What do you think of instant runoff voting?

Question

This is where you vote for your candidate, and then list the others in order you'd like your vote to go. The candidates with the lowest number of votes get there votes shifted to the others listed by the voter.

Let's say I voted for Ross Perot in 1992, but put Bush Sr. second and Clinton Third. After voting is over, Perot is third in votes, so my vote automatically goes to Bush.

I rather like this idea. On the one hand, Bush Sr likely would have won over Clinton, but on the other hand Gore likely would have won over Bush Jr. Either way, I think this is closer to the real will of the people. What do you think?

If you don't want to vote by proxy, it's easy enough to put in a "none of the above" or "no other candidate" block.

Answer 1

Just to point out, there were other independent and third party candidates running in 1992 besides Ross Perot, so their votes would get distributed first. But that's just errata, and not answering the question.

Anyway, instant runoff voting isn't a bad idea, but it fails to address the greater problem of equal ballot access and media coverage for independents ant third parties. I'm more concerned with actually electing independents and members of third parties than making sure I'm not "wasting my vote." So, perhaps IRV might work for electing a president, but it doesn't fix a greater problem we have in federal and state legislatures. For something like that, we'd need to revamp the way legislators are elected. Some sort of proportional representation system seems to make sense for this. Unfortunately, it's kind of a vicious cycle that prevents these reforms from actually happening.

Answer 2

I don't like voting for people I never voted for by proxy!! It is bad enough without giving my vote to someone I detest!

Answer 3

I want my vote to go to the person I voted for.

Answer 4

I think it would be better to have like a scratch off lotto ticket, that would be exciting don't ya think