Do you want the DNC primaries to use instant runoff voting ballots

[GreenPartyVoter]

or another similar type of ranked voting to select the next presidential candidate? Why or why not?

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[proud patriot]

1. I voted yes

I believe IRV has proven itself a better system
than the one currently used .

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Do you know if Dr. Dean is open to switching the primaries to that kind of

system? And do you think he would get the support he needs for it from party mucky-mucks?

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Well I emailed the DFA with the idea. I am curious to see what, if any,

their response will be. :)

[janx]

18. I remember he was interested in exploring the idea at one time.

Don't know what he concluded or how the rest of the DNC feels about it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. I did see that he supported IRV generally, or at least was open to it, but

I am not sure if he meant in every stage of an election or just the generals. :)

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Depends on how it's done.

If all the primaries were held on the same day, or within a short time, and THEN a runoff of the top 2 or 3, this could be reasonable.

If it was to be used as a tool to shorten the primary season and cheat half the country out of a fair primary (like last year) then absolutely not. There is no way that a caucus flooded with Republicans can be allowed to pick OUR nominee again.

[AP]

37. You can't have all the primaries on the same day. The richest candidate...

...would win, and there's no way that most voters would be making an informed decision.

I would rather forego my chance to vote (and go to Iowa or NH to campaign to people who vote) if that meant that people voting were people making an informed decision. I'd rather have people who have seen all the candidates in person and heard what they had to say vote than vote myself if I didn't have any good information on which to base my decision.

[gristy]

4. What a great idea to get IRV off the runway...

Do it for the dem primaries! Duh!

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. I remember reading somewhere.. maybe fairvote? that the GOP uses it

sometimes at some levels. I think.

Don't quote me on that. *l*

[wyldwolf]

5. maybe, but only if..

...the measure isn't pushed by supporters of a certain candidate who feel the tried and true traditional method used for years somehow robbed their guy of his rightful place in the White House.

[Demeter]

6. That Would Be My First Choice

Several groups I belong to have been using this method, and the rancor and grousing have dropped to nil. Also, better decisions are reached that have widespread support.

[dkofos]

7. I vote yes

People need to get used to voting with the Instant Runoff Voting.
The primary is a good place to start.

[MAlibdem]

9. I don't like it

it encourages the second best candidates and not the principled ones

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. In what way do you see it encouraging the second best candidates

instead of the principled ones? Ultimately the results are still in the hands of the voters.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. NO - We have proportional representation and I don't want to lose it

We have a good system with proportional representation in the primaries. Let's keep it that way. It's the best way to represent people's choices, IMO.

[gristy]

13. What if the IRV method wasn't applied until everyone

in all the states had voted? You would still have the horse race that we have now (I think it would be a better horse race...), and you would still have proportional representation, just that the 2nd choice votes from voters whose 1st choice is out of the running (and 3rd choice votes from voters whose 1st and 2nd choices are out of the running, etc., etc.) would now be counted. That would be a good thing!

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "proportional representation". I don't believe that it is lost with IRV.

[rfkrfk]

34. IRV will give additional influence to Iowa and NH, unless

some type of proportional payout is used, in which case,
why bother, we have that now

[paulk]

12. why?

Caucuses already work that way, and the primaries aren't winner take all - you still have your delegates even if you don't win. I can't see any reason for this.

[gristy]

14. IRV allows for 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc votes to ultimately be

counted. If the race is neck-and-neck between two candidates, for example, but there is a fringe candidate whose backers generally prefer the first of the two mainstream candidates, then in IRV the first mainstream candidate would ultimately get the nod.

[paulk]

16. ok

but in the primaries would that be desireable?

That would tend to make the winner of the first few caucuses/primaries even stronger, wouldn't it?

I can see IRV for general elections, but not in primaries. It would defeat the whole purpose.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Not necessarily. You might actually circumvent the "coronation"

factor because more candidates would be able to stay in the running longer if the support was more evenely spread among candidates instead of piled up behind the "pragmatic" choice.

[AP]

38. Huh?

How would they stay in longer?

IRV is where you rank your choices. If your person is out of it, that person loses the vote and it goes to the next person on your list, who is someone who is still in the race.

IRV would merely make sure the winner was the person with the most support measured not just by first places, but by second and third place votes by individual votets, and it would bleed support from smaller candidates.

So the person who won Iowa would come out with the perception that he or she is the clear favorite, and unless you widely publicized people's first choices which fell the through the cracks, smaller candidates would come out of Iowa with an even greater perception of being losers.

I think you're very confused about how this would work (or maybe I am).

[AP]

39. Huh?

How would they stay in longer?

IRV is where you rank your choices. If your person is out of it, that person loses the vote and it goes to the next person on your list, who is someone who is still in the race.

IRV would merely make sure the winner was the person with the most support measured not just by first places, but by second and third place votes by individual votets, and it would bleed support from smaller candidates.

So the person who won Iowa would come out with the perception that he or she is the clear favorite, and unless you widely publicized people's first choices which fell the through the cracks, smaller candidates would come out of Iowa with an even greater perception of being losers.

I think you're very confused about how this would work (or maybe I am).

[bklyncowgirl]

15. Absolutely

IRV might allow for a more positive primary campeign--after all a candidate would'nt want to estrange voters who might put him down as their second choice. Also in a primary you are usually voting for good against bettern not bad against good.

It just makes sense.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. That's how I see it too. I wonder if there would be fewer candidate

arguments on this board if we had IRV in the primaries?

[ProudDad]

22. Abso-Damn-Lutely!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo:

In fact, a national primary on ONE date to choose the nominee using IRV would be the ideal!

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. I'd go for that

[ISUGRADIA]

27. Great. Millions and Millions needed for a TV contest

Candidate with the most money wins. A national primary would be a disaster and it ain't gonna happen.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. Candidate with the most money _already_ wins.

[ISUGRADIA]

31. That's been true but a national primary would guarantee it

there's no way a less known candidate could break out as there is now in IA, NH.

[GreenPartyVoter]

32. Media reform and clean elections will get the lesser known candidates

out.

[LynneSin]

24. I would like the democratic candidate to NOT be decided in March

:D

[NoPasaran]

25. I think it is a horrible idea for primaries

I would like us to go back to a primary system that is less front end loaded and de-emphasize the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire but I don't see how any of the problems some perceive from 2004 would be solved with IRV.

IRV is not some magical formula that somehow gives voice to minority views. The person with the most support still wins. It just simplifies the process in cases where a majority, not a simple plurality is required.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. Yes, the person with the most supprt wins. That is the point. One benefit

of IRV, though, is you can get a better sense of who wants what.

You can look at the breakdown of the numbers for each candidate and see yes, Z is the top winner, but X had a very strong following as well. (Whereas in plurality voting X might not have even been a blip on the radar due to voting pragmatically.) And if X has a very different platform than Z it might behoove Z to adapt some of it or at least look at how to appeal to X's supporters.

So yes, IRV does give more voice to minority views than plurality voting does.

[harpo]

28. I think every election should use IRV and a link to it here...

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/campaignreform-irv.php

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. I like Dennis very much in part because he backs elestion reforms

[bonzotex]

33. IRV should be the standard

IRV would help enormously in municipal and county elections where there are oft em multiple candidates and expensive time wasting run-offs.

Make it work in the primaries and and it makes a great case to adopt it for general elections.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

35. The most important change needed

Is to first drop all primaries onto a single day, or over a three or four day period that includes weekends. Also, only registered Democrats should be selecting their Democratic candidate for president. As the system works right now, the candidate has essentially been chosen by the time I get a chance to vote in a primary (I'm in Idaho).

[ISUGRADIA]

40. How do you determine registered Democrats in states without

party registration?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

41. You require proof of party affiliation

1) Republicans shouldn't be choosing democratic candidates.
2) Democrats should be allowed to choose democratic candidates.
3) Any "open" primary is inherently corruptable. It allows the system to be gamed, especially in states where either party has a large majority.

It doesn't seem too much to ask that dems are allowed to select their own candidates. If a voter chooses to vote independently, then that is their prerogative - they have opted out of the party system, and it's benefits and drawbacks.

[ISUGRADIA]

42. I agree , Republicans should not pick the Democratic nominee

but what is proof of party affiliation? An affidavit? In states with registration by party what's to stop republicans from reregistering as Democrats? I'm just not sure of a way to prevent interference by one party if they chose to.

Example: in Iowa in 1994 AFSCME and other unions got many Dems to reregister as Repubs so they could vote in the primary against Terry Branstad. He almost lost because of Democratic votes.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

43. Technology would allow us to go much further than we currently do

But the cost would be fairly high, and we'd need the Republican party to cooperate with us on that. Probably some sort of bar-coded card system that required identification at the time of voting would work. Computers make it easy to only allow one vote per card. The two parties would need to coordinate the setup so that a person couldn't register with both parties. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't see that happening because of the extreme rancor between R's and D's. Also, any computerized system is subject to corruption, so the setup would need to be airtight, security-wise.

I think what the unions did in Iowa in '94 was absolutely wrong. It nearly disenfranchised tens of thousands of Republican voters. I abhor their politics and disagree with their beliefs, but I think they should have the freedom to pick the candidate that they believe represents them.

The primary system is pathetic, and there is very little dialogue on the national level for bringing the system into the 21st century. The way it works now, the media chooses our candidate very early in the process, essentially rendering moot the votes of millions of Democrats. I hate it that Iowa and New Hampshire have so much power in picking the Dem candidate for president. At the very least, we need to consolidate the primary/caucus scheduling so that all the votes are cast and counted in a short period of time.

[AP]

36. Primaries already are a proportional representation system, more or less.

When you pass a threshold, you get delegates in proportion to the votes you have.

Wouldn't IRV just let a winning candidate blow out everyone else earlier? I guess I don't really understand what it would do other than consolidate a single winner's position and deny people who don't do well early any chance of building up momentum (and getting delegates).

The problem with the primaries isn't proportional representation (becaue, as I said, we already have that).

The problem is that the winner is often decided on the basis that, "oh, this guy's winning now, so he's going to be the winner."

We need mechanisms that allow people to get a better idea of the choices and to make sure that the candidates all get a chance to be heard by the voters.