Posted on 10/14/2009 1:42:38 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB
I wonder why the same poeple opposing voter ID are the same favoring IRV ? why are "progressives" often on this bandwagon?
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
is that where you get to change your vote once you start seeing the returns?
IRV challenges the power of the two parties. It eliminates the “Don’t vote for the [non-Dem or Republican] candidate or you’re wasting your vote.” argument because you can vote for your preferred candidate first, then list the major party candidate. The major party candidate still gets your vote if your preferred candidate doesn’t win.
It does have its own problems though.
>Is that where you get to change your vote once you start seeing the returns?
I’d be HIGHLY suspicious of such a system for abuse for fraud; I’d also be concerned about the ramifications of being able to track ballots/votes to the vote-caster (that is an invitation for retribution due to political preferences).
from the limited amount I’ve read and leftist friends I talk to, they want it to prevent “another Bush V Gore”
(IE: they wanted all Nader’s votes to have gone to Gore)
since the lefists seem to want it so badly here in MN, I believe you’re on to something.
And in ‘92 we got Clinton because Perot took a lot of votes from Bush.
so if you had a Soclialist, a Green,a Democrat, a Progressive and a Republican running , you’d end up with ...a leftist?
it’s starting to sound like Italy.
New York City had a variant this system for local elections way back in the 1930s or so, but abolished it when it led to two Communists being elected to the City Council. (I may be off a bit on the details, but that it what I recall studying in a Poli Sci class back in my college days.)
You have to understand the way IRV works to understand why they (correctly, in my view) think that it will effectively guarantee the election of more left-leaning, and lefter-leaning candidates. It's like this: let's say there are four candidates for a city council seat: Green, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian. You vote by "ranking" your choices, ie, let's say 1)Rep and 2) Libertarian. The first count of the vote goes down the list and if there is no candidate with more than 50% of the vote, the lowest vote getter is eliminated, and those people who voted for him have their second choice counted in a re-count. You keep going in similar fashion until a majority candidate is found.
So, here's the trick, if you're a "progressive": you don't have to campaign to your left to get the lefty votes. Let's say you're the 'Rat candidate in a slightly Rep-leaning district. You can campaign as a moderate, and pull some Rep votes (there are always some bonehead "i vote for the man not the party" types). It's a pretty safe bet that the Green voters are going to mark you down as No. 2, so you'll eventually get their votes. The same strategy won't work for non-RINO 'Reps and Libertarians, since their voters demand clear talk, principles, and character. In a district that can't reliably elect a conservative without a runoff, IRV will always favor the liberal/progressive candidate.
There’s also the Libertarians and Constitution Party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.