AHC: Instant-runoff voting in the United States

[Sabot Cat]

Your challenge is to make the instant-runoff voting system be applied to all elections for federal offices in the United States with a Point of Divergence no earlier than 1918 (when the system was implemented in Australia) but as close to the present day as possible. Bonus points if you find a way to make the Voter Choice Act of 2005 or something like it successful.

 

[LHB]

During the wave of transparency and accountability reforms that were kicked off after Watergate, which included things like the Church Commission and the first federal campaign finance reform since TR, have someone push for IRV during the late Ford or early Carter Administration. Odds are the push would most likely come out of Congress and the pusher would need to be savvy, charismatic, and capable enough to build a strong coalition for it. Given the atmosphere, mistrust of government, and general cynicism which prevailed in the late 70s it's very possible IRV could be picked up and ran with as another means to rein in abuses of power by politicians.

The problem here is it's going to be tough to get Congress to go ahead with it. One of IRV's selling points is it gives minor parties a much better shot at the polls which is NOT in the best interests of the Democrats or the GOP. You'd need a lot of public outcry and pressure to force them to accept such a reform in that period or any other.

 

[Sabot Cat]

The problem here is it's going to be tough to get Congress to go ahead with it. One of IRV's selling points is it gives minor parties a much better shot at the polls which is NOT in the best interests of the Democrats or the GOP. You'd need a lot of public outcry and pressure to force them to accept such a reform in that period or any other.

Perhaps it could go through a sufficient majority of state legislatures, pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, thus circumventing the approval of Congress?

 

[ryackov]

The problem here is it's going to be tough to get Congress to go ahead with it. One of IRV's selling points is it gives minor parties a much better shot at the polls which is NOT in the best interests of the Democrats or the GOP. You'd need a lot of public outcry and pressure to force them to accept such a reform in that period or any other.

Only a better shot at the initial polls. At the bottom of everyone's list will probably be our favorite centrist parties, the Republican, and Democratic Party.

 

[TheOtherSasquatch]

The best chance would be in 1912, if you could get it into the campaign platform of the Progressives and one/both of the major parties. Wilson would probably make it part of his agenda.

 

[Cook]

I think you’d need Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party to survive in its own right and act as a significant Kingmaker third party over more than one political cycle; sufficiently long lived, and sufficiently powerful that both the Republicans and Democrats will want to court their favour.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Can Congress constitutionally mandate this? I suspect youd have to do it state by state, which would mean several hold out, or do it Constitutional amendnent, and I cant imagine what would spark that level of push.

 

[TheOtherSasquatch]

BTW, several states in the late 18th/early 19th centuries had a voting system similar to IRV except that it was a series of several runoffs instead of an "instant" runoff.

Can Congress constitutionally mandate this? I suspect youd have to do it state by state, which would mean several hold out, or do it Constitutional amendnent, and I cant imagine what would spark that level of push.

Well if the Voting Rights Act is constitutional, then so would be mandating IRV.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Your challenge is to make the instant-runoff voting system be applied to all elections for federal offices in the United States with a Point of Divergence no earlier than 1918 (when the system was implemented in Australia) but as close to the present day as possible. Bonus points if you find a way to make the Voter Choice Act of 2005 or something like it successful.

IRV can function in Australia because in state and federal elections, there is only one office to vote for - the state or national legislator from the district.

Even with only one set of votes to process, Australian elections can take weeks to resolve.

In the U.S, there are direct elections for President, Senator, Representative, Governor (and in most states several other state officials), state Senator and Representative, and many judicial posts.

IRV for all that would be intolerably burdensome. both in casting and counting.

 

[Cook]

Even with only one set of votes to process, Australian elections can take weeks to resolve.

Bullshit.

Australian elections are held for the House and Senate simultaneously, with the results determined usually before 10pm the day of the election, and that includes redistribution of preferences. (I have been an election scrutinizer; it is a very fast process, even with recounts.)

The longest it has taken to determine the result of any major election was the 2010 Federal election, where the number of seats held by the major parties was equal and the delay was caused by horse-trading with the independents.

The only other times there have been delays is when there has been an extremely narrow margin between two candidates and time is allowed for all postal votes to come in.

Australia has never had anything like the hilarious American Hanging-Chad election, nor does Australia insist on a delay of several months between the election and the swearing in of the new chief executive as is standard in America; Australian governments change as soon as the results are confirmed.

For those interested there will be a Federal Election on September 7th with what will be the largest number of candidates running for the Senate from Victoria in Australian electoral history, requiring a ballot paper 1.2 metres long (4 feet long for Americans) and smaller than standard type. Feel free to tune in and see if there are any delays.

Cue some clown saying "But you don't have as many people voting."

 

[katchen]

I suspect that the best POD and the time when Americans would be most receptive to adopting Australian style automatic runoff would be 2002, out of revulsion over Bush v Gore. Even so, this would need to be proposed initially as citizen initiatives for state legislatures and probably separately for US Senate and Congress based on the premise that states have the right to organize their own elections. And this would only be in states where amendments to the state constitution may be initiated by voters. Those states are:

• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Florida
• Illinois
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• South Dakota
• (Wikipedia)
• The states I have marked in red are the states where I believe voting by preference would have a good chance of passing a referendum.
• Even if the Supreme Court, as conservative as it is (and it was not as conservative in 2003 as it is now) decided that Senate and House races had to be "first past the post" (and they might not), I do not think they would extend that ruling to state legislatures. And if they did not do so, eventually out of the states I have mentioned, congressional and senatorial candidates would attain national office who had won on the basis of preferential voting. In that way, preferential voting would become a way of voting that Americans would become accustomed to. And over time, more state legislatures might adopt it in states where there is no initiative provision. But it would be a fairly long process, because of inertia and the growing power of special interests.

 

[Derek Jackson]

I do note that Austrailia has had some practical problems with elections. That is not linked to the system.

Note the multi candidate Irish Presidential elections

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Well if the Voting Rights Act is constitutional, then so would be mandating IRV.

Not at all. The Voting Rights Act was about removing discrimination, and said discrimination was unconstitutional. Thus a Federal matter.

Much US voting is done under State rules, so as long as those dont violate the Constitution, the Feds cant touch them. AFAIK.

 

[Moore2012]

I suspect that the best POD and the time when Americans would be most receptive to adopting Australian style automatic runoff would be 2002, out of revulsion over Bush v Gore. Even so, this would need to be proposed initially as citizen initiatives for state legislatures and probably separately for US Senate and Congress based on the premise that states have the right to organize their own elections. And this would only be in states where amendments to the state constitution may be initiated by voters. Those states are:

• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Florida
• Illinois
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• South Dakota
• (Wikipedia)
• The states I have marked in red are the states where I believe voting by preference would have a good chance of passing a referendum.
• Even if the Supreme Court, as conservative as it is (and it was not as conservative in 2003 as it is now) decided that Senate and House races had to be "first past the post" (and they might not), I do not think they would extend that ruling to state legislatures. And if they did not do so, eventually out of the states I have mentioned, congressional and senatorial candidates would attain national office who had won on the basis of preferential voting. In that way, preferential voting would become a way of voting that Americans would become accustomed to. And over time, more state legislatures might adopt it in states where there is no initiative provision. But it would be a fairly long process, because of inertia and the growing power of special interests.

Good idea.

 

[Just a Rube]

For those interested there will be a Federal Election on September 7th with what will be the largest number of candidates running for the Senate from Victoria in Australian electoral history, requiring a ballot paper 1.2 metres long (4 feet long for Americans) and smaller than standard type. Feel free to tune in and see if there are any delays.

Cue some clown saying "But you don't have as many people voting."

OK, "but you don't have as many people voting"

But seriously, you have a lot more offices up for election in the US; my state elects everything from soil & water commission members to family court judges. A 4 ft long ballot would be reasonably routine.

The processing time might not be a big deal (although note that FL 2000 was because the margin was so close; a critical election decided by a few hundred votes in Australia would probably take forever to resolve as well) but the time investment for the voters would be a concern. And even if it wasn't, the "no on IRV" campaign could portray it that way. We can't even get rid of the obvious archaism that is the Electoral College, and you expect us to switch to an entirely new voting system?

 

[Rich Rostrom]

The longest it has taken to determine the result of any major election was the 2010 Federal election, where the number of seats held by the major parties was equal and the delay was caused by horse-trading with the independents.

Right back at you. I was keenly interested in the 2010 election; I still have the Virtual Tally Room bookmarked. And I distinctly remember that it was at least a week before all the seat results were announced. That was before any "horse-trading" to form the government.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Maybe have more states adopt jungle primary systems, and have IRV be paired with that? So the major parties wouldn't think it was a pro-third-party scheme.

 

[Brady Kj]

I also don't believe the entire country would switch to the IRV system, especially since the voting rules are written by the people who profit from them the most. However, I do think Katchen has a point that some states might adopt IRV voting through referenda.

I've been wondering what happens when jungle primaries are paired with IRV, just as Emperor Julian suggested. Are there places that do both?
And why is IRV more popular than the Borda count? I'd like to see a variation of the Borda count catching on.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

If it follows the 1912 election then there is a runoff in the 1916, 1948, 1969 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidental elections tThe only congressional election that comes to mind would be 2010 Florida Senate Rubio vs Crist.

 

[Derek Jackson]

If it follows the 1912 election then there is a runoff in the 1916, 1948, 1969 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidental elections tThe only congressional election that comes to mind would be 2010 Florida Senate Rubio vs Crist.

NY 1980 If i RECALL CORRECTLY WAS 3 WAY

I think that the retiring liberal republican changed his mind and ran.