Instant Runoff Voting

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Oct 31, 2009.

?

Instant Runnoff voting

  1. I think its a great ideal and should be required by the feds

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. Its a good ideal, but let States or Commonwealths decide

    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  3. Not sure one way or the other

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. Its a poor ideal

    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  5. Other answer

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    I did vote required by feds - but only for federal elected officials - ie President, senator, congressman.

    They should all be elected on an equal footing.

    For example, in some elections, with the IRV, only the top two candidates are considered for the "second ballot" voting; while in others, the last place candidate is dropped, and the system continues until a candidate receives the minimum of 50%+1

    For State and local elections, allow that level of government decide.
     
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Runoff elections are expensive. It would save many tax dollars. It would allow 3rd party people to vote their conscience and then choose between the two "real" candidates.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    2 think that IRV is a bad ideal

    But why???
     

Share This Page

Loading...