Automatic Run-off Voting?

i heard this possibility discussed on neal boortz tonight as i drove home from work. basically, the idea is that you would vote twice on the same ballot...once for your primary candidate, and then again for your alternate candidate should there by a run-off. let's say you vote libertarian (as i know alot of you out there do). youre pretty much throwing away your vote right? but with this system, you would be able to vote for your candidate, and then if neither of the democratic or republican candidates win a majority, youre second vote will automatically be reinstated for the run-off.

i think it's a great idea for two reasons. first, it would mean alot shorter delay in deciding the election so we can all move on to other things. second, it would mean that alot more voters would feel more confident in voting their conscience as their vote would not necessarily be wasted, giving independent candidates a much more even chance. IOW, alot of people would rather vote for one of the two big parties rather than an independent because they know that independent doesnt have a chance. but if this were put into place, they could vote for who they wanted and still have a say if nobody wins the majority. it could really change the scope of modern day US politics.

your thoughts?

[edit on 2-11-2006 by snafu7700]

so nobody is the least bit interested in this? i find that hard to believe considering the number of people here who claim to vote independent.

In a case where three or more candidates run, I think there should be an automatic run-off between the two candidates with the most votes and ensure the winning candidate is the victory by a majority of votes, not a plurality.

exactly. furthermore, if we went to this kind of a system, it would make it much easier to finally abolish the electoral collage, which is outdated anyway IMHO, and go to a truly democratic system where the people decide the presidency, instead of the people deciding who will decide the presidency.

I agree we should implement this. It would save a lot of time and money and better reflect the will of the people.

I bet if he had this 1992 in every state, Bill Clinton wouldn't have become president.

[edit on 11/3/2006 by djohnsto77]

It took me a little while to understand what you meant, but now I think I do - you're saying vote for vote 1 for who you really want (e.g. Nader, Buchanan, Spiderman, whatever, the unlikelies) who really doesn't have a chance and then vote 2 for either Rep or Dem (the "likelies" under the current system) in the event of a run-off. Umm, right?

I think that's a very interesting idea. I'm sure it'll make for very very interesting fund-raising too! It's a start, at any rate. I don't think it'll give us a "third party" president in the foreseeable future (wasn't the guy that had the 3rd largest number of votes, Ralph Nader, not even on the ballot in all 50 states?!) You need what, 4% is it to get matching federal funds (what Nader fell just shy of if I recall.)

It also asks voters for a little more, voters that in the county above me (Palm Beach) can't even reliably figure out as it is Hopefully touchscreens everywhere will help immeasurably (if you've voted on one yet you know a three year old could use it - heck, I voted in Spanish on one because the line was shorter just the other day for '06 - and I don't speak Spanish.) They should also be very helpful in eliminating time-consuming re-counts, but there are a whole slew of concerns over them well-covered on this site.

I like the idea.

i agree that it would take a few election cycles for this to really have an effect, but once people realize that they can vote for their favorite independent without wasting their votes, independent candidates would be alot more competitive, and maybe even win a major election or two. however, i dont think you'd ever see an independent president without some major changes in the current political landscape.

here is an article that explains the process in further detail. it's talking about the university of texas student government vote, but it's alot better explanation than i can give:

Automatic Runoff Voting

Wow, that's a great system! It's wonderful that the UT students actually vote in their SG elections too! Geez, though we only had a student senate at my primary school, we only had like 3,000 voters out of a grand total of 26k or so full-time students!

That's a nice system, and I appreciate the link, it confirmed what I thought you meant. Although I'm sure we can all think of our ideal candidates (most of us probably disagree or just don't care about one or several of the issues of the parties we support) the issue of money comes in. Also, and probably more importantly, who can effectively present such a bill to change our election system? I know Joe Six-pack can talk to his representative or senator, but they're members of the doggone Rep-Dem system!

edit: primary as in primary University, not grade-school!

[edit on 3-11-2006 by AlphaHumana]

I'm game for it, trouble is trying to get the big gorillas to agree or pass laws in letting the little guy have more leverage.

The system changes when the people get tired of being screwed over from both sides, unify, demand change and march. That and we all learn to not sell out to debt and regain some consumer power.

So the neocons showed us we are buttend of a bad joke. Right now many believe the Dems will be their saviour, but I still see it as giving another thief a key to the front door. So we pick the lesser of crooks and hope those elected don't clean out our homes.

Hispanics may rise up soon enough and have a workers revolt, if things remain the same. Indies and Libertarians will use anarchism when they can't feed their kids...

More parties in DC would restore some sanity and prevent one party from taking the whole show on the war road.