Run-Off Election

[moe.ron]

So, I kept on hearing about how people are voting for the less of the two evils. Here is a viable option, why not get rid of the college electorate and go for run-off election through popular votes. My suggestion as an outsider:

1) Have two rounds of election.
2) First round, any political parties are permitted to put forward a candidate.
3) If no candidates garner 51% of the popular vote, then the voting goes into the second round
4) The second round will only see the top two vote gathers facing against each other.

I can imagine that there might be some suprises. This might rejunevate the political discussion away from Republican vs. Democrat into issues. Imagine the two parties being attack in debate from the Green, the Reform and the Conservative party. What you guys think?

[AlphaSigOU]

Sounds like a good idea... but the establishment isn't gonna fly with it, not unless they can control the election process, as they already do with primaries.

[kappaloo]

I believe this is how many political parties (non-US) choose their leader.

[reverie]

Yeah, it sounds good in theory, but when the main parties dominate in numbers then the smaller parties will never have a chance.

Not that it still doesn't happen now, but that's how the U.S. system was created.

I think the best thing we can do is encourage everyone to be informed voters.

[Kevin]

What's wrong with the system we have now?

You want to guarantee that we have the same parties in power for eternity? Implement this system and that's what you'll be doing.

[Taualumna]

Unless only a select few get to vote, this style will take several days and most people in this part of the world don't have the patience!

[OrigamiTulip]

I think your hearts in the right place, but the logistics of your plan won't work. There is an existing method used in a variety of places called Instant Runoff Voting that allows people to vote, and ensures that a candidate has majority of votes. In a nutshell, you vote by ranking the candidates 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc in order of preference. Then all the 1st place votes are tallied. If one candidate has a majority vote (50%+1) it ends there, and that candidate is declared the winner. If no candidate recieves a majority, the candidate with the fewest number of first place votes is eliminated, and the seocnd place candiate on those ballots is moved to first place. Votes are then recounted, and when majority is reached, the winner is declared.

Here's an example with 4 candidates and 100 voters:

The first round votes are:
Anne - 45
Bob - 45
Carol - 7
David - 3.

No one has a majority, so David is eliminated and those who voted for him have their 2nd choice candidate counted in the next round. All three have Anne as their 2nd choice, so the votes in round 2 are:
Anne - 48
Bob - 45
David - 7

Still no majority, so the 7 David voters move to their second candidate. 6 vote for Bob, and 1 votes for Anne. The third round votes are now:

Anne - 48
Bob - 52

Bob has the majority of votes, and is declared the winner.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Originally posted by BetaRose
I think your hearts in the right place, but the logistics of your plan won't work. There is an existing method used in a variety of places called Instant Runoff Voting that allows people to vote, and ensures that a candidate has majority of votes.

There's been a slow amount of growing support at Iowa State to change our Government of the Student Body elections to cover this.

[DeltAlum]

Whether the idea is a good or bad one, but the time this got through the political process and the resulting voting among all of the states as required by the Constitution, etc., we will probably all be dead.

[SilverTurtle]

I just ran across this site on Run Off Voting that explains it easily enough.

This seems like such a logical way to run an election I almost can't believe it's not how we do it already. It would make deciding between Nader or Cobb or Kerry in November a lot less painful for me at least.