Vermont is considered the state most likely to pass Instant-Runoff voting for federal and state elections. Both houses of the legislature are controlled by the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party of Vermont seems committed to IRV. S. 48, to create IRV in Vermont, has just been introduced.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
How compatible are fusion & IRV systems?
In the early 1900s, 11 states tried IRV, which is preferential voting; all repealed it. WA state, e.g., enacted it in 1907 & repealed in 1917. IL used PV to elect its legislature: the voter had 3 votes for each seat.
The idea is to ensure a majority win without the hassle of a runoff primary; in effect, 2 elections are held based on one campaign. In the 10 states (8 Southern, plus KY & OK) with runoff (2nd) primaries, voters make the final choice (when a runoff is necessary) based on the 2nd campaign. In my state of Mississippi (1st to adopt runoffs), the primary leader has often lost the runoff.
It’s not surprising that the Peoples Republic of Vermont would be enamored of such a lousy idea!!
And it’s “such a lousy idea!” because….
Jason’s last name is…
IRV is necessary because…
IRV is a wonderful idea because…
More on IL’s old way of electing its legislature: the voter could cast his 3 votes one of 3 ways: all
3 to one candidate; 2 to one candidate & one to another; or one to each of 3 candidates.
Jason’s last name is…irrelevant to the matter at hand.
IRV is necessary because…it would more accurately reflect the will of the voters. No longer would people have to hold their nose and vote for the lesser evil.
IRV is a wonderful idea because…in addition to freeing voters to actually vote for their first choice without “helping” their worst choice it would also likely improve participation in our entire political process. Legislative bodies would better reflect the views of constituents and this inclusion would help empower ordinary people to become involved. Also, the discourse would be raised as candidates, chasing the second and third preference votes, would have to appeal to more than just a narrow base.
I ask again, it’s “such a lousy idea!” because…
Jason Anonymous: Yes, IRV would empower people to hold their noses & vote for the least evil. A candidate could be nominated/elected based on 2nd & 3rd choices. Some mandate!
The 11 states who tried variations of preferential voting clearly didn’t like it, as all repealed it. Now PV has been brought out of mothballs & renamed “Instant Runoff Voting.” If the aim is to prevent someone from winning with a small plurality, you can set a threshold of, say, 35% or 40% to avoid a runoff.
We’ve had a # of presidents elected with a minority of the popular vote, e. g., Lincoln with 39.9% & Wilson with 41.8%.
On 1/31, Bill O’Reilly predicted that IRV won’t catch on.
I agree.
Who professes to believe that what we now have works?