Instant Runoff Voting still worth the effort

Governor Cahill? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not certain how this reflects the idea that people  feel voting outside the 2-parties is a waste, since Cahill's numbers are damned HIGH. In the first round, Stein gets 3%, Cahill, a surprising 23%, Baker 25%, and Patrick 33%. It does show that a quarter of the electorate is willing to entertain the idea of voting outside major party lines and that, with 18% undecided, it's literally anyone's race.

But if IRV were in effect, it wouldn't do any favors to the outliers. Stein would be out of the running immediately, and I'm guessing that her 3% would likely go to Patrick as the #2 on most Stein ballots. So now we'd have Patrick jumping to 36, with Baker holding at 25 and Cahill at 23. Or maybe a few Stein second choices are in fact undecided (since that jumps to a whopping 27%), so let's score Patrick at 34.5.

At this point,the real fun begins. With a margin-of-error at 4.4%, and only a 3 percentage-point difference between the two, we don't know who gets eliminated--Baker or Cahill. In any case, the question, who gets the majority of votes from the eliminated candidate in the second-round is pretty easily resolved looking at second choices--it's clear that Baker OR Cahill would pick up the most point--quite possibly enough to overcome the roughly 7-pt difference--especially Cahill, since Patrick is a very low 2nd choice, while Baker drops a point and Cahill picks up 3, suggesting he's the preferred second choice.

So the candidate (Baker/Cahill) who is NOT the preferred first-choice of the plurality of voters likely becomes governor. Hmmm. In fact, the THIRD preferred choice could pull it off based on these numbers.

Of course, should the "undecideds" break largely for Patrick, he'd be able to withstand to second-choice onslaught and pull it off. That's a large swath, and polls with that many undecided don't lead too many conclusions of ANY sort--except that a lot of people aren't thrilled with the three candidates they've heard of, and that a fourth, with less awareness in February but cohorts of hard-working campaigners, could be a different place come August...

Question is: IF IRV were in effect when this question was asked, would Stein then have scored a higher percentage of first-round votes, since more voters would have been apt to name her as first-choice knowing that voting for her would not result in a GOP win? THAT's why we need IRV.

I find the recent Suffolk polls more interesting in regard to issues than candidates--largely because the Stein campaign has nowhere to go but up, and with increased awareness, her campaign could woo both that large bloc of undecideds, disaffected Patrick voters, and those picking Cahill as a protest vote.

In re issues, the poll shows show slight support for cutting the sales tax to 3%, and VERY strong support for cutting the added alcohol sales tax and for casinos (worth keeping in mind, however, that, as another poll showed, 57% support casinos--but only 38% percent support having a casino in their town--which is a lot like, "I support the war, but I'm damned if I'm going to send my kid into combat.")

Would have liked to have seen a question about legalizing weed, since TAX AND REGULATE bills are popping up all over the country and gaining real momentum--but we don't have that on the ballot yet. Next year?  

---

by: michael horan @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:11:45 AM UTC

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

"Question is: IF IRV were in effect when this question was asked, would Stein then have scored a higher percentage of first-round votes, since more voters would have been apt to name her as first-choice knowing that voting for her would not result in a GOP win? THAT's why we need IRV."

That's basically my point here. I didn't mean Stein would pull an upset and win gloriously with an IRV system in place, but how many people did you know in 2000 who didn't vote for Nader because they thought it was a waste, and effecttively a ? I just feel like it's a huge first step to getting people comfortable with voting for 3rd party candidate.

---

by: thegreengrass @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 19:41:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not very meaningful (0.00 / 0)

A lot can happen in the nine months before election day.  Only a fraction of people care about any of this poll at this point.

Move forward; the center leads nowhere.

---

by: scott_laugenour @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 01:53:46 AM UTC

of course (0.00 / 0)

Absolutely. All theoretical. I don't expect to see Cahill's numbers remain NEARLY so high, nor Stein's where they are either. Like I said--expect a far different landscape come August. At which point, post nominating conventions, the Undecideds will likely start to move.  

---

by: michael horan @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 03:49:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My "I'm a Little Teapot" bet still stands ...... Jill Stein gets less than 5% of the vote. (0.00 / 0)

So far the only person who has taken me up on this bet is Eli.  Who is next?  Only time will tell.  

Obama Extends The Patriot Act
http://www.latimes.com/news/na...

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 16:05:07 PM UTC

Put the money down (0.00 / 0)

But none of your teapot sing-songs. Put some money up.
Give me 2-1 odds and I'll bet she winds up with double digits. And at my income level, any bets I place means I really am betting the rent--so, yeah, I'm that confident and feel I'm betting with my head (a different case than when I plunk down my meal money in a heartfelt gamble on the Giants. Yeah, I'm from NJ).

RRR, if she's polling at 3%, with low name recognition outside of the political cognoscenti, even a slight uptake in awareness will put her over 5. A well-run campaign that carefully avoids alienating anyone and the sky's the limit.

You know anyone with a serious hard-on for Patrick, Cahill, or Baker? Sure, money and party loyalty will play a huge role--but these guys are drab, unexciting, and business-as-usual. As I keep saying--in another year I'd be less excited. This year's gonna be a weird one, both in MA  and across the country. Hell, it already is.

---

by: michael horan @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 16:27:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't bet with actual money ..... because it's illegal (0.00 / 0)

BUT

I can throw down a couple of mean verses of "I'm a Little Teapot"  

But great post.  I may not agree with you about Jill Stein's chances but I believe you are right on about everything else in your post.  

You know anyone with a serious hard-on for Patrick, Cahill, or Baker?

No, No I don't .... good point.  

Obama Extends The Patriot Act
http://www.latimes.com/news/na...

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 22:10:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about a little Toby Keith? (0.00 / 0)

You're really a Republican? How about I stand on Boston Common chanting "Mac is back!" for five minutes? No, better--I'll sing that damn Toby Keith song, whatever it is. "Proud to be an American." No, that's not it. "Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue." Yeah.

I'm going to hell for even knowing who Lee Greenwood and Toby Keith even are.  

---

by: michael horan @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 23:18:52 PM UTC

Better poll question needed (0.00 / 0)

Good post, but I want to point out that the poll question isn't the best for opening a conversation on instant runoff voting.

"If it was apparent that your first choice could not win the election, which candidate (or party) would be your second choice? "

Americans are conditioned to believe that only Democrats and Republicans can win elections. I'm not saying they're happy with it; but most who vote resign themselves to this idea, and the idea that by voting for a non-Republicrat candidate they agree with most, they will help the Republicrat candidate they agree with least. (I don't consider Cahill an independent, as everyone knows he is a rebranded Democrat who owes his position to the two-party system).

IRV allows voters to vote their sincere preferences without fear of "splitting the vote". Even though this poll asks about second choices, both questions (the first implicitly, the second explicitly) are about strategic preferences (who will you vote for if enough others vote for them to give them a chance of winning?) not sincere preferences (who do you agree with most/who would you pick as our next governor?).

If we wanted to measure the need for IRV, good questions to ask would be "what candidate are you most closely aligned with on the issues?" and "what candidate are you planning to vote for?" If the respondent's sincere preference doesn't match their strategic preference, they would probably be receptive to the idea of IRV.

Many voters (likely a majority, judging by IRV referendum victories across the US) would be delighted to learn that there's a voting system that would allow them to vote for the candidates they agree with most, without fear of helping the candidates they agree with least.

I'd like Greens to develop a messaging campaign about instant runoff voting and proportional representation, based on the idea that every vote should count. This could be combined with clean elections public financing to make up the holy trinity of electoral reform. Thoughts?

---

by: daveschwab @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 16:11:58 PM UTC

Interesting idea (0.00 / 0)

Messaging like how? Taking out ads in papers about IRV campaigns, like the one I mentioned in the article? Contacting people registered Green? I think something like that with people registered Green or independent/unenrolled are possibly already inclined to hear about such initiatives. What'd you have in mind?

---

by: thegreengrass @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 20:28:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By messaging I mean... (5.00 / 1)

integrating our calls for electoral reform into the Green message in general. First and foremost, that applies to candidates. Voters should know that we have a vision to make every vote count and clean up politics.

Imagine you're an uncommitted voter listening to Jill Stein. "She sounds great on the issues", you think, "but won't I just be wasting my vote unless I vote Dem or Repub?" Then Jill tells the audience that Greens have a plan to make every vote count and ensure that none are wasted: instant runoff voting for single-winner elections and proportional representation for legislatures. Now you're convinced that Greens don't just have good ideas, they have a strategic vision for gaining power and making them happen.

"But once Greens get into power, won't they just sell out like all other politicians?" Then Jill tells the crowd that Green candidates take a pledge not to accept corporate money, and they support clean elections public financing to get private influence out of public affairs. Now you're convinced that your vote for Greens isn't just a vote against the broken system, but also a vote for the solutions that will fix the system.

The party should also engage its supporters in campaigns for electoral reform, and attempt to get its message to the general public too. By messaging, I just meant making electoral reform an integral part of GRP communications.

---

by: daveschwab @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 14:09:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very well said, Dave... (0.00 / 0)

very well said.

---

by: zee @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 18:10:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gotcha (0.00 / 0)

Ah ok, I see what you're talking about. I really like talk that includes concrete visions and goals, so I think integrating it into the message like that would be great!

---

by: thegreengrass @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:27:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]