4 ms·

Seems like it pushes everything to a lukewarm center, change already difficult to enact would be even harder, it goes to "who sorta kinda appeals to the most".

Seems like it pushes everything to a lukewarm center, change already difficult to enact would be even harder, it goes to "who sorta kinda appeals to the most". I imagine turnout would decline.

Klathmon 8y ago
I don't see that. I know I've "voted defensively" before, and I really don't like having to do it. I want to vote for those that I agree with, I don't want to vote against those who I disagree with. It may seem like a small distinction, but if someone loves candidate A, but they are extremely unlikely to win, most will end up voting for B because they REALLY don't like C. That leads to A never getting in office until they become more like B. But with instant runoff, I'm free to know that I can vote for A first, and B second, and not worry that my support for A is implicit support for C. It not a perfect system, but IMO it's a lot better than what we have now in the US. Edit: another piece that I forgot to mention is that instant runoff can give more signals beyond the winners or losers. Currently you have no way outside of polling to understand what voters want, it leads to a vocal minority being able to control the narrative. With instant runoff, the runners can easily see that even though candidate A didn't win, they did get a sizeable number of votes, and maybe next time B runs, they will incorporate some of A's ideas into their campaign.
empath75 8y ago
You end up with the candidate who most voters at least like while offering more choices. Seems like it would wipe out the ‘rile up the base’ strategy in favor of trying not to offend anyone.
- vertline3 8y ago
  Right, I'm saying it's a stable but stale form where candidates optimize being tepid. May seem fine but I see how it would lead to further entrenchment of a ruling class

4 ms·

Seems like it pushes everything to a lukewarm center, change already difficult to enact would be even harder, it goes to "who sorta kinda appeals to the most".

by vertline3 8y ago

Seems like it pushes everything to a lukewarm center, change already difficult to enact would be even harder, it goes to "who sorta kinda appeals to the most". I imagine turnout would decline.

Klathmon 8y ago
I don't see that. I know I've "voted defensively" before, and I really don't like having to do it. I want to vote for those that I agree with, I don't want to vote against those who I disagree with. It may seem like a small distinction, but if someone loves candidate A, but they are extremely unlikely to win, most will end up voting for B because they REALLY don't like C. That leads to A never getting in office until they become more like B. But with instant runoff, I'm free to know that I can vote for A first, and B second, and not worry that my support for A is implicit support for C. It not a perfect system, but IMO it's a lot better than what we have now in the US. Edit: another piece that I forgot to mention is that instant runoff can give more signals beyond the winners or losers. Currently you have no way outside of polling to understand what voters want, it leads to a vocal minority being able to control the narrative. With instant runoff, the runners can easily see that even though candidate A didn't win, they did get a sizeable number of votes, and maybe next time B runs, they will incorporate some of A's ideas into their campaign.
empath75 8y ago
You end up with the candidate who most voters at least like while offering more choices. Seems like it would wipe out the ‘rile up the base’ strategy in favor of trying not to offend anyone.
- vertline3 8y ago
  Right, I'm saying it's a stable but stale form where candidates optimize being tepid. May seem fine but I see how it would lead to further entrenchment of a ruling class