http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/elections-10-a-bumpy-ride/Content?oid=1726041

Quote :

"Don't sweat Instant Runoff Voting Although some local governments have used Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), this year is the first time the method will be used in a statewide race. Thirteen candidates are running for a N.C. Court of Appeals seat formerly held by Judge Jim Wynn. (President Barack Obama appointed Wynn to a federal judgeship earlier this year, leaving the seat vacant.) How you vote: Essentially, you vote for your top three candidates, as if you were judging pies at the state fair: first, second and third. However, you can vote for fewer than three candidates—or pies—by leaving the second and third columns blank. It's important to know your second and third choices don't count against your favorite; they are only considered if your first choice is not the clear majority winner. How the ballots are tabulated: The candidate with the majority of first choices wins. But if no candidate gets a majority of first choices, then this is what happens: The two candidates with the most first-choice votes go into an "instant runoff." If your first choice is in the runoff, he or she gets your vote. If your first choice is not in the runoff, your second and third choices are reviewed by election tabulators to see if one of them is in the runoff. Your vote goes to the runoff candidate you ranked highest on your ballot. Why are we doing this? Particularly in races with many candidates—in this case, 13—the votes are often so dispersed that it's difficult to determine who legitimately has the broadest support. With IRV, the winner will be the candidate who earned the most of voters' top three choices."

What are your thoughts? Looks like this can help avoid runoffs which seems like it'd be useful with so many candidates.

Quote :

"Arrow's impossibility theorem In social choice theory, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, the General Possibility Theorem, or Arrow’s paradox, states that, when voters have three or more discrete alternatives (options), no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking while also meeting a certain set of criteria. These criteria are called unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives. The theorem is often cited in discussions of election theory as it is further interpreted by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem."

-wikipedia

And anything that better reflects the will of the voting public is generally a good thing. Hopefully this does. I've heard some concerns that as voting gets more complex and complicated that fraud or error might be harder to uncover. And public confidence in elections is certainly important.

New systems certainly come with costs. I don't know about election funding to answer my question. But does paying new software and incorporating new systems statewide mean maybe giving up some early voting sites or reducing BOE customer service or something else that helps voting. And is IRV worth that trade off? I've also heard complaints that there are special cases where it wouldn't work as intended.

Nevertheless, I'm happy to see this being tried on a statewide level. Just as NC has helped pilot Voter Owned Elections in some areas, I'm glad they are giving this a test run. I believe its important to keep trying to find ways to improve elections.

10/14/2010 6:02:41 AM

if people are too fucking stupid to figure out IRV, then they shouldnt be voting in the first place.

IRV is a much better system than what we have now in every way.

The only downside is in reading the ballots, but that can probably be fixed with a decent scantron form.

[Edited on October 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM. Reason : a]

10/14/2010 9:53:59 AM

Keep your government hands off my hanging chads

10/14/2010 10:02:36 AM

10/14/2010 10:10:02 AM

all the "well its just so much harder to implemetn!!" crap comes from the established parties who make shit up to prevent election reforms.

10/14/2010 10:17:25 AM

^

10/14/2010 10:17:48 AM

Just for completion's sake, here is what the IRV will look like on the ballot this year:

10/17/2010 12:09:27 AM

Apparently not-so-instant-runoff voting was used.

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8734771/

Quote :

"Voters initially ranked up to three candidates among 13 who ran on Election Day. Thigpen was the top recipient of first-place votes – 100,000 more than McCullough."

Quote :

"But McCullough caught up with second- and third-place votes. That didn't appear to be the case at first. Johnnie McLean, the deputy director of the State Board of Elections, said there was an error in how the vote totals were tracked and written down."

Quote :

"State elections director Gary Bartlett said Doug McCullough had a roughly 6,700-vote lead over incumbent Cressie Thigpen with counting complete in 99 of the 100 counties."

Quote :

"If the race stays close, Thigpen would have until Thursday to ask for a recount."

12/7/2010 8:34:10 AM