Instant Runoff Voting

[gjsterp]

Need to have a 'second choice' on a ballot that has more then two candidates..

[iriswaters]

This doesn't include the power IRV has to break the duopoly control over politics that a 2-party system maintains. Therefor limiting the monopolistic control they maintain over politics in a nation.

[OurLordLennon]

i dont get it? and I'm sure many others do not either......cant support something ya dont get... but I have to ask, WHY aren't votes counted as they come in? if a citizen votes for anyone that vote should go to THAT candidate no matter what? this to me would BE ACCURATE VOTING? and from what I've read, seen, learned, etc it is ALL rigged now a days with the electronic crap. FDR said once...." Politicians are SELECTED NOT ELECTED" this is APPARENT w/ all the tyranny the FEDS carry out as of late.

[kenmabie]

well add preference order to what you said and then you have instant runoff voting, also we need to get rid of the electoral college, thats who really "votes" in people, getting rid of that ( what you said first) then having the peoples vote counted and a preference vote ( who like most middle and least) and you have IRV get it now?

[CBlargh]

I'd prefer open primaries + a general election with top 2 vote-getters, but IRV is a much better method than what most of the USA currently has.

Anything's better than Ralph Nader selecting a winner. That's a craze-ocracy, not a democracy.

California had open primaries until a few years ago when our fuckbag supreme court declared it unconstitutional... Political parties have rights and individuals do not according to them... The supreme court of California is a giant fucking failure.

[MrSteveSpears]

Borda Count!!

[DrProfessorPhD]

It's a shame that IRV doesn't actually fix the spoiler problem. All ranked choice methods fail the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives criterion and the Favorite Betrayal criterion, the two causes of the spoiler effect. Rating methods like range (best) and approval (simplest) pass these criterion. I recommend that all supporters of IRV go look at the Center for Range Voting website and see the math for yourselves. IRV has many flaws, and there are far better options that can be implemented.

[ChickenBot]

choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without

[PuzzledMonkey]

Single Transferable Vote is a well-tested way to get PR. And PR is a good way to choose a parliament or legislature, since it brings many independent voices to the discussion.

But single winner elections such as president, governor or senator should choose the strongest centrist, rather than the strongest member of the strongest faction, in order to reach consensus.

Score voting is far better than IRV and is far simpler to implement.

[stinth]

voting doesn`t have sense guys. this country has been bought and paid for a long time ago.

[mindofray]

B!S! What we have to do is outlaw the Electoral College and have a few more parties in the process.Teach a class in "Problems of Democracy",this use to be taught to kids back in the 60s, a class that got us all so involved in the process we protested everything spoon fed to us by the Gov't & the media & changed the world.Thats why they don't teach it any more.Election day should be a national holiday so more than 1/3 of the population CAN vote.The only spoilers are the two major parties!

[WeimaranerTX]

"BS" you say? Perhaps you don't realize that Instant Runoff Voting would lead to more parties grabbing a larger foothold in elections, and positively affecting those elections. It would help third parties overcome the draconian ballot access laws in most states. Those ballot access laws being written to eliminate voter choice, of course.

[Tiwaking]

In New Zealand we use this method to elect Local Government officials. We use Mixed Member Proportional to elect our parliament members

[CENSOREDFORSEX]

Implement this now!!

[Quizoid]

Thanks for making this video! This is one of my biggest issues for a long time, but never seems to make waves. I think this is mostly because those in power don't really benefit from it very much. Additionally, it's more rational than emotional, and people don't like to get bored, they'd rather feel reactionary around "homos getting married," or "baby killing," or rally around other charged issues than one that's simply fair, but not very dramatic.

[loveisallneed]

makes sense, but we can't afford it now. The government would spend billions to make this thousands dollar system. :(

[norehct]

"Wherever IRV can combine two rounds of balloting into one and eliminate unnecessary elections, it can save cash-strapped municipalities some serious money. Elections don't come cheap. One shudders to think of the millions and millions of dollars that Virginia's taxpayers just shelled out to draw a scant 6 percent of registered voters to the polls." Blair

[gorikuri]

Makes sense!

[matereymate]

that's why nader running is only a point in favor of mccain.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

*hopes and prays this becomes a reality in the USA*

[katey1dog]

B looks closely alike to Al Gore...

Wonder why that is?

[hollandturbine]

We use this system in Australia, the system is very good, the only thing I do not like is political parties handing out how to vote cards outside polling stations, listing preferences, I view that as interfering with the process and think it needs to be made illegal.

[scwoefg]

Australia was also the first country to adopt this method except we call preferential voting. We also have a really complicated system of proportional representation for the senate which means a more accurate representation of different policies.

[sagekat3]

I support IRV but this video is inaccurate and misleading. "Spoiler" is a BS term used by whiny, entitled politicians and the morons who blindly follow anything they say.

[Quizoid]

Besides using words like "whiny," and "moron," please actually state your view.  I don't understand how this video is misleading.

[MikeCPhotography]

If you watch this video, pass it along to all your friends. This video should have MILLIONS of hits. Ask people with large numbers of subscribers to speak about this. CHANGE THIS COUNTRY.

[MikeCPhotography]

SEND THIS TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS.

[jollychris1010101]

This sounds like something Britain need as well. If Rabid ape can get elected president he has said he would introduce this. I really hope he gets elected.

[SpoolDonkey]

this system is missing a ''none of the above'' box.

[DrGunz101]

"this system is missing a ''none of the above'' box."

To chose none of the above you just leave the 2nd, 3rd, etc choice blank.

[bushputz]

"this system is missing a ''none of the above'' box."

lol

[bry789123]

y vote at all then

[Loquidgk]

Great idea. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be implemented on a broad scale - we already have enough problems with the vote counting now. Imagine the clusterfuck if this was put in place!

If only this worked out.

[somebritishdude]

THAT IS SUCH A GOOD SYSTEM!!!

is there any real chance of it becoming reality in US?

[sagekat3]

It is a reality in the US. Several cities use it.

[Sorkielukas]

in Kapitalizm system is democracy used only when are kapitalists sure they will win votes.

[stalinistaussie]

In Australia, IRV is called preference voting.

[VampireLord66]

Not that I really believe voting will work in a Country run by the Captialist Class and they're Corporations but this makes more sense then using Absentee Ballots since they will throw those out anyway and only register those who are the nominated Canidates.

[bl4ckd0g187]

very logical arguement. 5/5 and favorited. I like the idea, and think it should be implemented. also, great presentation. oh, and what party did the green dinosaur on the election chart thing represent? just curious.

[QuirkyAndSuch]

Hillary Clinton is for instant-runoff voting.

[Wallatnem]

love it.

[hoopi4432]

This is a great video. Thanks.

[ISteveRgawdx]

I support this

[soulhunger1]

Just wondering, is there any criticism of this system, or is it as good as it seems? Just trying to get both sides, if there is another side. Otherwise, this system looks like it makes perfect sense.

[Di66en6ion]

This concept is so simple it's sad that I never heard about it in any high school classes. This coupled with taking away all the money candidates get directly from lobbyists would be great imo.

[Monkeyshouts]

I tried to talk a little about IRV to a tubthumper/campaigner in the 2007 French presidential election... but the problem is that if you want to explain IRV, you better have a name to look serious, however "instant-runoff voting" has no translation in french! Except from "vote alternatif" (you can guess it's meaning), which doesn't really suit what it is. Anyone has a name easy to translate (= without "runoff") for other languages?

[Monkeyshouts]

I tried to talk just a little about IRV to a tubthumper/campaigner in the 2007 French presidential election... but the problem is that "instant-runoff voting" has no translation in french except from "vote alternatif" (you guess what it means), which doesn't really mean something... So, it's not easy to explain in a minute. Anyone has a name easier to translate to other languages?

[bu1ckgnx]

OMG!!!!! WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS ALREADY?!?!?!?! (RabidApe was right)

[carlosjhr64]

Yes!

[mindwis3]

Very interesting.

I wonder how much this applies to Dutch politics, where we have more then 10 political streams, but government is made of coalitions that generally need to have majority in parliament.(otherwise legislation would never make it through parliament)

In this vid example, b+c would create a coalition where b would deliver the 'president' and c the vice-p.

[lanz0r4tehwin]

My country has been using IRV since Federation

[blakkat31]

great idea!

[hiimallen]

Had this been in place in the 92 and 96 election, Bill Clinton would never have been President.

[bluethinggg]

Having more than one president would fundamentally change the system, while IRV is simply an improvement to the process. Support IRV as it is realistic and simple to implement. Blurring the issue with Approval voting, will divide the movement against itself and only help keep the existing system. Do you want change or discussion?

[sailortitan]

There's a lot of debate over whether approval or IRV is better. Frankly, I'm just as glad to get behind IRV in a united movement, even if Approval turned out (statistically) to be somewhat better, because it is *so* much better than what we have now.

Besides, I think that Fairvote has made a good decision, considering that IRV is what the Political Science Association uses, that's a fairly good sign of it's strength.

[BI30]

Here in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry won re-election in 2006 with just 39% of the vote, thanks to two third Party candidates (Kinky Freedman and Carol Keeton Strayhorn) splitting the anti-Perry vote with Democrat Chris Bell (second with 30%). I don't know about you, but when 61% of the electorate votes against you, you have no business winning the election.

[lectrick]

Do you even understand how votes are counted in an IRV? Some extra percentage of the people rated Perry high, if not #1. The percentage result is misleading. IRV is designed to elect the person people are impressed with the most. In this case it looks like it was Perry.

[sparklebtt]

I like this! It makes sense!

[Acumensch]

My city voted for IRV last year. I can't wait to see it in action at the next election!

Thanks for the video.

[cobbweb1962]

Excellent and acccesible introduction to preferential voting!

[nilent]

This is a no brainer! It should be popular on a non-partisan basis. It's "just" a matter of communicating/explaining the concept.

I wonder why the Democrats and Republicans are mum on this?

[bluethinggg]

IRV opens up for competition which existing parties do not like. Diversity would mean perhaps having more than 2 parties to choose from, which threatens existing power. Do you think the person who won the election would want to change the system that got them elected? This has to be a grass roots movement to succeed!

[aresmars2003]

A+ for clarity of what IRV does. My only complaint is that is fails talk beyond a 3-candidate example. A 4-way contests can cause more problems - basically if the plurality second candidates gets knocked into third and eliminated, he may complain he "earned" the right to compete head-to-head against the "winner", which happens in a top-two runoff, but not in IRV with a bottom-up elimination. Majority rule doesn't demand bottom-up elimination over a two round top-two elimination.

[berkeleybernie]

An excellent intro to Instant Runoff Voting, the future of democracy in the U.S. *if* we get the word out. IRV makes sense, it's nonpartisan (more correctly, omnipartisan), and is now being instituted in cities across the U.S. It will build momentum as voters realize it's more democratic, allows them to vote the way they want, saves money, and discourages negative campaigns.

Forward this video! The faster we get this into the public mind, the faster we can fix a major flaw in our broken system.