Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWe're headed into an election year with Americans in overwhelming numbers looking for a dramatic change in direction. Progressives have already pushed some major issues onto the table – ending the war in Iraq, affordable healthcare, alternative energy, global warming and trade. But the limits of the current debate are also increasingly apparent: where's the agenda to deal seriously with Gilded Age inequality? With the tsunami of foreclosures precipitated by the subprime mortgage crisis? Where's the public investment agenda to address the staggering investment deficit in infrastructure? Where's the attention to poverty and stunning racial inequalities – from childhood poverty to criminal justice? And, as The Nation pointed out in a recent special issue on "The US & The World: 2008 & Beyond," leading candidates of both parties remain committed to increasing a military budget that is already as large as the rest of the world's military spending combined.
The emerging pro-democracy movement is working to address these symptoms of our downsized politics of excluded alternatives, as well as much of what ails our broken voting system: not only reliable voting machines, but Election Day registration, fighting 21st century Jim Crow tactics , and getting the obscene piles of money out of our politics. (See Ari Berman's post on how it's now estimated that spending for the congressional and presidential campaigns will top $5 billion!)
Another important step towards advancing our democracy is implementing instant runoff voting (IRV), and it's making headway these days at the state and local levels, and showing promise for federal elections too. With IRV, voters can vote their conscience and not worry that a vote is being "wasted" on someone who "can't win." IRV promotes greater debate and more alternatives, and also results in the winning candidate having the support of the majority of voters. Here's how it works: if four candidates were on a ballot, you would rank them one to four. When the votes are tabulated, if one of the candidates is the first choice for 50 percent of the voters, then he or she wins. If not, then the last-place candidate is eliminated, and if you voted for that candidate, your vote in the next round of tabulations is added to the vote totals of the candidate you ranked as your second choice. The process continues until one candidate receives over 50 percent of the vote.
In Australia, IRV was introduced in 1918, and has historically benefited parties on both the left and the right. Last Saturday, it helped the Australian Labor Party – but not before the Australian Greens were able to run a strong campaign and collect 8 percent of the parliamentary vote, and perhaps push debate further on issues like climate change and the Iraq War than Labor wanted to go. In the initial tabulation Labor won only 44 percent of the vote, but with IRV most of the Green votes ended up being awarded to Labor. The party had worked hard to be the second choice of Green voters, and designated former Midnight Oil lead Singer Peter Garrett – "a-rock-star-environmentalist-turned-politico" – as their likely environment minister. In the end, Labor ended up with 54 percent of the two-party tally.
"What a difference a fair voting method like instant runoff voting can make," Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote told me. "With IRV, Greens not only didn't split the vote and help elect candidates opposing their positions, but they got to make their case for change in a way that almost certainly transformed majority opinion on the environment and Iraq and made the Labor Party more responsive to that opinion. And with proportional voting in the senate, the Greens have ongoing power, all the better positioned to help hold Labor accountable to its campaign promises."
In the US, IRV has been chosen by voters in more than a dozen city ballot initiatives. Most recently, voters in Sarasota, FL and Aspen, CO elected to move to IRV by a three-to-one margin. In Pierce County, WA 67 percent of voters chose to keep IRV on track for next year's county executive race. The city council of Santa Fe, NM gave unanimous preliminary approval to place IRV on the March 2008 ballot. Finally, in Vermont, IRV looks promising for congressional elections next year – it's passed the state senate and there are encouraging signs it will pass in the house too.
In a recent op-ed , former Illinois Congressman and presidential candidate, John Anderson, advocated for IRV and noted that "one-third of all voters who are not registered as Republican or Democrat feel pressured to vote against their worst nightmare rather than their best hope…. General elections should be a marketplace of innovative ideas, and independent and third-party candidates can prevent them from becoming a showcase for an overly narrow ideological duopoly."
Until we get a system which is more democratic – including IRV and other democracy reforms – we won't have as effective an independent politics and as vibrant a debate as we deserve.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
oh but the repugnants don't want more democracy...quite the opposite! and the dems, though better than the pugs...
but a 3rd, 4th, 5th, whatever party and real, proven, effective election reform would be great...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/30/2007 @ 9:28pm
KVH, IRV won't fly in this country unless the people demand it.
Posted by ACook at 11/30/2007 @ 10:23pm
Posted by ACOOK 11/30/2007 @ 10:23pm
how do we know if the people demand it?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/30/2007 @ 10:28pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/30/2007 @ 10:28pm
I guess they could start off with a well organized march without the usual suspects trying to hog all the time (this includes all the "grassroots" nutjobs affiliated with both parties).
Posted by ACook at 11/30/2007 @ 10:38pm
Posted by ACOOK 11/30/2007 @ 10:38pm
hmmm...100,000 peace marchers in washington at the beginning of the war barely got media coverage...
its a good question..
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/30/2007 @ 10:47pm
The sentiment for a more complete union is laudable. However I question, how a people who cannot maintain sufficient control so as to have their voice and will heard, to any relevant degree ... in a two party system. Will maintain such in a system of more than two parties? The energy required to create an effective third party, is more than that required to regain control of the two entities passing for same, now extant. In my humble opinion.
Posted by ACOOK 11/30/2007 @ 10:23pm | ignore this person Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/30/2007 @ 10:28pm | ignore this person
What will make the people demand it, and who will carry the message? It's activism, or hell methinks ...
Posted by V at 11/30/2007 @ 10:51pm
Posted by V 11/30/2007 @ 10:51pm
but how does one activate the walmarted?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 11:53pm
I posted a version of this earlier after having seen John Edwards on Charlie Rose Thursday night. I think it applies as well as a response to this excellent KvH post too:
As the tiny remaining pinch of sand spills through the hourglass on the eve of the most important presidential election in the 220 years of the American Republic, the list of currently viable candidates is down to Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, Hillary, Barrack and Edwards.
Given the choppy economic and geopolitical waters the manifest is subject to change, but the need to look seriously at the entries now is not reasonably in dispute.
Among the Pachyderms I'd be relieved to see the ignominious disappearance under the waves of the Romney / Guiliani ship of fools. Huckabee may be a mildly buffoonish character, but at least the guy appears to be a genuinely humanistic figure.
As for the Donkeys, I believe the vast majority of the readers of The Nation comprehend well the Machiavellian machinations of Queen Clinton and are suitably repulsed.
That leaves two remaining reasonable choices, Obama and Edwards.
No doubt, Barrack Obama possesses a keen intellect and a knack for oratorical flair, but his campaign has been much mired in political platitudes and short on substance. I have yet to witness an inspired oration on our all too obviously broken government with its gilded Habitrail runways between Capitol Hill, K-Street, and the Corporate-Military-Industrial-Complex.
For a moment in history so drenched in a deluge of danger while simultaneously perched at the precipice of possibilities, where in the name of all that is holy is the voice who speaks to this conundrum?
I don't have a personally satisfying answer on that count, but I do know that John Edwards is the only viable candidate at the moment who admits to both the root of the problem as well as the depth of its seriousness.
Obama's plank is that he will "bring us together". That sounds really sweet and all, but I prefer to walk planks without a blindfold. So Barrack, can you please elaborate where it is exactly you'd like us to all to stroll?
What I heard John Edwards say loud and clear on Charlie Rose's show was that the crux of America's problem is broken democracy rooted in rampant conflicts of interest in Washington, and that the average citizen has no virtually no voice in DC.
He also made it explicitly clear that all of the serious issues we face are interwoven into a tapestry and must be addressed in a concerted fashion in order to return the nation to its proper course, and allow us to once again take the leadership role that the world needs us so critically to assume.
He's obviously on to something that no one else --aside from the media-maligned Kucinich-- is saying.
This election isn't about simply selecting another business as usual politician to tidy up Georgie's widespread dung-piles and make Washington safe for business again. This is an epochal event that may make or break the future of our nation as well as that of the planet.
The stakes have never been higher.
The question for all Americans is: Are we up to the task?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2007 @ 01:04am
And I reprint this post as well:
Here is the Charlie Rose interview of John Edwards [charlierose.com].
Again, whatever your opinion of the guy, who else among the so-called front runners is speaking as clearly and concisely of the need to reform The System?
Nothing of significance in any policy realm can happen until we address our national cancer.
Along with a treatment regimen analogous to surgery and chemotherapy we should be opening the doors to third party candidates and instant runoff voting. After all, isn't competition supposed to be a good thing?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2007 @ 01:10am
I've been enthused by the thought of a mixed party ticket of late. Kucinich/Paul comes to mind... originally because I read somewhere that Dennis was considering Ron as a running mate, and I like Ron Paul as a 'New Template' Republican...
Now before you all go screaming for "I'd rather haves" and the "you can't buck the system..." or "it's just not done"... Just think about it.
Third Party politics brings up issues. I'm all for that... except for the fact that historically, third party candidates tend to be 'spoilers' in elections rather than 'real' candidates. I would attribute this mostly to the traditional duality embodied by 'the two party system'. Most folks have gotten their minds around 'duality'... almost all team sports are an 'us against them' proposition... and the competitive ethos thrives on this rather directly confrontational "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" approach to games... and... politics.
But Democracy isn't a game, is it? We are determining and prioritizing 'quality of life' issues for millions of people... rich and poor, old and young, beautiful and architecturally challenged, educated and ignorant... and the more dualities we think of, the more qualifiers we add to the equation, the less 'dual' the solutions.
IRV is a plausible, "hands off" voting technique that makes prioritization 'the standard' and thus chips away at the manic depressive, win or lose, if I don't pick a 'winner' then why bother voting... system we have always had, and IMHO, has not served us well. Seems to me, however, that if this is going to work, we should not spring it suddenly on a national election... consideration takes time.
In the interim I have been mulling over another choice... If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Let's 'join the isles' by running tickets that seek to eliminate the duality by having Dems and Repubs running together. This would (ideally) create a more 'free thinking' climate in the House and Senate... something I think we all can agree is sorely needed... and on the national level, getting the two parties used to working together could open a lot of doors for the American people.
Whadyathink?
Oh, and by the way... Tanks a watt foe the spell checker!
ttr
Posted by ttr at 12/01/2007 @ 01:48am
Lord have mercy!!! I'm slain!!! preach it girl!!! and fork all you nonbelievers.
The Gilded Age is reborn - huh, I guess that's why they call it neo(liberalism). There is nothing new about the shit; it has just taken on an inordinately sinister cloak because of the technology of warfare, media, scope of influence, immense human costs, the now play of hostile natural reaction (global.. whoooopsss, that which should not be named) and the ideologically powered and increasingly unbridled greed. Wait, wait - oh lord speak to me!!! (for you numberologists, please note the trinitarian secret of this post)
What a wonderful and practical help for the expansion and proliferation of democratic change so desperately, oh lord, I mean desperately needed change to hear other voices. most especially for the most marginalized and powerless (my hope and goal).
Note: the next recession (or worse) will significantly, and most essentially, eliminate the greater portion of the middle class. (remember the professional sneer at the plight of the unorganized, and organized, manufacturing sector during the last 20 years??? Guess what - it is our, and has been, our turn). It is at these times that as David Harvey quoted a cynical money neorobber barron (I like neo as a prefix. see A Short Hx) at the time of the '29 crash: 'it is now that the money returns to it's rightful owners.' oooohhhh wait lord? praise who??? please lord! - ohh. thank you Naomi Klein for The Shock Doctrine - wonderful analysis as to how the shit has worked/works and an incredibly well documented and substantiated line of inquiry - suggestion: don't come to the u.s. too much - they may rendition, and I don't mean a musical arrangement, you!!!). uhhuhh, and you're married. One can always hope.
Right on KVH - lord did I need your post today!!!
Wait, wait, oooohhhh god??? assassinate who??? pat rrrroobe,??? no lord, no, noooooooohhhh
the spirit has left me.
Posted by steve foster at 12/01/2007 @ 02:34am
It is clear that John Edwards not only recognizes the problem and is willing to state it at the risk of alienating the establishment status quo, but that he is the only candidate who understands that "baby steps" and incremental changes will not work. Bold initiatives are needed, and Edwards is the only one willing to say so. John Edwards has nothing to lose; he has no reason to be politically expedient, no reason not to state the truth, no reason not to actually DO something about it. And he is the best candidate to bring in Independents and dissatisfied Republicans to the Democrats in the next general election. For, even if they do not agree with all his positions on the issues, they can clearly see that he is the true candidate for change, that he speaks his mind, and he speaks the truth.
"This is not class warfare, it is the truth."
Well said, Sen. Edwards, well said.
Posted by amc654 at 12/01/2007 @ 10:16am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/30/2007 @ 11:53pm
"You see the beauty of my proposal is it needn't wait on general revolution. I bid you to the one man revolution - The only revolution that is coming."
Robert Frost in _Build Soil_ A Political Pastoral
Posted by srjenkins at 12/01/2007 @ 10:54am
KvH: ...the tsunami of foreclosures precipitated by the subprime mortgage crisis?
"tsunami of foreclosures" among subprime borrowers? Isn't that analogous to recidivism among ex-convicts? Why should ANYONE be surprised? Is it really such a "tsunami" when compared to the total number of mortgage borrowers nationwide, what, 70~80 million?
KvH: Where's the public investment agenda to address the staggering investment deficit in infrastructure?
"staggering investment deficit"? From what I see ALL AROUND HOUSTON and AUSTIN, there is a "staggering" amount of investment in infrastructure! Could this have something to do with our cities' and state's ECONOMIC GROWTH and pro-growth attitudes/policies that sucks similar-minded business and entrepreneurs to our city/state from the less inclined?
Competition of all sorts, and lord knows Americans love competitions--even junk comps like Idol (that KvH watches), Bachelor, Survivor, blah, blah, blah...--elevate most every participant. So why shouldn't we expect INequality? INequality is the way of nature and the universe? Why is the moon barren and lifeless? Why is the Mid-East the mother lode of oil and Cuba isn't?
No wonder Conservatives report themselves as more HAPPY! Heheheheh...
Posted by Happy at 12/01/2007 @ 11:13am
ANY reform you want, like IRV or "Clean Elections" is almost always the product of a ballot initiative. 6 of 7 states with Clean Elections got them by initiative, only 1 by legislation, according to Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org].
So what's needed most, and first, is easier, better and national ballot initiatives. By far the best proposal for that is from Sen. Mike Gravel, the National Initiative for Democracy. You can now vote to ratify the National Initiative at Vote.org [Vote.org], much as citizens -not the existing 13 legislatures- ratified the Constitution at the constitutional conventions!
Posted by Evan Ravitz at 12/01/2007 @ 11:53am
We don't need a third party; we need a second party. We need real Dems like Kucinich instead of turncoats like Edwards, who supported the chickenhawks and is now trying to hide his duplicity behind lofty soundbites about 'democracy'.
Instead of amending the Constitution, let's try educating the populace. We could start by breaking out with the truth about 9/11: that the Repubs are traitors who are still covering up for the real enemy, the Saudis; that every step the Repubs have taken to 'fight terrorism' has been part of an elaborate smokescreen for their treason; that the real purpose of holding POWs incommunicado in Gitmo is to cover up what those Saudi and Yemeni POWs know about the Saudi 'Islamic charities' that launder contributions to al Qaida and the Taliban, the Saudi-funded 'religious schools' that serve as recruiting centers and arms depots, and the high-ranking Saudis who contribute the petrodollars to al Qaida, the Taliban and now the Sunni insurgents.
Posted by samcrossett at 12/01/2007 @ 12:39pm
Say it again, Sam...
Brazenly using the state apparatus to cover up the cover ups... until Democracy itself has been 'cashed in' for the protection racket provided by fascists who are milking the national coffers under the guise of 'national security'.
And these guys DARE, to call themselves Christian Conservatives...
ttr
Posted by ttr at 12/01/2007 @ 1:36pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/01/2007 @ 10:54am
hey, thanks!
i'll look for the complete text.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 3:55pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/01/2007 @ 10:54am
Oh, Meliboeus, I have half a mind
To take a writing hand in politics.
Before now poetry has taken notice
Of wars, and what are wars but politics
Transformed from chronic to acute and bloody?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 4:12pm
It is disappointing to see Katrina once again engaged in spreading misinformation about the critical issue of election method reform. She really can't claim ignorance here, as she was rigorously corrected the last time [rangevoting.org] she did this, by Princeton math Ph.D. Warren D. Smith, one of the world's leading election method experts.
Katrina says: With IRV, voters can vote their conscience and not worry that a vote is being "wasted" on someone who "can't win."
Incorrect. In about 20% of IRV elections [rangevoting.org], a bloc of voters who prefer X>Y>Z, will get candidate Z if they vote honestly, but could have gotten their second choice, Y, if they had strategically/insincerely top-ranked Y. So if a voter thinks that his favorite candidate has a less-than-20% chance of winning, he is strategically "forced" to use this strategy, since a sincere vote is more likely to hurt than help him. So your claim here is just wrong. And this was explained to you in point #5 in the response from Warren Smith, which I linked to above.
IRV promotes greater debate and more alternatives
Reality: IRV has produced two-party duopoly in all four countries [rangevoting.org] where it has seen long-term, widespread use. Warren Smith pointed this out to you in his prior response, when he said "every one of the four countries that has used IRV for 5 or more years is 2-party dominated in IRV seats".
..and also results in the winning candidate having the support of the majority of voters.
False. IRV can easily elect [rangevoting.org] candidate Y, even though candidate X was preferred to Y by a huge majority.
And here in my home of San Francisco, we have seen that a similar effect caused by ballot exhaustion [rangevoting.org], which is a result of only allowing the voters to rank three candidates. So in practice, no one has ever won a S.F. IRV election with a "majority", except those who had a majority in the first round (before any runoff rounds had been done).
I decided to verify that this is still the case, given that we recently had an election. But when I went to the SF government web site, and tried to access election results for the ranked choice elections, I only got this message:
Due to the requirement that all ballots must be centrally tallied in City Hall and not at the polling places, the Department of Elections has not set a date for releasing any preliminary results using the ranked-choice voting method.
Behold yet another striking example of the increased complexity, and susceptibility to centralized fraud conspiracy, that comes with IRV. It's no wonder that election integrity activists, like Rebecca Mercuri and Joyce McCloy, are predominantly against it. Coupled with the fact that IRV incentivizes the adoption of fraud-prone electronic voting machines, their position is quite understandable.
Range Voting [rangevoting.org], and its simplified form, Approval Voting [rangevoting.org], are free of this problem, and produce more representative/democratic outcomes (per Smith's extensive Bayesian regret [rangevoting.org] calculations). They are also less harmed by strategic voting [rangevoting.org]. Math experts who study voting methods near-unanimously agree that IRV is comparatively unsupportable.
Here's how it works: if four candidates were on a ballot, you would rank them one to four.
But not necessarily sincerely. Also, all rank-order voting methods are subject to serious pathologies as described by the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem [rangevoting.org] and Arrow's theorem [rangevoting.org]. Range/Approval Voting are cardinal, rather than ordinal, and exempt from this.
In Australia, IRV was introduced in 1918, and has historically benefited parties on both the left and the right. Last Saturday, it helped the Australian Labor Party – but not before the Australian Greens were able to run a strong campaign and collect 8 percent of the parliamentary vote
Another simply false claim. The Greens won zero seats in the Australian House. They won a few seats in the Senate, which uses Single Transferable Vote, not IRV. (IRV is the single-winner form of STV.) Australian political analysts at AustralianPolitics.com say IRV "promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents."
The Wikipedia entry for Australian elections says: Australia has a de facto two-party system between the Australian Labor Party and the Coalition of the Liberal Party of Australia, National Party of Australia and Country Liberal Party. It is very difficult for other parties to win representation in the House, let alone form the government. However, minor parties and independent candidates do have reasonable access to the Senate by virtue of its more favourable voting system.
"What a difference a fair voting method like instant runoff voting can make," Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote told me.
Rob Richie is the head of FairVote, and has made numerous misleading and even outright false claims [rangevoting.org] in his support of IRV. It is inexplicable that you choose to confer with him instead of actual experts in this field (and to totally disregard an expert's substantial effort to educate you).
"With IRV, Greens not only didn't split the vote and help elect candidates opposing their positions, but they got to make their case for change in a way that almost certainly transformed majority opinion on the environment and Iraq and made the Labor Party more responsive to that opinion.
On the contrary, IRV mutes minor parties, by nearly eliminating their ability to spoil elections. In a plurality election, a candidate like Nader might make a candidate like Gore want to at least give some lip service to Green Party issues, to encourage Nader supporters to cast a strategic Gore vote. IRV makes it much safer for a major party candidate to ignore those voters.
And with proportional voting in the senate, the Greens have ongoing power, all the better positioned to help hold Labor accountable to its campaign promises."
Proportional representation [rangevoting.org] is potentially superior to non-proportional methods, although the evidence is inconclusive. It also completely depends on which P.R. method is used. The Single Transferable Vote system used in the Australian Senate is well over a century old, and pre-dates most of the major advances in the field of social choice theory. Reweighted Range Voting [rangevoting.org] and Asset Voting [rangevoting.org] are two simpler better methods.
In the US, IRV has been chosen by voters in more than a dozen city ballot initiatives.
A result of the kind of misleading and inaccurate propaganda seen here in your article.
In Pierce County, WA 67 percent of voters chose to keep IRV on track for next year's county executive race.
And I have spoken to some of the key backers of that legislation, such as Scott Lindsley, chairman of the Washington State Libertarian Party. After an arduous education effort, he acknowledged Approval Voting in a 2007 op-ed piece in the Seattle Times. Others I spoke with in the WA Libertarian party acknowledged being convinced by the same deceptive and false talking points contained here.
I would like to see you have the courage to look at the objective scientific evidence, and admit that you are wrong.
The city council of Santa Fe, NM gave unanimous preliminary approval to place IRV on the March 2008 ballot. Finally, in Vermont, IRV looks promising for congressional elections next year – it's passed the state senate and there are encouraging signs it will pass in the house too.
This is a an ad populum fallacy. The fact that IRV proponents have convinced various communities to implement IRV is not a scientific confirmation about the merits of IRV.
In a recent op-ed , former Illinois Congressman and presidential candidate, John Anderson, advocated for IRV and noted that "one-third of all voters who are not registered as Republican or Democrat feel pressured to vote against their worst nightmare rather than their best hope…
Contrary to the myth that you perpetuating, IRV has the same problem [rangevoting.org].
General elections should be a marketplace of innovative ideas, and independent and third-party candidates can prevent them from becoming a showcase for an overly narrow ideological duopoly."
But IRV results in two-party domination, a fact to which this comment is utterly oblivious.
Until we get a system which is more democratic – including IRV and other democracy reforms – we won't have as effective an independent politics and as vibrant a debate as we deserve.
IRV typically increases spoiled ballot rates [rangevoting.org] by a factor of seven. It can result in more costly [rangevoting.org] elections. It has previously discussed election integrity problems. There is no clear case that it is "more democratic". And all the time and article space spent promoting it, is time wasted, that could have gone toward Approval Voting.
I plead with Katrina to do the responsible thing, and issue a retraction of these numerous fallacious statements. So many people invest a great deal of their lives into fixing the election crisis. They deserve better than to see their efforts nullified by the kind of misleading propaganda rampant throughout this piece.
Clay Shentrup San Francisco, CA
clay@electopia.org
415.240.1973
Posted by weltschmerz at 12/01/2007 @ 4:17pm
I wonder if the same people pushing IRV are the same people who thought paperless electronic voting was a smart idea back in 2000?
Remember that it was the "progressives" who promoted paperless electronic voting. Many a democratic state election official bought Diebold - see Georgia and Maryland, still infested with this plague?
Now the latest in hanging chads is being pushed by "The Nation". IRV - the political gimmick name for ranked choice voting.
You should see how a pilot program for IRV has been used to gut North Carolina paper ballot laws. Some sections of North Carolina's election transparency laws are already being cast aside. More to come... one part of it has to do with how our audits are supposed to be conducted. Another part is that instead of making the Instant Runoff Voting Pilot fit our law, "work arounds" have been crafted that will in effect gut key sections of the law to fit IRV.... read the rest here http://www.ncvoter.net/nchistory.html
Looks like the Nation believed the myths about IRV that: "Ranked Choice Voting will increase turnout, and be more inclusive than runoffs. It will save money and more people will participate."
IRV Doesn't save money:
San Francisco may not be paying for traditional runoff elections, but they have new costs. San Francisco had 418,285 registered voters in Nov 2006. Their current budget is about 5 times that of Wake County North Carolina's budget with 460,821 reg voters in 2004.
Their new budget will put them at about 10 times that of Wake County North Carolina.
Fact: The Department of Election's proposed $19,809,917 budget for FY 2007-2008 is $10,683,599 or 117.1 percent more than the original FY 2006-2007 budget of $9,126,318.
IRV doesn't increase turnout in San Francisco, the largest IRV jurisdiction in the US:
let's take a look at the numbers from our last big runoff, in 2003:
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 562). . . . . 562 (100%) REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 466,127 BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . 253,872 VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 54.46
54%!
Now lets look at how we did under the RCV/IRV/WTF system the promised increase voter turnout (and cut costs)
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 580). . . . . 580 (100%) REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 419,598 BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . . . 149,424 BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL CARD 1 . . . . 149,424 BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL CARD 2 . . . . 150,098 VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 35.61 VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL CARD 1 . . . . 35.61 VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL CARD 2 . . . . 35.77
RCV/IRV/ turnout was dismal, a mere 35% of voters turning out (100,000 fewer than in 2003!).
Voter registration declined: there are actually about 40-50,000 fewer registered voters in San Francisco than there were in 2003.
Now lets compare turnout in an IRV pilot city, Cary, North Carolina and a traditional runoff election in Rocky Mount, North Carolina:
Quote about the Cary IRV election from "Instant runoff needs scrutiny": [THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE that Vickie Maxwell would have defeated Don Frantz in a November runoff election, which was not held because of the "instant runoff" that counted voters' second- and third-choice preferences. Instead, Frantz will take office receiving less than 40 percent of the first-choice votes cast, and less than 50 percent of the votes of people who showed up on Election Day.
Due to instant runoff voting, Frantz won with a lower percentage of first-choice votes than McAlister received in being soundly defeated (there was no instant runoff in the mayoral race). The result is that an ally of the incumbent Republican mayor in an election (officially nonpartisan) in which that incumbent was overwhelmingly rejected won in the most Democratic district in town, a district that strongly voted to throw that mayor out.]
Compare that to the results of the traditional runoff in Rocky Mount, North Carolina:
The runoff election, held Tuesday, Nov. 6 had a higher turnout than the October election. Lois Watkins, had less votes (and money - $13,000) than Tom Looney ($77,000) in the October election. In the runoff election, the grassroots got out and campaigned for her. Watkins nearly doubled her vote count in the runoff, helping her to victory.
That is real democracy, when real people are the numbers behind the turnout.
Dancy II - The Political Agitator says:
"This is what happens when one runs an aggressive grassroots campaign. These types of campaigns will beat out cash any day especially when you have a person in your camp such as Rocky Mount Councilman Andre Knight who really worked hard. Others worked hard as well.
...I feel strongly that Watkins would no longer be on the council if the council had chosen to use the IRV in this year's election. The State Board of Elections came to Rocky Mount several months ago and met with the Nash and Edgecombe Board of Elections trying to sell it to them but they didn't sign on." http://www.triadblogs.com/curmilus/6185/
Dancy also stated:
The Rocky Mount NC City Council Election traditional Run-Off is a prime example why IRV (Instant Run-Off Voting) is not good for black folks. The good ole boys would have stole the Rocky Mount election if they had chosen to go forward with IRV when it was presented to them several months ago. Thank you Ms. Joyce McCloy for the information you shared with me and I then shared it with others.
If this is not democracy at it's best I don't know what the hell is.
See related links:
Sunday, November 11, 2007: Rocky Mount NC - Ward 4 candidates divided early votes
Tuesday, November 6, 2007: Rocky Mount NC - Rocky Mount Councilwoman Lois Watkins defeated former Councilman Tom Looney by more than 300 votes
Sunday, November 4, 2007: Rocky Mount NC - Watkins, Looney prepare for Tuesday runoff
At the end of the day, it is not our enemies we remember, but the silence of our friends! Dr. Martin L. King
The struggle continues, Curmilus Dancy II
Posted by ncvoter at 12/01/2007 @ 5:38pm
It's not about "democracy"...it's about political victories and influence.
The Greens et al want IRV because they think it's the only way they can win in a Presidential election...which appears to be the only kind they truly care about. Straight-up fight against the Repubs AND Dems...they can't win.
And Ms vanden Heuvel and liberals want IRV because they can't get their ideology as the dominant ideology in the Democratic Party...so they think (like the Greens) they can force the Dems to the Left, if there's a credible threat from the Hard Left.
Here's the problem....the LEADERSHIP in the Democratic Party...isn't going to allow something that threatens their power, which means to get IRV passed you have to get IRV-elected candidates into office, but that means getting IRV in the first place...which won't happen with IRV-elected candidates getting into office. Paradox.
In short, it ain't happening...no matter how many Bernie Sanderses or Kucinichs or any of the other 35 members of the Progressive Caucus propose it.
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2007 @ 8:16pm
Ah, yes... the ins-n-outs of effective trickle-down political demagoguery... as espoused by MASK.
Thanks for letting us all know all about it...
As far as I'm concerned, it IS all about democracy.
Though influence can be bought among the weak and corruptible... there comes a point at which very few... if in fact any at all... will be willing to pander to the diminishing returns of a political system gone awry.
An effective Democracy cares for it's people, by listening to it's citizenry... by 'representing' it's citizenry.
Posted by ttr at 12/01/2007 @ 9:45pm
Well, on the upside Congress finally has come to an agreement on fuel efficiency standards!
CAFE standards
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/01/2007 @ 11:05pm
KVH, You pointed out that we are spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Try telling that to these right wing idiots who think we are only spending 10% of our budget on defense.
And we have the pentagon and W claiming the Army is going to go broke if Congress doesn't give W more money. Maybe if the friggin Pentagon quite forking out billions of dollars to defense contractors, they could use that money for the soldiers in Iraq.
The White House is playing politics with our soldiers via the budget for the war. The damn Pentagon has money to burn.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2007 @ 11:25pm
An effective Democracy cares for it's people, by listening to it's citizenry... by 'representing' it's citizenry.
Posted by TTR 12/01/2007 @ 9:45pm
TTR,
Your crowding the issue reasoning... stop that! lol
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2007 @ 11:27pm
Your crowding the issue reasoning... stop that! lol
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/01/2007 @ 11:27pm
Whoops! You're Crowding the issue with reasoning.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2007 @ 11:51pm
Oops!... Sorry about that, Wolfgang... I'm slipping... I'll do better, I promise. Perhaps I could... Oh!, I know... how about;
2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5.... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5.... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5.... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5... 2+2=5...
Posted by ttr at 12/02/2007 @ 12:03am
Two plus two equals five My thoughts stay in the hive A reasonable doubt Makes a mind that is stout And keeps a curmudgeon alive!
;^)
Posted by ttr at 12/02/2007 @ 12:10am
Posted by TTR 12/02/2007 @ 12:10am
actually,
2 + 2 = 4.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999..........................
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 12:12am
Posted by TTR 12/02/2007 @ 12:10am
actually,
2 + 2 = 4.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999..........................
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 12:12am
Come on guys. Every republican knows that 2+2= 22.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 12:26am
I'm sorry, I forgot the axiom of the associate property blended with the Bush's fuzzy math.
1+1=2; and 2+2=22;
Therefore, 1+1+1+1=1111
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 12:37am
Come on guys. Every republican knows that 2+2= 22.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 12:26am
actually,
that's,
$473,489,837,819 + TAXCUTSFORRICHDUDES = CANTONESE LESSONS.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 12:52am
$473,489,837,819 + TAXCUTSFORRICHDUDES = CANTONESE LESSONS.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 12:52am
What about Mandarin? Whoops, sorry. All rethugs know about mandarin is oranges.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 12:55am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 12:55am
the funny thing is the mandarins in d.c. recognize no aisle.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 01:03am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 01:03am
I think I missed something here?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 01:08am
That's because mandarins are DELICIOUS! Especially in salad, with a nice vinaigrette and some feta... mmmm...
Posted by jorcheim at 12/02/2007 @ 01:11am
I think I missed something here?
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 01:08am
yeah,
tried to think of some good mandarin jokes.
all i got was thirsty.
(damn! i sure miss those super-excellent mexican tangarines*)
*mandarina en español
mandarin 1 |ˈmandərən|
noun 1 ( Mandarin) the standard literary and official form of Chinese based on the Beijing dialect, spoken by over 730 million people : [as adj. ] Mandarin Chinese.
2 an official in any of the nine top grades of the former imperial Chinese civil service. • [as adj. ] (esp. of clothing) characteristic or supposedly characteristic of such officials :
a red-buttoned mandarin cap. •
an ornament consisting of a nodding figure in traditional Chinese dress, typically made of porcelain.
• porcelain decorated with Chinese figures dressed as mandarins.
• a powerful official or senior bureaucrat, esp. one perceived as reactionary and secretive : a civil service mandarin.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.(denoting a Chinese official): from Portuguese mandarim, via Malay from Hindi mantrī ‘counselor.’ ‘counselor.’
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 01:20am
• a powerful official or senior bureaucrat, esp. one perceived as reactionary and secretive : a civil service mandarin.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.(denoting a Chinese official): from Portuguese mandarim, via Malay from Hindi mantrī ‘counselor.' ‘counselor.'
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 01:20am
Ah, thank you for enlightening me. I just knew abou the fruit and language. I have an extremely limited knowledge of the language. I've taken a few classes in it and I've decided that it's easier to learn Russian than Mandarin, but damn, now I'm thirsty.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 01:28am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 01:28am
man,
near veracruz, there's a town called "martinez de la torre".
the citrus there would put anita bryant in a tizzy.
we used to buy these mandarinas with a mottled green/orange skin.
the peel from one would scent the house for days.
yummmmmmm.
oh well, they ain't got raspberries.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 01:37am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/30/2007 @ 11:53pm | ignore this person
Ask after, find out the names of those you speak of as the first thing one needs to do is to see them as human beings. Nothing else, truly coherent with virtue, is possible, till that happens. So ... for the walmarted, I have absolutely no idea, sorry, you are on your own in that regard. But if you can see your way to find some (or see them as, which might in fact be easier ...) human beings, then I might have some few suggestions. ;-)
Posted by V at 12/02/2007 @ 07:21am
Posted by V 12/02/2007 @ 07:21am
thanks dude.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 10:33am
Posted by V 12/02/2007 @ 07:21am
ya' know,
i see all people as people.
i just worry when people become so blinded by shopping-induced apathy.
it's a double-edged hara-kiri.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 10:50am
In listening to the contrary responses to KVH's broad framework for ballot reform, it shows how incredibly, unimaginatively narrow our ability is to think of different political alternatives. We have little vision of what could be and how to work out the kinks.
It is not suprising since in a way, we all have a propensity to think libertarian - atomistic, me only, my abilities in my own boots, fueled by a darwinian capitalism where the food chain has places for the most predatory. This is how we are historically constituted with the white noise of forgetfulness of any degree related to our limited but present communitarian past. At least there is loss of sense of some of the good things that self-understanding as a member of a community provides.
Consensus building and coalition seeking are not something we really understand as a people. At issue is: americans do not want to understand it. We like the false safety, and lack of responsibilities to others that our strident individualism demands.
Margaret Thatcher once commented that 'there is no community, just a conglomeration of individuals.' If she was just stating an empirical observation, or assigning a metaphysical absolute (I think this latter), this notion is far from the polis of Socrates, or Plato's Republic and has no place in any conceived democracy. This is not the notion of a significant portion of the world. However, this is our understanding of freedom that brings with it a demand all others must mirror. Can we even begin to imagine the violent chaos that our sense of freedom has engendered in peoples with a history of community and a broader understanding of self and responsibility?
As much as there is a need in modernity to develop ideas of self-hood to balance with the sicker domination of community at all costs (eg. recent gang rape victim facing 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia), there is a need to live beyond Thatcher's notion of community as nonexistent.
The ideology of winner takes all and the tyranny of the majority (an issue warned in the first part of the 19th century) effectively marginalizes any further understanding other than the individual bleats of it own mantras.
Thank you KVH for a different vision.
Posted by steve foster at 12/02/2007 @ 2:20pm
Posted by STEVE FOSTER 12/02/2007 @ 2:20pm
Dude,
You've taken too many philosophy classes. I agree with you though. There really is no sense of community in this country anymore. I work with a Russian guy and he pointed out that Americans pretty much keep to themselves and are unattached to those around them. Keep in mind this is coming from a Russian from the Soviet Union era. I always thought the Russians were more detached, but then again, I bought into the propaganda we were fed in that time frame.
Anyway, if what my Russian friend say is the case, we are in more trouble than we know.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2007 @ 2:58pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/02/2007 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person
Yeh, my writing can suck at times. I do have kinda different ways of writing, but when I'm trying to provide response that is condensed to the hilt, and still give it a notion of reflection..., we'll there ya have it. you got it and I appreciate your willingness to deal with and provide a very practical and insightful response.
Posted by steve foster at 12/02/2007 @ 3:44pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/02/2007 @ 2:20pm
so if CAFE standards are unconstitutional,
what about zoning restrictions?
would you like a refinery next to your place of worship?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 5:12pm
Posted by STEVE FOSTER 12/02/2007 @ 3:44pm
you write good!
;+]
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 5:14pm
Steve... I like your writing! that first post did leave me a little confused... but your second one (just above) was very mind opening. I like that. I believe it is the hardest task before us now... trying to remember what it was like to have a voice... and to have people actually listen to ideas. Actually HAVING ideas in some cases is a real deja-vu lately for me... ;^)
A safe and sane approach to Democracy in the US really OUGHT to be on topic... that is, unless Democracy is a thing of the past... and we have all given in to the 'premonitions' of fear mongers (please excuse the term 'fear mongers' as I'm sure it sets off warning signals in you conservatives).
This election is fast approaching... and the degree to which we 'develop' voices to be heard with over the 'din' of media moguls is closely aligned with our personal abilities to 'detach' (No buddhistic alliance implied) ourselves from the sorrowful inertia of fear generated over the last six years... without losing sight of the still very real dangers... and responding to them with courage and clarity.
That's what Americans do! Remember?
ttr
Posted by ttr at 12/02/2007 @ 8:55pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/02/2007 @ 8:57pm
doesn't air cross state lines?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:42pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/02/2007 @ 2:20pm
First I would think that if very-high mileage - low emission diesels were imported then CA would change their tune
Second, if US automakers would get their heads out of their collective asses and have gotten onto the high-mileage / hybrid bandwagon 15-20 years ago, they would be handing Honda their asses, rather than vice-versa.
Third - we already have CAFE standards, so apparently the consitutionality hasn't been considered an issue - about damend time we upgraded to at least begin to approach the mileages the rest of the civilized world sees - apparently the all-powerful free-market system hasn't seen fit to conserve natural resources that impinge on our national security.
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/02/2007 @ 10:24pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/02/2007 @ 10:16pm
it's time you studied the little mentioned 10 and a 1/2th amendment which states:
"the power of regulating poisonous emissions shall lie in the hands of the sane, regardless of which squiggly lines we've put on god's creation"
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 11:09pm
Well if corprorations regulate our gov, rather than the other way around, then this other approach may make a lot more sense:
http://tinyurl.com/2rdqf2
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/03/2007 @ 09:16am
HSUB
Yes, I heard about the conference. Too bad we likely will sit on our hands again.
btw: did you know that 21/21/2012 (2012 being the year in the article when new standards would take hold) is the Aztec calender "end of the world" - just interesting trivia I suppose.)
ALL
Did you see the BushCo is calling on Russia to look into election irregularities. Well, if that ain't "pot calling kettle black" irony! Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/03/2007 @ 09:47am
If I vote for a third party candidate, that is where I want my vote to go! I have always voted a straight democratic ticket, but I have often had to settle for the lesser of two evils. The leading Democratic Candidates are Republican lite and worthless! I will vote for Kucinich in the primary, but not for any of the "leading" three candidates if they survive in the general election. These people don't listen, and I hope to get their attention by voting for a third party.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/03/2007 @ 12:08pm
I have an additional suggestion. I would support a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate and turning their duties over to the House making it a unicameral Congress. They would still be elected every two years. They need to be on a short leash!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/03/2007 @ 12:22pm
I'm not clear when you said "the limits of the current debate are also increasingly apparent: where's the agenda to deal seriously with Gilded Age inequality? Are you referring to just the formal debates or agenda discussed by each candidate? If you are referring to issues important to each candidate, John Edwards has run his campaign on the fact we have "Two Americas. On his website, the 80 page booklet is available called "My Plan To Build One America". Romney said during the recent Republican debate that he was "sick" of hearing John Edwards say there are "Two Americas". According to Romney there is just One America! I would go as far as to say John Edwards has built his campaign around the fact there is terrible inequity in America.
Posted by mararmstrong at 12/03/2007 @ 2:08pm
Posted by STEVE FOSTER 12/02/2007 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person
Obewan has taught you well. Needed post, great.
Posted by V at 12/03/2007 @ 2:54pm
Much praise is due to KvdH for her winning endorsement of Instant Runoff Voting.
I don't know what to say to Mr. "Weltschmerz." I believe what he calls "Approval voting" merits more attention than it has been given. I would like to see as many cities experiment with it as experiment with IRV. May the best electoral system win!
But I really think "Weltschmerz" overstates his case. I confess I don't know whether to trust someone who rails against IRV as if it were worse than the system that we have now. How CAN this fellow praise the "spoiler effect" and claim that causing Al Gore to lose in 2000 actually (somehow) proves that the Greens have more power under the present system than mere "electability" would confer upon them?
I am also leery of anyone who seems to treat subjective "voter satisfaction" as a boon equal to fairness and accuracy. Frankly, the artificial "landslides" that the winner-takes-all system generates are satisfying indeed -- to those sheep-like voters who dutifully cast their votes for the single candidate who seems most likely to win -- but this hardly compensates for the fact that the winner-takes-all system crudely misrepresents people's true preferences by wasting millions of votes and discouraging millions more.
Here's my advice for you, "Weltschmerz," and for all you nice mathematicians out there who, as "Weltschmerz" claims, "near-unanimously agree that IRV is comparatively unsupportable":
Hire some English majors. Stop speaking in jargon. Make your case to the people (including me) that "Approval voting" is simpler, more accurately representative of the true diversity of preferences, less susceptible to voter error, and less vulnerable to fraud or theft by corrupt election officials, than our present system of voting. Mention IRV only late in your discussion, and only in passing. If you make people believe that you hate IRV most of all, then you'll lose them -- as you've nearly lost me. You'll also re-inforce their "frame," as George Lakoff would say, adding to the notoriety of IRV, and probably to its popular appeal, simply by repeating its name.
We activists who favor proportionality in elections -- in clear text, we who favor equal weight for every vote and a minimum of wasted votes -- we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But neither should we let the good be the enemy of the very good, if we can get it.
Posted by JakobFabian at 12/04/2007 @ 08:31am
Dear "P. J. Casey,"
I like your idea of abolishing the Senate, though I would take care first to transfer all Senatorial powers to the House of Representatives. A unicameral Congress would dramatically reduce waste and would correct our country's dangerous tilt toward an imperial Executive. We shouldn't be "balancing" the Congress against itself while the Executive is grimly united -- and determined to run roughshod over the rule of law.
If you hate the Electoral College, then you'll find that the Senate -- or at least the way we do Senatorial elections -- is equally hard to like. Let's give everybody's vote equal weight. That way, nobody will complain about giving the residents of the District of Columbia the full and equal representation that they deserve.
To those who are concerned about "states' rights," listen up: We get regional rights by limiting the power of the Federal government and reserving certain powers for the States. This is done with the Constitution and with State governments. We don't need the Senate for this.
We do not get better legislation by slowing the pace of legislation, and certainly not by making the same two dumb parties vote for everything twice, once in each chamber of a bicameral legislature. That just leads to an accumulation of two hundred years of antiquated laws that we can't get rid of, because now, the slow pace of legislation virtually guarantees their preservation. (I don't believe the Founding Fathers, in their plainly finite wisdom, were able to foresee this problem!)
We would get better legislation -- faster -- if more parties participated in the legislative process -- in a unicameral Congress. But we'd get more parties only in a more proportional system, which fortunately is an idea that seems to be catching on.
Posted by JakobFabian at 12/04/2007 @ 09:11am