Matt's point that "unless the plurality winner wins (which would make a runoff pointless), the voters' original preference would be thwarted," begs the point to be made that if a plurality winner wins, then what about all of the other voters' preferences, the majority of which did NOT vote for the plurality winner? The use of the phrase "the voters' original preference" incorrectly implies a certain universality to the "voters," which is clearly not the case with plurality winners.
A "universality" does not necessarily exist in the case of majority winners either! One of the biggest complaints of IRV types is that there is too little voter participation in elections - Therefore, unless voter turnout is extremely high, no majority winner will receive a true majority of registered voters. IRV doesn't improve this situation, since it's merely a ranking scheme in which the final "winner" is merely the voters' secondary choice.
It is the fact that a candidate who gets more votes than any other single candidate can win without a majority that truly thwarts the voters' original preference, which again, is NOT the plurality winner.
WRONG. The candidate with the MOST VOTES wins. More people did NOT want the losing candidates - that's why they lost! I'm amazed that you can make that statement. If you demand a 50% + 1 majority, fine, then have a true runoff.
As for the statement that, "it's the Parties who are putting forth a candidate in a race, not the general public," what about at least some of the independent candidates who file to run, many of whom are truly legitimate?
They can enter the general election as an Independent candidate if they meet the filing requirement. The fact is my statement is true, and independents are not necessarily harmed by the primary system (which should be improved by including independents in the debates).
As it is, because they are independent, unless they already have a reasonable degree of name recognition, they often don't have the money to compete on a reasonably even playing field, even to raise money, much less get party funds for having been endorsed.
The world is tough.
Many decent candidates, then, are eliminated in the Primary.
So? Many decent candidates are eliminated in the general election too, and would also be in IRV...
IRV would at least give them more time to achieve name recognition and put their issues before the voters in forums and debates, many of which they aren't even invited to BEFORE the Primary.
The problem is a legitimate one, but IRV won't solve it. Because of the dynamics of the ranking scheme, name recognition, and not the real issues, will become the issue, and this can only harm the electorate.
Besides saving the costs of a post-General election runoff, IRV would give voters a better opportunity to meet the main goal of mnvoters.org...
I don't agree with a post election run-off either, I merely prefer it above IRV. Accepting pluralites - which are perfectly legitimate in a constitutional republic - is superior to a system which practically guarantees that the eventual winner will be a 2nd or 3rd choice candidate.
...which, as Matt's statement below says, is "...voter knowledge of the candidates, and candidate accountability to the people."
I don't see how. In a post election runoff you'd have two candidates making their case to the voters - thus informing them.
The argument that too many candidates muddy the waters and that voters don't, won't, and/or can't learn about each candidate is specious, indeed, and smacks of a patronizing assumption that voters are too stupid, lazy, or plain apathetic to learn more about each candidate.
No no no! We (voting citizens) are just too busy in our own lives to have to worry about the subtle policy differences between 20 different candidates. It is the supporters of IRV who are promoting the ignorance of voters in order to get the system in place which they will then use to guarantee their electoral victories by stacking the deck.
Yes, yes, yes, that has been the pattern in the past among many voters (too many in my mind), but if we truly want to change things, we should be looking at ways to motivate voters to find out more about all of the candidates and give them and the candidates more time to do it, rather than regressing to old electoral processes.
IRV will not motivate voters to find out more about candidates stances on issues because it will become a name-recognition contest. All a candidate will have to do is make alot of generic popular statements and get his face and name all over the place. This will almost guarantee that rankings will be based things other than the issues.
The existence of Parties is an outflow from the nature of man (As Thos. Jefferson said - and I think I'd defer to his wisdom rather than yours), and are proven laboratories for the development and propagation of political thought. These "old electoral processes" you denigrate, are the best, tried and true, methods for self-government ever devised by man. I'd rather stick with the Founders than follow a pack of political activists who see an advantage to their agenda by changing the system to such a radical and dubious vote-ranking scheme.
Ergo, I don't just oppose a return to partisan Primaries, I oppose Primaries period because supporters of losing candidates often do, indeed, lose interest in the General Election.
I don't see this as a problem, since elections are recurring events and people have a right not to vote. In fact, if by their withdrawl from the election, their party's candidate loses, this will have the effect of sending a message from the voters to the parties that they have a constituency to whom they are accountable.
But, I also don't like primaries. I would prefer a simple caucus system where Parties select candidates, or qualified independents, enter the general election, where all debates must include all the candidates, and the positions of each candidate is readily available to the voters.
And I don't accept your statement that, "That's okay. That's their prerogative." I'd much rather see proactive encouragement of voters' participation than reactive discouragement to future engagement in the electoral process solely because "my candidates never win anyway."
Accept it or not, it's a legitimate statement. The right NOT to vote is also inalienable.
At least IRV gives them hope that their candidates, or at least those closer to their views, have a chance of winning.
I believe that IRV will make it more difficult for independent candidates to win because the big money political machines can buy more face time for their candidates.
Any system, like IRV and NP elections, that removes party designations and emphasizes name recognition over issues, will harm the voters. Candidates should be forced to declare their stances, and be accountable to govern accordingly if elected. With IRV and NPE, they are unaccountable. Voters instinctively know this, and it's why voter participation is declining overall.
It looks as though this discussion has been exhausted, other than to address your statement that voters instinctively know that candidates are unaccountable with IRV and NP, "and it's why voter participation is declining overall."
It may, or may not, be that NP has caused voter participation to decline, but how can you say IRV has? We haven't even tried it on a large enough scale to really know, and every legitimate statistic on voter turnout in places where IRV is used shows much LARGER voter turnouts.
I didn't mean to say IRV has done this, I meant it will do this. (Maybe "might" is a better choice of words)
I think the basic disagreement about this stems from opposing views on what this government is supposed to be about. It appears to me that proponents of things like IRV and NP look at elected officials as rulers, whereas opponents (like us) think of them as representatives.
Politicians have a tendency to think of themselves as masters rather than as servants; any electoral system that allows them to hide behind "nonpartisanship" or lose themselves in a sea of candidates will tend, I believe, to further distance them from the citizens and will encourage them to amass power.
When you view them as representatives of all the people (even those who did not vote for them), the importance of a 50% + 1 majority goes away. This is why a plurality is perfectly acceptable. If fact, it's even preferred because it will serve as a reminder to the winner that he/she has no mandate and must tread lightly. A false majority, created by a runoff -instant or otherwise- will remove this little check on the power of government.
As far a NP elections go - the two issues of voter knowledge and the accountability of elected officials are undeniable. You wouldn't buy unlabeled goods, why should you elect unlabeled politicians?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, on most of this. But one thing I hope we can agree on is that this government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people, and that elected officials are the servants, not the masters.