http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:9oSiq1n88k0J:www.modbee.com/opinion/story/7717968p-8620662c.html+automatic+runoff&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 . . . Modesto should consider a one-round "automatic runoff" system, such as the "alternative vote" system (used in Australia) or the "single transferable vote" system (used in Ireland and Malta). These systems eliminate the trouble and expense of having a second round of voting, while ensuring that the winner receives the support of a majority of voters. Under such systems, voters rank their choices for each office, rather than voting for a single candidate. If a candidate wins more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes cast, that candidate is elected. If no candidate wins more than 50 percent of first-choice votes, the second-choice votes help to determine the outcome. Single transferable vote operates in a similar fashion, with a minor difference in the way that the votes are counted. . . . http://www.gpde.org/Issues/Election_Reform/Instant_runoff_voting.htm . . . Instant Runoff Voting Instant runoff voting allows voters to rank candidates according to their order of preference. If none of the candidates finishes with a first-round majority of all the votes cast, the last candidate is dropped and votes are re-tallied, with the second choices of the losing candidate's voters added to the remaining candidates' totals. The choices can easily be tallied by automatic scanners and computers. If instant runoff voting had been used in the recent presidential election in Florida, and assuming a majority of Nader voters had Gore as their second choice, Gore would have won Florida by a clear majority rather than the apparent plurality which ended up being overruled by the US Supreme Court's "short count." On the other hand, if instant runoff voting had been used in 1992, and if most of Ross Perot's supporters had listed George Bush I as their second choice, Bill Clinton might never have been elected president. So both Democrats and Republicans have reasons to work for instant runoffs. It's no accident that most of the work on IRV is being done in states and localities with a history of third and fourth parties splintering the vote from the two major parties. In Alaska, a petition drive turned up more than enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot in 2002 to require instant runoffs for most state offices. Republicans remember 1990, when the Alaskan Independence Party drew enough conservative voters to allow the election of Democrat Tony Knowles. Unfortunately, the state constitution provides that the governor and lieutenant governor are elected by a plurality of votes, and the constitution is beyond the reach of the initiative process, but the legislature could put a constitutional amendment up for a vote, particularly now that the Green Party threatens to draw votes from the left. Vermont is another state with a pesky third party - the Progressives, who nearly drew enough votes this past November to throw the governor's election to the state House of Representatives. The state House in 1998 created the Vermont Commission to Study Preference Voting, which recommended that IRV be instituted for all statewide elections. . . .
Instant runoff is a brilliant idea. People shouldn't be penalized for voting their conscience or against a two-party oligarchy. Unfortunately, instant runoff systems threaten the stanglehold Democrats and Republicans have on the electoral process. They won't relinguish it easily.
Forgot my comments: Was listening to "To the Best of Our Knowledge" on the radio and a guy was commenting on how voters in the United States are voting in record low numbers and feeling disenfranchised, especially with the electoral college making non majority voters in strong major states essentially useless, a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in California, for example, and also making votes of residents of small population states more important. His suggestion to people who wanted to make their votes count was to move to a state where it's close like Florida or small ( wasn't the Reform or Libertarian party doing that?) Then he got to using automatic runoff elections. Clinton may not have been elected in 92 then Bush Jr might not have been elected in 2000 ( but might not have run, either ) - critical states' electoral votes were decided by plurarities, not majorities in those elections.
I don't like it. Pick someone and vote for them. If they lose, tough beans. You don't get to say, I want to vote for this person, but if they are going to lose, change my vote to that person. If you are really concerned about keeping someone out, vote for their strongest opponent.
It is not about "if they are going to lose," it is about making sure that at least half of the voters support the candidate. If there is less than a majority, THEN the automatic runoff kicks in.
WAY too many Americans vote for the guy they think will win, instead of the candidate who best represents their politics. That's just a silly way to elect someone! But, in the current system, what other option do we have? In 1992, more voters wanted a right-leaning president, but because Perot and Bush split the vote, Clinton won. Same can be said for Nader and Gore in 2000 -- millions more people wanted a left-leaning president, but got Bush because of a flaw in the system. Instant runoff voting gives more power to the voter -- we can vote our conscience, rebel against the suffocating two-party system, and still let the guy with the most support win.
Wrong GV. A number of studies have confirmed that the Perot split more or less evenly among the two parties and if he had not been in the race Clinton would have still won.
