Comments on: Instant runoff dating

By: Eddie

Eddie — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:38:02 +0000

I’d say that’s semantics, as IRV boils down to a series of primaries, where the least popular candidate gets removed after each one. And in each of those primaries, each voter only gets one vote, just as with the current two election/ballot method. I don’t see any anti-democratic difference at all between two elections/ballots on two days and IRV/however many necessary ballots on one day.

Beyond that, I think the current primary system/”first election” is incredibly screwed up as is and I’d be happy to get rid of it.

By: mazasapa

mazasapa — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:25:33 +0000

No, Eddie is describing two elections, the primary and the general.

By: s4xton

s4xton — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:43:29 +0000

Because the two votes in your example are in two elections, not one.

It's not two elections. It's two ballots.

By: mazasapa

mazasapa — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:50:45 +0000

Because the two votes in your example are in two elections, not one.

By: Eddie

Eddie — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:48:22 +0000

There are a host of other offices that are filled via elections that feature one man one vote. You know, like the governor, mayor, congressperson, etc.

Except all of those (and more) have primaries, where people actually do get to vote twice before all is said and done. So it is at least one man, two votes. There's already multiple votes to get to a winner, why not do it all at once?

By: leigha

leigha — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:08:04 +0000

Yes. And?

By: mazasapa

mazasapa — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:11:33 +0000

The only office elected by the electoral college is the president. There are a host of other offices that are filled via elections that feature one man one vote. You know, like the governor, mayor, congressperson, etc.

By: leigha

leigha — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:35:51 +0000

Hey mazasapa - I hate to rain on your parade, but our current system is hardly "one man, one vote." Ever heard of The Electoral College? So in Minnesota, it rounds out to about "one man, 1/491,948th of a vote."

By: mazasapa

mazasapa — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:21:40 +0000

but while IRV does potentially benefit third parties...what it really does is make for better democracy. I care about democracy.

Democracy is mob rule. But it's currently mob rule via one man, one vote. With IRV, it becomes mob rule via one man, three votes.

The candidate talking about issues that matter to the majority of the people...health care, education, protection, taxes...will win the day. I'm all for issues oriented campaigns.

After a while, you realize that's all candidates do ... talk about the "issues." If they actually solved anything once in office, they wouldn't have any issues to talk about next time.

Ignore candidates who say they want to "talk about the issues." Instead, ask the candidate what his principles are, what he believes is the role of government, and what specifically he would do differently from what's being done today. But don't be surprised when you do that, most candidates won't be able to answer the questions.

By: jeffk

jeffk — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 05:21:20 +0000

mazasapa:

Hmm... good to know the system is designed to prevent us from getting what we want, for our own good. I was a little worried there that I might be represented by the person most desired by the voters, like in a demo... oh, wait. Never mind.

In any case, and this is something of an aside, I think a good strategy for progressives in the near future would be to try to split the libertarian-I-just-want-to-keep-my-money republicans from the bible-thumping I-know-what's-best-for-you republicans. If that plan was to be carried out successfully, I'll bet mazasapa would be whining for IRV in no time.