Spoiler candidates, non-majority winners, popular vote losers -- why do Americans put up with such a defective presidential selection process? There's a better way
Another excellent review of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) by Hill. He has written on this issue many many times over many many years, as have many many others. It's said a word to the wise is sufficient. For others apparently a word is not enough.
OK, I understand that if you are skeptical of democracy, or are fearful of majority opinions, or belong to a political group that benefits when minority candidates are elected, you may have reservations about IRV. If you are in a jurisdiction where one party or the other has dominant control (true for over 90% of Congressional jurisdictions) and you are heavily invested in that party, you also might have reservations about IRV - nobody likes to have their control diluted. Otherwise for the rest of Americans - a majority in number if not influence - IRV should be a no brainer.
We no longer treat brain cancer - as Hill notes - by simply puncturing a hole in the skull to let out demons. We should be able to improve our electoral systems as well. Alas, we'll probably need Hill's message about IRV here repeated again and again.
Excellant article but I wish that if you are going to refere to candidates as spoilers that you refer to them as "so-called spoilers" or at least put the word in quotes since it is not the candidates who are the spolers but the system.
Another excellent review of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) by Hill. He has written on this issue many many times over many many years, as have many many others. It's said a word to the wise is sufficient. For others apparently a word is not enough.
OK, I understand that if you are skeptical of democracy, or are fearful of majority opinions, or belong to a political group that benefits when minority candidates are elected, you may have reservations about IRV. If you are in a jurisdiction where one party or the other has dominant control (true for over 90% of Congressional jurisdictions) and you are heavily invested in that party, you also might have reservations about IRV - nobody likes to have their control diluted. Otherwise for the rest of Americans - a majority in number if not influence - IRV should be a no brainer.
We no longer treat brain cancer - as Hill notes - by simply puncturing a hole in the skull to let out demons. We should be able to improve our electoral systems as well. Alas, we'll probably need Hill's message about IRV here repeated again and again.
Excellant article but I wish that if you are going to refere to candidates as spoilers that you refer to them as "so-called spoilers" or at least put the word in quotes since it is not the candidates who are the spolers but the system.
Good point. Thanks June