Perhaps the time has come to launch a modern 21st century conversation, ten years long, about our election procedures, our governing mechanisms, and the 18th century constitutional structures bequeathed to us by our founders.
The presidential primary season presents a lot of important angles for understanding electoral rules, particularly involving the impact of using a plurality voting system instead of ranked choice voting and using winner-take-all delegate rules instead of proportional representation ones.
The Electoral College system can be improved. The first improvement needed is to make every voter count. The second is for every voter to count equally. And the third is to elect a president who is supported by a majority of the voters. This is not a partisan issue.
The bottom line is twofold. First, John Bel Edwards should be congratulated for winning his election under the "Top Two" runoff rules used in Louisiana. Second, Edwards almost certainly owes his victory to a flaw.
It remains to be seen whether Jim Webb will run as an independent--he said he would consider his options in the coming weeks--and it's hard to tell how much support an independent campaign could muster in the general election.
Range voting eliminates spoilers and splitting the vote between two good candidates. It gives voters a chance to show how much they dislike someone, rather than just being silent. For these reasons, Range Voting is superior to Instant Runoff Voting.
There's probably not time for Fox to change its rules for August 6, but let's hope organizers of upcoming debates find a better way to determine who's on stage. Ranked choice voting would be a good place to start.
On May 12, voters in the first congressional district of Mississippi went to the polls to vote for a new Member of Congress in the wake of the unfortunate death of Congressman Alan Nunnelee earlier this year.
As voting method nerds who appreciate the values of ranked choice voting (RCV) elections, we at FairVote got a kick out of the Los Angeles Times running a front-page story today on the RCV system. Unfortunately, the news story itself is a big disappointment.
Bay Area voters in Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco and San Leandro yesterday elected 22 offices with ranked choice voting (RCV). Even though many ballots are still to be scanned, we already know important information about these elections. Here are highlighted facts...
The use of RCV ballots is a positive step for military and overseas voters -- and one that suggests the broader value of a ranked choice ballot for all voters, given the typical low turnout and increased taxpayer burdens of two-round runoffs.
The bottom line is that voting laws that may seem "daring" can quickly become "normal." These reforms have significantly improved elections in Takoma Park, and we expect them to take hold soon in more and more local and state elections around the United States.
Analyzing Oscar voting is tricky, because the Academy doesn't release actual vote totals. As a result, any investigation into how an Oscar election played out can only be based on the announced winners and anecdotal evidence of what voters were thinking.
If you followed the local elections and the special elections that took place in 2013, you probably heard some stories about ranked choice voting -- there has been a wave of positive national press and great new examples of how it works in practice.
It's exciting to realize that what's been published represents only the tip of the iceberg of recent research and analysis that will go public in 2012. We have a lot to say -- and, given the troubled condition of American democracy, many reasons to say it.
We're approaching a time where states and cities will have an easy decision to make: uphold majority rule in one election or keep a plurality voting system that delivers questionable results and broken politics.