Alternative voting

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I was watching Bill Maher interview Jesse Ventura (insert disparaging joke here) when they brought up an interesting concept: alternative voting, or instant-runoff voting. Basically, say you wanted to vote for Ralph Nader in 2000. What you do is put down two picks, first Nader and then Al Gore, so that your vote doesn't go on to help out Bush. If Nader doesn't get enough votes then it goes to Gore.

I think one of the biggest problems in the US is our two party system. It's corrupt but hard to stop because of our all-or-nothing voting systems. We often don't vote for the person we REALLY want because we're afraid he can't win, and therefore our vote will be wasted.

I think we'd be better off if we had the GOP, the Dems, another conservative party (the Tea Party?), the Green Party, Libertarians, and others all a part of our national government. This way it's a more accurate representation of the views of the country, and it'll force them to compromise more often to get things done.

I think another thing that needs to be thrown out is our Electoral College system. The Presidency needs to be a straight up popular vote, having up to half of a state's votes not count seems to oppose the idea of a democracy.

So, do you think alternative voting could be a viable option? If not how else can we end our two-party system in America? Or do you think we even need to?

Comments

[gillen.livejournal.com]

A horrible idea.

All it does is insure that the Democrats and Republicans never need to make any concessions to the Left and Right respectively, because they can expect to pick up their votes in the second round. The message is, "Go ahead and vote third party. We no longer care."

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

As if they do now?

[gillen.livejournal.com]

Okay, "We care even less, because now there's no way that ignoring you can cost us an election."

It's sad because it's true.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

=[

[gillen.livejournal.com]

Because the threat of splitting the vote and throwing the election to the other party is the only power that third parties have, and IRV surrenders it.

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

It surrenders it but in exchange gives 3rd parties the potential to actually become viable contenders in the future. And fixes the problem where if the main party doesn't get *enough* of the 3rd party voters, the election will just swing the completely opposite way, producing a result the *most* voters would consider their least preferred outcome.

[gillen.livejournal.com]

Never trade away actual power for a nebulous potential. The reality is that despite the fact that on paper such a deal could result in 3rd party ascendency, it will not. But by the time third parties crunch the numbers and realize how badly they ducked themselves in supporting such a system, it will already be fait accompli.

[gillen.livejournal.com]

ducked = fucked

damn iPhone autocorrect

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

It does entrench the two party system, however.