Jul 7, 2009

Instant Runoff Voting - SOLUTION

I argue that we were never a democracy, that we are supposed to be a constitutional republic. But our defacto government, is actually government to the highest bidder. Elected officials highest priority is usually to be reelected.

Politicians vote the way that lobbyist and special interests want and not their constituents, because of the way elections are currently framed requires lots of money. And it is not just a matter of getting money if you vote a certain way, a candidate must consider that his opposition in the next election will get that same money, if the candidate fails to vote that certain way.

At the same time, voters are distracted away from the real issues of government waste, corruption and conflicts of interest. The mass media frames the election decision for the voter emphasizing the most polarizing issues and downplaying the "foxes guarding the henhouse" issues. I am sorry to convey that most American Voters do not try to think outside of the "major media election issue" box. (or they are not motivated enough to do anything about it.)

The point is that we must postulate to ourselves how to overcome the forces and thought processes that taint our elections. What can we do to motivate Politicians to vote their majority constituents agenda instead of selling their votes for money? What can we do to supplant the current voter thought process for one that will give results more consistent with the ideals of our Founding Fathers.

I suggest that we engage in a campaign to induce a paradigm shift in the way that American Voters make their voting decisions.

I propose that we displace the election framework of the major media and the 2 major parties. I suggest we frame every election as a pass / fail test for every incumbent. In every election, the condition we finds ourselves in personally and as a country, is the result of what the incumbents have legislated and done.

If we can get the majority of voters to vote incumbents in or out based on whether the overall conditions in the country pass or fail each individuals test, we will have shifted the voter decision making process. The pass/fail test is easily communicated with the simple question: "Are you happy?"

If you are happy, vote all the incumbents back in, regardless of political party. If you are not happy vote all the incumbents out, regardless of political party?

After a couple of elections, in which the incumbents are all voted out, elected officials will come to be more motivated to keep their constituents happy and less likely vote solely on the basis of bribes and campaign contributions.

No amount of money spent by lobbyist in bribes and campaign contributions will alter whether the average voter thinks they are happy or not? And so long as we can
convince the average voter to vote their happieness, the elected officials will have to cast votes and make decisions that will keep at least half of the voters happy.

For those who want to stay affiliate to one of the 2 major political parties, I say this: "If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you always got." How happy are you with what you have been getting?

The infrastructure and the entrenched party officials and politicians will demand that any TEA Party faction bend to their wills, rather than they bend to ours. The powers that be, already entrenched and far more knowledgeable of the party rules and procedures, will quickly neuter any overtures to change.

All that having been said, I would prefer we start a third party (or a third party coaliation). Either we are committed to this change or we are not. Please don't waste my time and political collateral, if we are not committed to this cause.

And along those longs, let us lobby for a Instant Runoff Voting:

1 comment:

  1. Can you advise where IRV has helped third parties? The only place a third party candidate was elected while IRV was used was in Burlington VT, and that party had won before without IRV.

    It would be good to look for other ways to strengthen third parties, such as Fusion (just made legal in Oregon recently) or approval or other methods that work and lack the complexity or flaws of IRV.

    IRV leads to two party domination:

    "The three IRV countries: Ireland (mandated in their 1937 constitution), Australia and Malta (and more recently Fiji for a brief period of IRV democracy before its coup) all are 2-party dominated (in IRV seats) – despite having many other features in their governments which would seem much more multiparty-genic than the USA with IRV added will ever have. So you can be sure the USA with IRV would be 2-party dominated too." - from the Center for Range Voting's report "Why does IRV lead to 2-party domination?

    Two Parties entrenched wherever IRV tried:

    "IRV has entrenched the two-party political system wherever it has been tried.xxiv
    One reason is because if a voter puts a third party candidate as his or her first choice,
    it can hurt the chances of the voter’s second choice major party candidate,
    who could potentially be eliminated in the first round, causing that voter’s last choice to be selected for office.xxv

    If the goal is to help third parties, then IRV is not going to be the right choice.


Thanks for taking the time to comment!