| Super Moderator  Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Seattle (grew up around D.C.) Gender:  Posts: 8,491 Country:  Points: 27,237, Level: 97 | Level up: 89%, 113 Points needed |  |  Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxian  But I don't think that it would do these things. I don't think issues would take the forefront. I don't think people will feel empowered. I don't think more people will vote, and I don't think more people will become informed. To many, politics will simply have become tougher, because instead of two stances on the issues, there are three or four or ten. Even if those informed about one or two candidates may find themselves uninformed about the group of candidates. It would still be a popularity contest, but the game just becomes a little more complex.
I imagine a solid campaiging strategy to go something like this: instead of making sure people dislike the other guy, you just have to make sure people don't dislike you. Sit back and let two other candidates duke it out while you slowly build up a lot of "rank 1 and 2" supporters. Doing this still requires charisma and cunning instead of the right stance on the issues.
I don't mean to say that IRV is without its merits, and adding more voices to the political pool will help. But I don't see it fixing the root cause: people vote for a candidate for the wrong reasons. Can you perhaps explain in a bit more detail how IRV will fix the problems I am speaking of? | Just look at proportional representation, IRV's kissing cousin: What are the advantages of using proportional representation?
The advantages are many. - There is much greater voter participation. In countries using PR, voter turnout is usually in the 70% to 95% range.
- Campaigns tend to be issue oriented rather than popularity contests. Because American society is so diverse, it is difficult to find issues that will guarantee majority support. Instead, campaign managers fight to attract swing voters who are not attracted to either candidate. They have discovered the most effective way to do this is by smearing the opponent. Swing voters are more influenced by negative campaigns because they are unattracted to the positive positions of either candidate. Under PR, however, a majority is not required to get elected. Instead politicians run campaigns directed at a particular constituency and the most effective campaigns are issue oriented.
- Minorities and woman get much greater representation under proportional representation. Women in countries using PR generally comprise somewhere in the range of 25% - 35% of elected officials, as opposed to less than 5% here in the U.S. PR has been used in Voting Rights Act cases where it has been shown that gerymandered districts or the use of at-large representation has denied minorities fair representation. PR has proven to be an effective way of ensuring minority representation in Alamagordo, NM and Peoria, IL. Blacks have been continuously represented on the city council and school committee of Cambridge, MA since it instituted its version of PR in 1941.
- There is a much greater selection under proportional representation. Americans come in more than two flavors. There is no way that two political parties can represent the diversity of opinion that exists in this country. Under PR the size of the vote determines the size of the representation, but everyone gets represented.
http://gnu-linux.us/pr.html
Maybe PR would be more wise to implement than IRV??? But I believe the advantages would be similar. Maybe not( http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/...ticles/irv.htm ) --- help me Instant Runoff Voting, you're my only hope --- "There is no such thing as laziness. Laziness is only lack of incentive." Norman Reider, MD
Morality is not contingent on religion to exist. Therefore religion only detracts from the purity of morality.
Last edited by hevusa; 08-14-2006 at 04:08 PM.
|