Comments on: A suggestion for the Democrats

By: Bill Hensley

Bill Hensley — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:08:08 +0000

You guys are funny. Dumber than a box of rocks. But Funny.

By: jlw

jlw — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:42:04 +0000

The only way any sort of IRV or PRV will be introduced is through a ballot initiative—neither major party will institute it since, any party that has a majority will oppose it and any party that’s in the minority can’t get such a measure passed. California seems like a natural place to try this out. Third parties have strong followings there, and it seems that Californians have a fairly pronounced anti-incumbant streak, which an IRV/PR referendum drive could tap into.

By: john

john — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:31:40 +0000

the oed has no entry for datums, and shows data as the pl. for datum.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:12:42 +0000

By the stigmatums of Christ, I will fight this one until my dying day :-)

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:40:59 +0000

Not a singular noun, a fewer of them, but that is entirely a different matter. (Prof Q and I have crossed swords in this area before, over his insane insistence that "data" is a singular noun).

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:14:18 +0000

Pretty sure IRV is being used in many cities all over the U.S. Might as well introduce it now so we have a shot in 2012. Or, how about the theoretically-progressive party being….progressive or something, and just introducing a good, new, progressive policy because it’s like a good idea, or something? I also read IRV has fundamental flaws when the minor candidates get to be not-so-minor. Got some links here.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:59:03 +0000

” Republicans have earned a D- and Democrats a D+” Republicans have earned an F and Democrats a D+. If Ralph can’t make the grade better than that, perhaps he shouldn’t run the course.

By: rachelrachel

rachelrachel — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:46:04 +0000

Our system of primaries, which in most states are quite easy to enter, makes the advantages of IRV. Anybody serious about running for office (i.e., not as a protest candidate) can enter the primary. The winning candidate will get the support of the party. But the politician representing any district is accountable not primarily to the party, but to the voters.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:04:29 +0000

Allocating preferences in IRV sounds fairly undemocratic, but I think in practice many people would support it. Certainly many many people follow the “how to vote” cards the parties hand out. And in the Australian Senate (which is proportional representation and does allow allocated preferences) the vast majority of the candidates use the allocated preferences option. Note one important difference b/w allocated preferences and straight ticket voting. Allocated preferences only apply to the ballot being voted on, not to multiple positions. It’s not like being able to hit a button and vote Democrat for everything from President to dog-catcher. That does seem a little too much like giving the parties an unfair advantage, especially when there are so many different elections being run.

By: Jonathan Lundell

Jonathan Lundell — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:13:37 +0000

re: “Allocating Preferences” Thanks. That might fall under the “straight ticket device” laws in the US. A straight-ticket option used to be fairly common, but only 16 states permit it as of 2002. IRV was approved via a voter initiative in San Francisco a year or so ago. It’s waiting for voting equipment to be certified, though, so it wasn’t used in the recent mayoral election.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:43:54 +0000

“Allocating preferences” In many IRV systems, a candidate can nominate the way they would like their supporters to allocate preferences. Supporters who agree with this allocation can indicate this in some simple way, analogous to voting for the entire Democrat or Republican slate in a US election. Those who want to allocate their own preferences can do so manually. Even where this is not an option (as in most Australian elections) candidates routinely issue “how to vote” cards, indicating to their supporters the allocation of preferences they want.

By: Jonathan Lundell

Jonathan Lundell — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:29:36 +0000

IRV can benefit Republicans too; look at 1992. The advent of DRE voting machinery (with all its faults) removes many of the technical obstacles to IRV, though a logistical problem remains. IRV has to be counted centrally, so the actual ballot preferences must be communicated to a central counting facility. If you have late-counted votes (eg absentee), the entire count has to be repeated. What does John mean by “allocating preferences”? That a losing candidate controls who his votes go to? That sounds pretty strange to me. WRT Ophelia, c’mon guys, have you no sense of (black) humor at all? (It strikes me that a problem with passing IRV in a strongly Dem-controlled state is that such states are likely to be safe for Kerry anyway, so what would be the motivation?)

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:03:43 +0000

I don’t understand Ophelia’s criticisms either. The usual complaint about plurality voting is that it makes for a 2-party system and IRV would help build smaller parties up. I don’t know that the empirical evidence strongly supports that (the existence of the LibDems is a bit of an embarrassment for the theory) but it’s very hard to see how IRV could hurt third parties. In the American context the main people who would benefit would be moderate (soon to be ex-)Republicans who could defect en masse to a third party and potentially sweep up in the Northeast and Northwest. Having said all that, and despite being a supporter of IRV, I wouldn’t support doing this now. The biggest single problem with American democracy is that the system is routinely rigged for partisan advantage. (See the recent Texas and Colorado redistributions for examples.) Changing the voting system at this stage for this reason would be another fairly blatant example of that, and I think American democracy urgently needs less partisan involvement in settling (and enforcing) the rules rather than more.

By: DJW

DJW — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:03:40 +0000

Ophelia, I don’t understand what you’re up to here. IRV strikes like an enhancement of democracy, and a boon to third parties, as many more people would be willing to vote for them. And it would make multi-party coalitions a useful arrangement. If might mean the Democrats would have to actually negotiate with, rather than ignore and demonise, Nader. And, it might prevent the election of a minority president, which is not in and of itself a disaster, but is hardly good for Democracy either. Yes, this is being proposed as an emergency measure to keep W out of office, which is a really important goal. But it would seem to have potential auxilliary benefits as well. Are the current rules of our electoral system so wonderful as to be sacrosanct? That said, it’s profoundly unrealistic for reasons highlighted by various other commentators.