Ending "Lesser-Evilism" Voting with IRV in Md Today with SB 292
by jim d
Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:24:44 AM PDT
Today in Maryland, there will be a historic opportunity to end the "spoiler problem". That is when people blame Ralph Nader for Gore losing in Florida in 2000 because people voted for who they want. It is long past time to have changed the spoiled system.

Progressive Democrats of America have said many times they want to work with the Green Party. Now that they have changed their endorsement to only endorse Democrats that means issue work is left. One of the most important issues for Democrats and Greens to cooperate on is ending the spoiler effect.

The Greens are not going to go away. The sooner there is cooperation to eliminate plurality victories and require majority victory in elections then there will be truer representation.

In Md, even Cardin a frontrunner for the US Senate has acknowledged that Kevin Zeese could get 10% of the vote. That looks like 10% the democrats aren't going to get.

To quote Matt Gonzalez who almost became the Green Party mayor of San Francisco (53-47). "Until When? Democrats ask the Greens to delay party building-but for how long?"

jim d's diary :: ::
SB 292
Contact info to Senators on EHE Committee hearing IRV legislation:

Poll
Do You Support IRV Legislation
Yes, I want to be able to vote for who I want
Yes, I want to end the spoiler effect and get rid of these republicans
No, I want to hang onto the 2 party system
No, I hate the Greens so much I want to destroy them



Votes: 13

Results
::
Other Polls




Tags: Maryland Legislature, Instant Runoff Voting, Kevin Zeese, Environmental Health Education Committee (all tags)
Display: ThreadedMinimalNestedFlatFlat Unthreaded

Permalink | 4 comments

When did Cardin say that? (none / 0)

I'd be amazed if he, or anyone, suggested Kevin Zeese would actually get votes in the Senate race. Maryland doesn't vote for third party candidates - Ralph Nader got less than 1% in 2004 and 3% in 2000. Ross Perot underperformed his national totals in Maryland - he got 14% in 1992 and 6% in 1996, compared to 19% and 9% nationwide. Zeese is a Naderite blowhard who'll get 1-2% if he's lucky.

With that said, Maryland would be a good test case for an IRV law.

by daveweigel on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:29:39 AM PDT



Who is IRV? (none / 0)

might want to add some detail...

IOKIYAR! They believe markets and competition solve everything AND that the universe is centrally planned.

by No One No Where on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:31:28 AM PDT


IRV isn't a who, it's a what... (none / 0)

IRV is "Instant Runoff Voting". It's a different way of casting and counting votes than the system we currently use. See my comment below for more detail, and go visit Wikipedia for detailed explanations of IRV and even better voting systems.

by jasonbl on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:41:05 AM PDT
[ Parent ]




You need more poll options. (none / 0)

I can't vote for any of those options. I sure as hell support America getting a better voting system than the crap-tastic plurality system we have now.

But, I hate to tell you, IRV ain't it. There are better options.

The "spoiler effect" itself is not the only problem with the spoiler effect. No, wait, hear me out. A side-effect problem, but one that really undermines the meaning of democracy, is that the spoiler effect leads to strategic voting, which is just a nice way of saying "people lying on their ballots."

By that, I mean that the spoiler effect causes people to vote against their true preferences. As in, voting for Gore instead of Nader. No system which encourages people to lie in the ballot box (and what is a ballot if not a question as to your preferences?) can be good for a healthy democracy.

IRV does greatly reduce the spoiler effect, but careful analysis reveals more subtle dynamics which also lead to strategic voting. Worse, IRV procedures can lead to situations where the outcome of the election is highly counter-intuitive, and can depend strongly upon the particular order in which minor party candidates (ones with no real chance of victory under any system) are eliminated.

There's no denying that IRV is a step away from plurality--and that's good--but it is not a step in the right direction. As long as we're talking about changing voting systems, let's look at all the options--not just the one we happen to have heard of first--and decide which one offers the political dynamics we'd like to see.

For my money, the answer is any of the ranked pairs (AKA "Condorcet") voting methods. They're more complicated systems, but the produce more stability and intuitiveness in their results than IRV, and they make strategic voting very very difficult indeed. (My understanding is that no system eliminates all conceivable strategic voting strategies, but the Condorcet methods do seem to minimize them).

For my money, Ranked Pairs voting is the way to go. Wikipedia has tons of great analysis which anyone considering options to Plurality voting should definitely go read.

by jasonbl on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:38:30 AM PDT