Instant runoff voting, or IRV. This tricky method of voting is a way that algore would have won the 2000 election. Everyone admits that Ralph Nader stole votes from algore and left the back door of the Whitehouse open for GWB to walk right through and take a seat in the Oval Office.
Here's how it works: GWB, algore and Nader are running. You then rank them 1-2-3.
GWB = 44% of the votes
algore = 31% of the votes
Nader = 15% of the votes
The other 10% are left blank.
Of the 15% that chose Nader as their number one choice, 95% chose algore for their second while 5% chose Bush as their second. Therefore 95% of Naders votes go to algore.
The result would look like this:
Bush = 44.75% of the votes
algore = 45.25% of the votes. algore WINS.
Does this seem fair? So you can still vote for the far out candidate and still get the democrat elected. Yes, it is a democrat thing, you have the "left" (algore) and the "very left" green party (Nader).
2007-06-14 07:24:04 · 7 answers · asked by Jeremy A 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Wingshooter - READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH IDIOT
2007-06-14 07:30:35 · update #1
Do any of you idiots read or just look at the first sentance and assume it's a pro algore statement?
2007-06-14 07:31:53 · update #2
No, and algore should never be allowed into politics again!
2007-06-14 07:27:45 · answer #1 · answered by SmartAce 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This would be an improvement.
There are other possible ways to improve voting, such as giving everyone 5 votes they can cast.
You can either cast them all for the same person or for different people.
What this WON'T solve is fraud.
Harris, who was both Bush's southern campaign manager, AND in charge of elections in Florida, had her minions remove tens of thousands of registered Democrats from the voter lists.
Those people were NOT allowed to vote at all.
We also need voting with papter trails, unlike much of the country (including Ohio) in 2004.
When the guy owning the company that makes the machines has them programmed to elect HIS guy, there's no such thing as voting.
The other thing that would have helped in 2000 is if we actually got to vote for the office.
Getting rid of the Electoral College system would help.
It's now easier to steal elections, since you don't have to steal millions of votes, necessarily.
But any of these changes would, I believe, take amending the Constitution, and good luck with that these days.
The country has been very reluctant to approve of ammendments. For a few decades now.
But, maybe, if there were a way to make the country a bit more like a representative democracy (what we're SUPPOSED to be), people would push for it.
2007-06-14 07:54:10 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I favor the instant runoff vote because it would give us better results. I don't know which would be more important, having a winner that gets an absolute majority or a winner that beats every other candidate (or at least the winner would be the candidate that beat more candidates than any other candidate). IRV would be a good idea and in my state (Florida), they're considering using it very soon. Thanks!
2016-05-20 03:10:10 · answer #3 · answered by tena 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is only in office for another 19 months. The 2000 election was almost 7 years ago. It's time to let it go and move on with your life.
2007-06-14 07:30:00 · answer #4 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In theory, it makes sense but in practice it would lead to the proliferation of third parties. Then the ranking will get really really tricky because there won't be just one viable alternative.
2007-06-14 07:31:45 · answer #5 · answered by Brand X 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Are you still whining and Gore not winning the election and still spouting the democrap mantra that Bush "stole" the election? Dude GET OVER IT! MOVE ON!
2007-06-14 07:28:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
you are a great COMRADE
2007-06-14 07:30:07 · answer #7 · answered by madamchairmanclinton 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋