John B. Anderson Op-Ed Recommends that All States Put Instant-Runoff Voting in Place for Presidential Elections

John B. Anderson has this op-ed in the October 19 Sacramento Bee, advocating that all states use Instant-Runoff Voting for presidential elections. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.


Comments

John B. Anderson Op-Ed Recommends that All States Put Instant-Runoff Voting in Place for Presidential Elections — 14 Comments

  1. John B. Anderson is right of course when he notes a voter loses either way when not voting for the candidate they prefer or when assisting a candidacy they abhor. IRV is better than what we’ve got.

    What Anderson doesn’t get to is that the major parties relish and depend upon the so-called spoiler dynamic in the plurality system that is. It is easier to use fear than produce.

    Likewise, major party politicians will only respond to fear, they’re well aware of the representative inferiority of plurality based voting schemes. So they’d just come back at some goody-good voter with “people don’t wanna hear ’bout process issues, they want pocketbook solutions”.

    Major partisans must be introduced to fear.

  2. #1, there is no time for a runoff for selection of presidential electors. That is why IRV is especially desirable for presidential elections.

  3. 3 – Why?

    1 – Subject to answer above, I think I may agree with you. And I thought acid flashbacks were fiction.

  4. #4 and #5, Congress long ago mandated that presidential electors vote in mid-December.

  5. Again and again for math MORONS —

    IRV for single offices example —

    The moderate Middle is divided.
    Extremists are on the march.

    34 S-M-H
    33 H-M-S
    16 M-S-H
    16 M-H-S
    99

    IRV — S beats H 50-49 — let a Civil WAR begin ???

    Who has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st plus 2nd place votes ???

    S Stalin clone
    H Hitler clone
    M Moderate clone

    Pending Condorcet head to head math —
    Approval Voting for executive/judicial offices.

  6. #6,7 When Congress set the date for the casting of electoral votes prior to the the 1792 election, it took a long time to communicate from distant States like Georgia and Kentucky to New York City.

    In 1845, when Congress set the time for appointing electors as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, they deliberately provided that a State could make a later appointment, if the State made its appointment on the basis of popular election, and required majority election. So clearly, Congress intended that there be time for a runoff election.

    In 1960, Hawaii did not determine its electors until late December. Obviously they could not have met before then, yet Congress accepted the 3 electoral votes for Kennedy and Johnson without blinking an eye.

    If the legislative authority of each State to direct the manner by which its presidential electors is Supreme and Plenary, then allowing sufficient time to conduct a runoff overrides picayune concerns about the date the electors cast their ballot.

    Congress should move the date for electors meeting to 7 days before Congress meets. Alternatively, a State that wants to ensure majority election could use a Top 2 election.

  7. 11-

    Maybe this is a “picayune” point, but my impression of an “instant” is that it generally transpires in considerably less time than a week.

  8. This year the electoral college meets December 17, 2012. That is only 41 days after the electors are chosen (November 6). Federal law requires that overseas absentee ballots be mailed at least 45 days before any election or primary or run-off (for federal office). So it is impossible to have a run-off for presidential electors.

    France has a two-week interval. This is probably because all overseas French eligible voters are able to vote physically in the country or French overseas territory they are living in (French soil overseas has its own polling places, and presumably eligible French voters living in non-French territory may vote at embassies and consulates, I presume).

  9. #13 The 45-day requirement is a matter of federal law.
    Federal law can be changed. It is possible that it is unenforceable with respect to presidential elections. It is a manner regulation, and with respect to the manner of appointment of president electors, the authority of each legislature is supreme and plenary.

    May the federal government impose manner regulations in the guise of time regulations?

    The federal government may also grant waivers. Being able to have a majority election of presidential electors AND have its electors chosen before the safe harbor date are substantial State interests. Since 1845, Congress has recognized that a State might want to have a majority election of presidential electors.

    Louisiana conducts congressional runoffs within 45 days of the general election. There is no reason that they, or any other State, could not conduct a presidential runoff in the same manner.

    There is no reason that the federal government could not operate overseas polling places on behalf of the States. States are already required to have a single contact point for overseas voters. There is no reason that there could not be a single contact point the federal government.

    (1) Voter registers as overseas voter with their State.
    (2) State uploads ballots for all overseas voters to Federal Overseas Voting Agency (FOVA).
    (3) Overseas voter goes to polling place, and ID is validated.
    (4) Ballot is downloaded from FOVA.
    (5) Voter completes ballot.
    (6) Completed ballots sent to FOVA, which sends them on to States for counting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.