« Election vs Campaign Finance Reform's Bottom Line: | David L Wetzell's Blog | Success for Election Reform in MN!!! »
A Top Three Instant Runoff Voting System!
This is a new hybrid winner-take-all election system, which I call a Top Three IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). It improves on the Top Two Primary system used in Washington State.
In an election, there would be an open primary where anyone can vote, with seven candidates, who would be selected by local rules. An example of a local rule would be: whichever six or seven candidates can gather the most distinct signatures or voter-registrations from potential voters in the general election, allowing the incumbent a pass if (s)he wishes to run for reelection.
Then, in the primary, just as a major party would get to endorse at most three of the seven candidates; each voter gets to approve of three candidates. Now, they could choose to approve of less than three, but it is not wise to emphasize this possibility. Instead, the frame should be to encourage them to pick their dream-team of which of the seven primary candidates they would like to see in the general election.
Then, whichever three candidates receive the most approval votes would go the general election, where an instant runoff vote would determine the winner.
This winner-take-all rule, like all such rules, generally favors the two major parties. But more importantly, it makes the primary not a winner-take-all election. So, especially if the primary is close to the general election, we would have winner-take-all elections with the properties of winner-doesn't-take-all elections. We would have candidates who now must listen to, not simply attack, their opponents, so they can take on the best of their ideas to win the approval votes of their supporters. I also think that such primaries would also tend to foster stronger intra-party discipline, since there would likely be a need for cooperation at all stages of the elections. But the key result would be less cutthroat and more interesting elections that would reduce the natural advantages of incumbents.
In an election, there would be an open primary where anyone can vote, with seven candidates, who would be selected by local rules. An example of a local rule would be: whichever six or seven candidates can gather the most distinct signatures or voter-registrations from potential voters in the general election, allowing the incumbent a pass if (s)he wishes to run for reelection.
Then, in the primary, just as a major party would get to endorse at most three of the seven candidates; each voter gets to approve of three candidates. Now, they could choose to approve of less than three, but it is not wise to emphasize this possibility. Instead, the frame should be to encourage them to pick their dream-team of which of the seven primary candidates they would like to see in the general election.
Then, whichever three candidates receive the most approval votes would go the general election, where an instant runoff vote would determine the winner.
This winner-take-all rule, like all such rules, generally favors the two major parties. But more importantly, it makes the primary not a winner-take-all election. So, especially if the primary is close to the general election, we would have winner-take-all elections with the properties of winner-doesn't-take-all elections. We would have candidates who now must listen to, not simply attack, their opponents, so they can take on the best of their ideas to win the approval votes of their supporters. I also think that such primaries would also tend to foster stronger intra-party discipline, since there would likely be a need for cooperation at all stages of the elections. But the key result would be less cutthroat and more interesting elections that would reduce the natural advantages of incumbents.
Advertisement
Leave a comment