14 Feb 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYour knowledge of the US political system is rudimentary. There's nothing in the Constitution disallowing IRV or many other proposed electoral reforms.
What do you mean with "the best way"? Surely it's quite easy to implement?
I guess there is some opposition to electoral reform because of the Founding Fathers fetishism that seems to be endemic in American society.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't know that - so to change to IRV would only require a Congress majority? I suspect, though, that changing to proportional representation would require an amendment (since this implies curtailing the powers of the POTUS).
Your knowledge of the US political system is rudimentary. There's nothing in the Constitution disallowing IRV or many other proposed electoral reforms.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe individual States can set up whatever rules they desire for the election of their representatives and Senators (subject to it being democratic). That's why several States already have proposed legislation for IRV. http://www.instantrunoff.com/legislation.php
I didn't know that - so to change to IRV would only require a Congress majority? I suspect, though, that changing to proportional representation would require an amendment (since this implies curtailing the powers of the POTUS).
To have full proportional representative in the House you would need a Constitutional amendment. To have it in individual States, the States would just have to pass it. The US has some history of proportional representation albeit in local elections. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI see. Well, I suppose proportional representation (or IRV) in the House would be a good start.
The individual States can set up whatever rules they desire for the election of their representatives and Senators (subject to it being democratic). That's why several States already have proposed legislation for IRV. http://www.instantrunoff.com/legislation.php
To have full proportional representative in the House you would need a Con ...[text shortened]... ocal elections. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt may be seen as a threat to incumbents. It has been suggested it would be easier to get it at the local level first. I'm not sure if that is the case though.
What do you mean with "the best way"? Surely it's quite easy to implement?
I guess there is some opposition to electoral reform because of the Founding Fathers fetishism that seems to be endemic in American society.
I just think it would be a good thing because it would help break the 2 party duopoly in this country. They will change little until their parties feel threatened by a minor political party.
Nobody wants to feel like they are wasting their vote if they vote for the guy they like most. It is undemocratic. What is the most efficient way to get IRV on the national level?
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by JS357
Downsides:
http://minguo.info/election_methods/irv/
After a third party is competitive, on the other hand, the effect if IRV is equivalent to a plurality system in which many voters are somehow convinced to forget about strategy and vote sincerely. As most intelligent voters know, that would wreak havoc with the stability of our political system.
Eh?
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by JS357Here is a sentence from the link that doesn't make sense to me.
Downsides:
http://minguo.info/election_methods/irv/
"IRV is very good at preventing minor parties from interfering with the two-party system"
I thought it did the opposite. Many statements in that link seem wrong to me. Here is another.
"Suppose my true preference is for the Libertarian first and the Republican second. Suppose further that the Libertarians are the strongest "minor" party. At some round of the IRV counting process, all the candidates will be eliminated except the Republican, the Democrat, and the Libertarian. If the Libertarian then has the fewest first-choice votes, he or she will be eliminated and my vote will transfer to the Republican, just as I wanted. But what if the Republican is eliminated before the Libertarian? Unless all the Republican votes transfer to the Libertarian, which is extremely unlikely, the Democrat might then beat the Libertarian. If so, I will have helped the Democrat win by not strategically ranking the Republican first. But that's the same situation I'm in now if I vote my true preference for the Libertarian!"
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainThen try:
Here is a sentence from the link that doesn't make sense to me.
"IRV is very good at preventing minor parties from interfering with the two-party system"
I thought it did the opposite. Many statements in that link seem wrong to me. Here is another.
"Suppose my true preference is for the Libertarian first and the Republican second. Suppose furthe ...[text shortened]... that's the same situation I'm in now if I vote my true preference for the Libertarian!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting