch card, and electronic voting systems are too confusing to voters, they say, even for the vote counters apparently. Now you're going to throw multiple choice at them?
The real cure would be to hold non-partisan primaries, where the top two candidates move on to the general election. This practice is in wide use in municipal elections and nobody is having any trouble with it. Minneapolis is in fact taking a step backward in adopting instant runoff. A possible compromise would be to also pass on to the general election anyone getting, say 10 percent or within 10 percent points of second place, but even this is a negative in my opinion. Write-in's are allowed only in the Primary, moving on if they take first or second.
This could mean Democrat vs. Democrat, or Democrat vs. Green, or Republican vs. Libertarian here and there, and if they're the top two vote-getters in the Primary, more power to them. Connecticut's Senate race effective demonstrated this, with Democrat Lieberman vs. Democrat Lamont.
Another benefit is that it ends the nonsense and wasted time spent hearing minor candidates in debates and advertising. Peter Hutchinson was an exception, truly adding to the debate, but most simply got in the way.
Non-partisan primary elections, already proven, would provide simpler, fairer elections. The more complex instant runoff would only add to the dissatisfaction.
1. Removes the responsibility from the voter of actually choosing ONE candidates to vote for. Yes, there is a dilemma of picking a candidate closer to oneself that will not win or picking a candidate further from one's beliefs but with a chance of winning. That should be a decision placed squarely on the voter. IRV allows the decision to be put off unless certain circumstances throughout the constituency occur...but the responsibility of deciding is removed.
2. Federalist 10 spoke of the importance of forcing "factions" or minorities to work together. They create temporary majorities based on the interests at the moment. This prevents a majority from running all over the minority. With a 45% winner they MUST work with factions to get things done. They must be aware of the desires and rights of the minority of the moment because, truth be told, the 45% winner is not supported by a majority either. To me, IRV is contradictory to the Founders underlying principles.