One of the nation's foremost leaders of the movement for IRV and other democratic reforms is FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy. Its executive director, Rob Richie, had this to say recently about IRV's growing popularity:
“The frustrations of a two-choice, two-party system are particularly clear this year nationally, and even more so in California -- home of one of our most dysfunctional state governments. Two-thousand ten presents a crossroads for the state's reform trajectory. Voters may adopt an even more restricted general election system with the top two primary, or may have the chance to support establishing a state constitutional revision process that could dramatically expand choice through proportional representation and Instant Runoff Voting. Several more major cities could use Instant Runoff Voting for the first time, most notably Oakland, or parochial interests may try to block reform. It's a great year to get involved and stand up for democracy."
Use this link Instant Runoff Voting for more information about this new type of voting.
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
8 comments:
Sweeping the Country?
Pierce County, WA voters repealed Instant Runoff Voting Nov. 3 with by vote of 71% to 29%.
Aspen, CO voters voted to scrap it.
Cary, NC stopped using it in 2009
Long Beach, CA passed on it.
CA legislature voted against it
Oregon legislature voted against it
A lawsuit was filed in Aspen, CO on constitutional rights.
Lowell, MA's attempt at changing it's traditional elections failed.
Want another cup of koolaide?
Who Uses IRV?
In use in the United States:
Arkansas (adopted 2005, first used 2006; overseas voters in runoffs)
Aspen, CO (adopted 2007, first used 2009; mayor and multi-seat variation for city council)
Burlington, VT (adopted 2005, first used 2006; mayoral elections)
Hendersonville, North Carolina (adopted 2007 and 2009 as pilot; multi-seat variations for city council)
Louisiana (adopted and first used 1990s; overseas and military voters in federal and state runoffs)
Pierce County, WA (adopted 2006, first used 2008; county executive, county council and most other county offices)
San Francisco, CA (adopted 2002, first used 2004; mayor, Board of Supervisors and most city offices)
South Carolina (adopted and first used 2006; overseas voters in federal and state runoffs)
Takoma Park, MD (adopted 2006, first used 2007; mayor and city council)
Upcoming (as of March 2009) implementations in the United States:
Berkeley, CA (adopted 2004; scheduled for November 2010 for mayor and city council)
Memphis, TN (adopted 2008; scheduled for 2011 for mayor and several other city offices)
Minneapolis, MN (adopted 2006; scheduled for November 2009 for mayor and city council)
Oakland, CA (adopted 2006; scheduled for November 2010 for mayor and city council)
Springfield, IL (adopted 2007; scheduled for November 2011 for overseas voters)
Telluride, CO (adopted 2008; scheduled for November 2011 for mayoral elections)
Advisory, Option or Contingent Measure in the United States:
Ferndale, MI (adopted 2004)
Santa Clara County, CA (adopted 1998)
San Leandro, CA (adopted 2000)
Santa Fe, NM (adopted 2008)
Sarasota, FL (adopted 2007)
Vancouver, WA (adopted 1999)
And a number that have tried it for more than two elections are Repealing it.
Burlington, VT even has a drive to get it repealed in March!
Here's why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=img9y2AYTQA
Other cities may have it on their books from years ago as a council advisory vote but will never implement it (sounded good at the time), Vancouver, Santa Fe, Santa Clara
Here's a good video on what is does to third party candidates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOwDyGCaOFM
If IRV is not a proper way to vote, would you agree State Caucus should be replaced with a State Primary as the better way to vote?
I am not familiar with your State Caucus method in NY.
Fact is, is mostly replacing small city council races which typically had top-two primary systems in place, not the dreaded plurality IRV proponents attack.
Would you agree that your vote should always increase their chance of winning the election? That as a candidate gains support, he always has a higher chance of getting elected?
I was talking about many states but not NY. In NY we have a closed system, just registered Repub and Dems can vote. You must get 40% or we go to a top two run-off. This year NYC had a run-off for City Comptroller and Public Advocate for the Dems. Only 5% of the registered voters turned out and it cost $15m to rin the recount. The city is now considering IVR.
Would you agree that your vote should always increase their chance of winning the election? That as a candidate gains support, he always has a higher chance of getting elected?
That only works when all registered voters can take part in the political process. That is why we are trying to get non-parisan elections where you vote for candidates not parties and everyone can take part in electing the candidates that go to the general election. This would be for all elections: federal, state and city.
Post a Comment