A suggestion for the Democrats

Yes, the first error here is the assumption that there’s such a thing as a US presidential ballot. Nader has to qualify separately in every state. Still, there might be some swing states in which he makes it on the ballot.

I think that the scenario described will be unlikely for a very long time. In the US, the only places that ever seem to consider voting schemes other than first-past-the-post are places that are, by US standards, very left-wing (e.g. Cambridge, Massachusetts). The Lani Guinier confirmation fiasco several years back also demonstrated that electoral reform of any sort can easily be spun by the right as “quotas” for black people, which makes it instant political poison in large parts of the country.

I haven’t undertaken a survey of state laws on the subject, but my impression is that reorganizing the method of selecting presidential electors in a given state would likely take a powerful bloc in favor in most places. Democrats do sometimes (more often than you’d think, actually) control the legislature and governorship in ideologically conservative or swing states, but they’re typically not the same sort of Democrats who live in Cambridge, Mass., and are mindful of their constituencies. They are likely to think of structural reforms in the electoral system as an express ticket out of office.

Oh why mess around, why not just make it illegal to have any party other than the two big ones. Don’t be shy.

As I understand it, a number of cities experimented with some form of IRV voting in the 1920’s and 1930’s – Cincinnati may have been the largest. Back then, though, technological limitations meant that IRV voting took a long time to get the results. That, combined with the fact that it led to the election of many marginal groups that both mainstream parties wanted to keep out of power, led to its abandonment pretty much everywhere other than Cambridge.

Forget keeping Nader off the ballot. Here in Illinois, George Bush still hasn’t qualified. Now there’s an election strategy for you.

Chicago Sun Times | February 26 | Bush getting on ballot hinges on statehouse deal

Can’t get IRV passed this year, not even in a single state. Not enough time.

And there’s no guarantee that it would help Democrats anyway.

But if it would, by gum, there is no scam too low, no flouting of our piously avowed fondness for what the media love to refer to (when talking about other countries, of course) as “multi-party democracy” too blatant.

Maybe you could get Nader arrested somehow? Have you tried that?

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.

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?)

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.

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.

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.