Green Activisit in Montana pushes for IRV

A.D. Gettis has a new blog devoted to third party politics in Montana. He is reporting today that a Montana Green Party activist is pushing for instant runoff voting and that he apparently has a commitment from a House Democrat to sponsor it. You can read the details here.

11 Responses to “Green Activisit in Montana pushes for IRV”

  1. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    IRV wins the award for WORST voting method.

    That most Greens persist in supporting the worst known voting method, instant runoff voting, is baffling. But I am confident that the Green Party, comprising as it does otherwise rational people, will one day roundly reject that most wretched of all voting methods, instant runoff.

  2. NewFederalist Says:

    This is a real “be careful what you wish for” situation. There are many BETTER and EASIER to understand alternative voting methods. I just hope the Greens figure it out quickly.

  3. Matt Sterba Says:

    Devin –
    Please state your case against IRV.
    It seems like it would be very beneficial to third parties.

  4. NewFederalist Says:

    Matt, please check out

  5. Otto Kerner Says:

    The main thing in IRV’s favour is

    it gets people used to alternative voting systems. The real deal is proportional representation. Maybe people will be ready to accept that some day.

  6. Wes P Says:

    If you think 2-party domination is a bad thing and would like to see a greater diversity of parties and more voter choice, then why would you want IRV (in which, with strategically-exaggerating voters, 3rd parties have no chance, and which in Australia, Malta, and Ireland still led to 2-party domination) when you could have Range Voting? See

  7. RWR Says:

    “The Kth number in the tuple is a “score” for candidate K.”

    Much simpler than IRV!

    Actually, I’m completely undecided on whether or not the voting system should be changed, and if so, to what. Thanks for the links.

  8. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    or check where my case is stated at

  9. Derek Says:

    I think proposing IRV alone is a bad idea because it could favor either the Republicans or Democrats heavier than with our FPTP system. However, I think we should all look at a more realistic proposal: a mixed system. Maybe not a MMP like in Germany but like the one in Scotland and Wales. IRV would be good for the district tier but we could have parties field a list of 2-3 candidates per district instead of having a list. I like the idea of using federal regions to allocate at-large seats. We could either have 4 large regions or 9 medium regions; each state would be part of a “super-district” and they’d also be either 1 “super-district” or many “super-districts” wthin the state as well. We need to do something to challenge those who think multi-member districts are unconstitutional because multi-member districts can balance gender, racial and political groups if used well. I don’t think that representation for women and minorities reflects their real strength because of this FPTP system. I would favor the use of a 1 vote mixed system where your 1st choice is also your party vote. However, all the votes for the winner in each candidate should be either completely transferred to voters’ 2nd choices or have a partial transfer where, say, a Democrat won with 45% of the 1st choices and you’d have the Democrats keep 20.25% (45% of 45%) of the votes while the other 24.75% are transferred to voters’ 2nd choices or vice-versa. Of course all the 1st choices the other candidates received will count and you’d have that party’s total. Any ideas? Thanks.

  10. Carl Says:

    Proportional representation gave Hitler power. No thanks. There are advantages to district based elections: representatives closer to the people, fewer whack jobs in the legislature, etc.

    That said, using plurality votes to determine the winner stinks. Under such a system the biggest faction wins, vs. the person who best represents the entire district. Note how plurality voting produces wild oscillations in senators.

    Range voting is familiar to everyone—outside of the political context. It’s how a wide range of Olympic events are judged (gymnastics, diving, boxing, etc.). It is also how many other judging type events are tallied. Finally, it is how class valedictorian is generally chosen. (Letter grades constitute range votes when translated into GPA.)

    Thus, range voting has proven stability in those domains where it has been used. It also has a proven record of avoiding the lesser of two evils dilemma. With the exception of boxing, the aforementioned events usually involve far more than two contestants.

    The main objection to using range voting for elections historically has been the extra math. Instead of one checkbox per voter per contest, you have N numbers per voter per contest, where N is the number of candidates. With hand-counted ballots, this is a lot of extra work.

    With computer scanned paper ballots, the extra effort is trivial!

  11. paxil Says:

    in Germany and then in the United States

Leave a Reply