« Tennessee Among States with "Most-Revised" Lobbying Rules | Main | Honorable Mention »
March 10, 2006
IRV and NOTA: Give Me Choices, Dangit
It's an election year, so inevitably there is some buzz and activity around two of my favorite electoral topics: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and a None of the Above (NOTA) ballot option. I doubt there's enough momentum to make any meaningful progress on either, but at least people keep chipping away.
IRV tends to appeal to minor parties and independents; in fact, it's likely that the reason so little progress has been made in its implementation is the two-party system's fear of IRV weakening their grip on power. But back to the first point, with a story from Vermont. Yes, the crunchy critters practiced them some IRV and it seems to have worked. And, yes, it caused the Progressive candidate to win over the predicted Democrat. (I honestly don't know if this "Progressive" is progressive in the 1920s sense or the 1990s sense. My hunch is that it's the latter.)
There's more on IRV at FairVote.org, which received the honor just today (uh, yesterday, 3/9) of being Ron Gunzburger's site of the day.
NOTA, on the other hand, seems to appeal to all species of political animal. Perhaps. At any rate, there is a Republican candidate for Tennessee's House of Representatives who wants us to give it a try. NOTA presents the voter with the option of electing to have a new slate of candidates from which to choose. Under the NOTA system, if NOTA got >50% of the votes in an election, that election would be a do-over. Imagine if Pat Robertson were running against Cynthia McKinney. Most people would be hard-pressed to make an enthusiastic choice between the two, so a NOTA option would come in handy.
That said, if more candidates would run, and this wishful thinking is directed mainly at independent and so-called "third party" candidates, the NOTA option would be needed that much less. Ergo, if I had to pick between IRV and NOTA, I'd have to go with IRV.
Elections | By joe lance | 12:39 AM