* The first part of the setup…
Should a candidate for governor be able to get a major-party nomination if only one-fifth of an already small number of primary election voters give him or her the nod?
Doesn’t it seem reasonable that some threshold percentage should be crossed?
Part 2…
What a difference a couple of years makes. Well, a couple of years, a couple more candidates and a whole lot of apathy.
Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, ran for governor in 2006. He got 135,370 votes in the primary election, according to State Board of Elections records. That was good for third in a field of five candidates.
This year, Brady ran again, and the latest unofficial tally gives him 155,263 votes. This time, though, Brady is in first place, at least for now.
* The Question: Should we have runoffs for primaries when candidates don’t receive at least 50 percent of the vote? Or, do you have a better idea? Explain fully, as always. Thanks.
LIVE session coverage...
- Reformer - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:37 am:
A separate runoff election would cost an arm and a leg. Far easier would be to adopt instant runoff voting where voters would be allowed to rank candidates, first choice, second, third. If no candidates wins a majority of first choice votes, then the candidate in last place is eliminated, and the second choices of his supporters are counted. This process continues until one candidate gets a majority of the votes.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:37 am:
We should get rid of primaries all together… anyone who meets some number of sigs (or pays cash) gets on the ballot. The parties at their own discretion can determine who gets the letter at their own cost.
Then everyone runs heads up in the general, run off with top 2 if no one gets 50% 2 weeks later.
Only exception is Presidency (because of US Constitution)
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:37 am:
Primaries are already a system for subsidizing private entities, the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Why should taxpayers spend more money on a new round of run-off elections?
The solution is simple, although the Democrats and Republicans don’t like it.
Implement a system that allows voters to rank candidates. This can be done with Condorcet voting, instant run-off voting or a points system, like sports rankings.
- 60611 - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:38 am:
To spare the expense of a runoff election, an alternative idea would be that if no candidate gets, say, 35% of the vote, the top 2 candidates proceed to a party convention. Not as democratic a process as a runoff, but certainly cheaper for the taxpayer — and I don’t know that the taxpayers will want to pay for a theoretical Green party primary runoff for comptroller.
- Ben S. - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:38 am:
Absolutely! It’s fair to the voters and allows the winning candidates to have a majority of their party’s support. Why we don’t have it is a mystery to me…probably costs too much.
- the Other Anonymous - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:39 am:
I don’t think we should change electoral systems because we don’t like the result in one particular election. Every system will have its quirks.
Let’s look at the runoff system: let’s say you have the primary, and the GOP has a winner, but the Democrats have a runoff. Isn’t it likely that at least in some elections the turnout for the runoff will be lower than for the first election? You could end up with a nominee that got fewer votes than the third place finisher.
Each election system will produce unique results, and so I am against change for the sake of change.
- Objective Dem - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:39 am:
I don’t think we need runoffs. It can eliminate good candidates. For instance, I don’t think Harold Washington would have been elected Mayor if there was a runoff.
- shore - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:39 am:
No.
System works as is. This state has enough problems it does not need a new issue to screw up.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:42 am:
Cost - cost - cost!
The GOP can use a run-off. It would get the candidates extra exposure and help the winner become more credible. But it would be expensive and it would have had to been agreed upon by all candidates before last week.
So yeah, a candidate should have to get at least 30% of an primary’s vote total to become the nominee, or there would be a run-off.
So, in this case there would be a GOP run-off, but not a run-off for Quinn.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:42 am:
I’ve always wished we could make voting mandatory, a system Australia has. If you don’t vote, you get hit with a nominal fine, say $25, sort of a reverse poll tax. Next, I’d move the primary to a later date, say June, just to mess with the legislative session. Finally, I always thought election day should be a holiday and be celebrated as such. Can’t really move it to the weekend without offending some group or other, but we really need to do something to put emphasis on how important it is to vote and to take an interest in shared governance.
Instant run off voting has some appeal, but I don’t think it solves all of the problems. I don’t think there is an easy solution to candidates that don’t receive a majority. Plurality is enough for a nomination. I don’t think that needs to change. Anything that increases voter participation is the way to go.
- Reformer - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:44 am:
IRV (instant runoff voting) has three virtues in addition to no cost:
* IRV produces a nominee with the broadest support.
* IRV eliminates the “spoiler” effect, so people can vote for the candidate they really favor, not the one they think can win.
* IRV incentivizes candidates to eschew mudslinging since they want to be the second choice of their opponents’ supporters.
In sum, this reform empowers voters to rank candidates, producing a winner with the widest support, and encourages more civil campaigns.
- Stormy - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:44 am:
It’s time to scrap the entire primary vote. What sense does it make for Repubs voting in Dem primaries and vice versa. Both parties should hold state conventions to pick slates and then set conditions for independent party candidates for the general election. It would save the state and local govts. a helluva lot of money.
- Irish - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:46 am:
Eliminate the partisan ballots. I know people who do not go to the polls, (not just state employees either), because they cannot vote for a democrat in one primary and a republican in another. In my town we had two referendums on the ballot, I believe just about the same number of people asked for a referendum ballot only than asked for a partisan ballot. If we are serious about eliminating patronage and improving ethics then there is no reason for having partisan ballots. I think this will bring the numbers up. Other than this leave the system as is.
- 60611 - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:48 am:
I like the concept of IRV, but I worry that people have enough problems being informed about the 1 lt. gov. candidate they support, let alone deciding how to rank them 1-6. Also, discouraging mudslinging is fine in the abstract, but it’s the sort of thing that could prevent issues being raised about a hypothetical candidate’s shady past in the primary, only to have it come out in the general when the other party has no reason to hold back. (Obviously, the current system somehow failed in this regard too.)
- Steve - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:53 am:
Brady played by the rules and won, fair and square. The reason there were six candidates in the race until the very end is because each of them thought they had a chance to get to 20% and win.
If you were to add an additional run-off to the primary, we may have had 10 candidates running -all thinking they could at least place second and get into the run-off.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:54 am:
===If you were to add an additional run-off to the primary, we may have had 10 candidates running ==
lol. You had 7 as it was. One dropped out, but his name was still on the ballot.
- Ghost - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:55 am:
WHat Reformer and Carl said. Use some kind of ranking system so you can gather the vote counts for a run off type outcome election at one time.
- babs - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:00 pm:
IRV sounds plausible. to 47th Ward, I’d point out that we now have early voting, no-excuse absentee voting and a special late registration period. If people don’t want to vote they won’t. No matter how easy you make it. Maybe we need to make it harder to vote not easier. (JK)
- siriusly - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:00 pm:
I don’t think we need to switch to run-off format. The outcome for Dem Gov might not have been different this time - but a third candidate may have gotten some air-time out of the deal. GOP outcome would definitely change. Ryan and McKenna would probably turn and throw with Dillard, Dillard probably beats Brady 2:1 in runoff. Seems like an entirely different election to me. Although I’d rather see Dillard as the candidate than Brady, I still think that we had that election and he lost fairly.
I think top vote getter is an okay way to go. I’m not all about status quo, but for this question - I’m okay with as is.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:01 pm:
I guess the 50% rule in a priamry makes sense, but who the heck is going to pay for the additional election?
All the candidates get thrown into one pot in their respected primary…one get 49% in a 3 way, and the taxpayers have to get another election up and running?
In reality, for me, with a less than 30% voter turnout in priamries, that turnout fact has made me forget this runoff idea. If a candidate cannot find enough votes out there to beat his/her opponent when 70%+ are NOT voting in a priamry, do not “beef”.
I remember last week a commenter was “struggling” with the idea that Jim Ryan and Bob Schillerstrom (and according to the commenter, their egos) made it impossible for Dillard to overcome Brady. “Struggling”? How about finding voters … Cripes, are we going to have rules, “No less than 1, but no more than 3 candidates can run, unless the 4th candidate comes from a region not represented by the other 3 candidates, or is a gender not represented by the 1st 3 candidates, in which case, …” Give me a break, and do your job in the election and get 1 more vote than all the others you are running against.
Another huge problem; runoffs are not the answer because campaigns are going to run into voters statig, “If I vote now, I may have to vote again for your candidate? Heck, I will just wait to my vote REALLY counts…thanks”.
So, now are we going to have 17% turnout for the first round, then 30% for the runoff????
How about campaigns go back to turning out THEIR voters and win, and not complain about percentages, geography of opponents, etc.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:02 pm:
I’ve just got to say that I love this Jim Edgar quote:
“I’m not against the party leaders having a lot of say, ’cause sometimes I think the smoke-filled room does a pretty good job,”
David Yepsen may think a 35% threshold idea is a good one based on his experience as a reporter in Iowa.
I think Iowa is pretty irrelevant.
Iowa is a mostly homogeneous state. Illinois is not.
Put an African American candidate, a woman, a downstate white guy, and any fourth candidate you like on the ballot in a statewide Democratic primary and the party leaders will be choosing the candidate nine times out of ten.
The solution to most, if not all of our election problems is public financing.
With public financing, there’s no incentive for guys like Cohen and McKenna to dump millions of there own money into the race, knowing that their opponents are just going to get matching funds.
With public financing, outsider candidates like Cohen don’t have to be millionaires to run.
With public financing, candidates can still run without party support, but they’re not dependent on the party endorsement to win.
- erstwhilesteve - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:04 pm:
I’m also a strong proponent of IRV.
- Fan of the Game - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:07 pm:
Primaries are run-offs just as elections are recalls. Public apathy and congested primaries in which no candidate distinguishes him/herself are the problem. Fix those, and the lack of majority likely takes care of itself.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:09 pm:
You know … Chicago alderman and the state of Louisiana have runoff with a 50% rule of some sort …
Do I have to say anything more?
- Third Generation Chicago Native - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:15 pm:
Too much money for a runoff. No.
Each party should have delegates vote.
- paddyrolingstone - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:16 pm:
No. The winner of an election is the person with the most votes. The 50% threshold is arbitrary anyway. Under almost all circumstances, its nowhere close to 50% of the registered voters in a particular party.
- Mike - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:19 pm:
Run-offs (whether done by Instant Runoff Voting -IRV, or by a later run-off election), are what is known as a “majority vote requirement” under civil rights litigation. The majority vote requirement was especially popular in the old Jim Crow south, for the very reasons suggested by some posters above–to encourage racial cohesion as a means to thwart minority political power. Maybe Illinois is past that sort of racial bloc voting? I’m guessing many politicos have their doubts.
- phocion - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:20 pm:
I never thought I’d say it, but Nyberg nailed it. IRV is the ticket. Especially now that we have early voting - how many of the 7,000 votes for Schillerstrom would have put Dillard as their second choice if we had Instant Runoff Voting? IRV can handle late drop-outs, late scandals, and demonstrate true consensus.
- Rob N - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:23 pm:
Yes, it seems reasonable to win with a plurality. If the voting public is that fractured the plurality should still rule.
Cumulutive / Instant Run-off voting is the way to go to avoid run-offs (if that’s your end goal). Eliminates the need for a costly second round of voting, esp since it’s a primary and 99.9% of the candidates on the ballot are running for party nominations for offices, not the actual offices.
I have a hunch Dillard or Jim Ryan would’ve come out way ahead of the pack and taken the nomination if that were the case, with their “2nd choice” votes racking up big time.
YDD, until the Congress and the States can pass the “Keep Free Speech Free” Constitutional amendment proposed by Rep. Donna Edwards forbidding unlimited corporate funds into campaigns then public financing is moot.
SCOTUS has declared there should be no limits and since the US isn’t made of money the Treasury Dept can’t possibly match funds pumped into the system on the scale we’ll begin seeing shortly.
With SLC pouring $2+ million of his own money into a campaign for literally a do-nothing position, imagine the magnification effect of the same thing happening on a national scale for Federal offices. Obviously Lt. Gov. is a state position but the state rules in this area mirror what are now effectively the Federal rules.
Sorry for the OT. We now return you to your regularly scheduled QOTD…
- jerry 101 - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:24 pm:
I’m down with IRV, especially in primaries and non-partisan elections (like City of Chicago elections).
It’d be a change, but people can learn to accomodate the change.
Instead of filling in the line next to your preferred candidate, you would fill in a bubble (1 - X, depending on how many candidates).
There would be problems though - what do you do with an undervote (say there are 7 candidates, but people only rank their top 3)?
What about an overvote (same situation, except that someone fills in one of the numbers multiple times)?
This can be controlled by electronic voting (either prevented altogether or at least minimized), but a lot of people don’t trust electronic voting.
Do any of the IRV proponents know how these issues are controlled?
Unless IRV is workable though, I don’t see any reason to go to a run-off system. And I certainly don’t see the benefit of eliminating primaries. The only way for an outsider to run would be as an independent.
I wouldn’t want Daley and Madigan making all the decisions, and I doubt that most republicans want Andy McKenna (or whoever the party leader is now) determining who runs for their side.
- Indeedy - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:25 pm:
In races like the recent Lt. Gov. race, where we had six candidates on the ballot, IRV would require voters to rank their preferences beyond any demonstrated knowledge of the candidates. Without a more engaged electorate, we’d get as a semi-informed 1-2 and maybe 3 ranking followed by a what-the-heck 4-5-6.
IRV has its pluses but I think 47 Ward is right, it would take a shift in our political culture to make it worthwhile.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:26 pm:
So, EVERY Schillerstrom vote would be a Dillard vote? Cripes, what about every Adam A. and Proft vote going to Brady …
A vote is a vote is a vote … if Dillard got to ID all his voters and he lost with 70% of the electorate not participating, shame on Dillard, Ryan, Schillerstrom, McKenna, Adam, and Proft.
I am tired of “well, if you take 39% of the total ‘candidateA’ got, and give it to “so-and-so” and then it rained 3 inches tat tunred into ice, and then got every single vote from ‘candidate B’ in this region to go for the other “so-and-so” we win!”
Stop …
Just stop and build a field operation that can find 2 extra voters a pct, then you win …
- Indeedy - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:28 pm:
Jerry 101: Answer to your question depends on the type of IRV implemented. Under some schemes, if you don’t rank all of your preferences, the ballot is considered spoiled. Other schemes only require voters to rank some specified number.
- Kevin O'Connor - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:28 pm:
I agree with Carl and others, that by implementing Instant Runoff Voting, aka ranked choice, we will have much fairer elections. It guarantees a majority of support for a candidate and increases democratic representation at the table where policy is enacted. It’s used all over the world, and even parts of the U.S. including San Francisco, Telluride, and by countless non-govermental organizations.
Why should a majority of voters be disappointed in their vote? Rod Blagojevich won with 49.7%, wish we had IRV in 2006?
- Dnstateanon - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:32 pm:
The election is over Brady has won. If you add the Brady, Proft, Adam and conservatives that voted for Dillard and Ryan who ran as conseratives the conservatives won by a wide margin and will be quite happy with Brady. Some may not like that and may want to find fault in the fact there were so many candidates that’s not Brady’s fault Brady is and will be the GOP candidate live with it.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:32 pm:
I think people miss an important point… if parties are purely private associations, why are taxpayers paying for the primaries AT ALL? Why should indepedents, libertarians, the apathetic be forced to fund internal party functions?
They shouldn’t.
Let the parties set their own rules.
- Amuzing Myself - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 12:58 pm:
No, to answer your question.
BTW, there’s a MAJOR number wrong in that story.
“…Also, there were far fewer votes to split. In 2006, about 1.8 million votes were cast in the Republican gubernatorial primary. This year, only a little more than 765,000 were cast.”
There were about 735,000 ballots cast in the 2006 GOP primary. I don’t think there have EVER been 1 million votes cast in a Republican Primary in Illinois. How a statehouse reporter could make a mistake of that magnitude is beyond me.
It whole premise there - that fewer voters picked the nominee this time than last. Not true. Oh well. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of Illinois politics, but kind of an eye-opening error, none-the-less.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:06 pm:
===BTW, there’s a MAJOR number wrong in that story.===
Whoa. I didn’t read down that far. lol
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:10 pm:
I think that Jim Edgar quote has merit and here is why;
Everyone hates ’slating’, unless they, themselves, or ‘their guy’ is the one who is slated.
That being said, all those Dillard supporters, for example, if you want slating, then work with the “smoke-filled” rooms to get that slated vote out! That is the lesson of the 2010 primary, in my opinion.
Not one candidate, winner or loser, has addressed the simple fact of getting votes out. They all complain, “so-and-so outspent me 10 to 1, or the entire filed 5 to 1 …” but …
Did Brady outspend you, or out-work you, cultivating votes, like corn in the fields where he did so well …
And, with Cohen outspending you LG candidates in the dem priamry, did you outwork Cohen? I mean, did you FIND your voters and get them out, party connected candidates???? Cohen didn’t get 50%, and the turnout was pitifully low, so you couldn’t scrape up a field-type mechanism to ensure victory, I mean, you are party-connected, right???
Responsibility - and - GOTV parlayed with low turnout.
How does this work with Rich’s QOTD?
If you want the runoff primaries, then you better be able to “control” who is in the runoffs!
Cripes, get your voters to the polls, take responsiblity and be done with it, or keep having “runoffs”, “back room deals”, “limited candidates per region, gender, race, age, and experience per race”????
Responsibility …
- Dan S, a voter and Cubs Fan - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:12 pm:
Eliminate the primaries and allow any candidate on the ballot that is constitutionaly eligble on the General Election Ballot.
- Fed Up - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:21 pm:
I think Oswego Willie has it right. The problem is not with the primary in and of itself. The problem is with voter apathy. Why not give voters some sort of tax break? It would be very interesting to see how many more people made it to the polls. (Not that the majority of them would ever do their homework on any of the candidates but it doesn’t appear that we did all that well in the current system with SLC!)
- Reality Check - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:23 pm:
I’m very interested in ranked-choice or Instant-Runoff Voting. San Francisco and Minneapolis among other cities already have it, and Memphis, Oakland, St. Paul and more have approved it and are implementing.
- Justice - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:25 pm:
I do not think runoffs are the answer. First, Open Primaries. Second….and perhaps first, start encouraging people to get involved and get out and vote. Regardless of our system if people show little or no interest, we will have small voter turnout, forcing people running for office to spend more and more and become more and more obligated to those helping them finance their campaigns. Reforming how elections are financed should be another consideration.
- T.J. - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:26 pm:
No. These are terrible solutions to something that is not a problem. They are about voting against someone, not voting for someone.
“Ryan and McKenna would probably turn and throw with Dillard, Dillard probably beats Brady 2:1 in runoff.”
Even though they got in to spite Dillard? I did not gather from McKenna’s ads that Dillard was McKenna’s second choice.
- T.J. - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:27 pm:
“Why not give voters some sort of tax break?”
Hell, let’s pay people to vote for a certain candidate. I bet voter turnout would rebound!
- 2010 - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:46 pm:
@ T.J. Paying voters already occurs in many wards…
Having another primary run-off is too costly. Illinois and local governments are broke. The Party needs to flush out its candidates and choose.
BTW - Thumbs up on eliminating Lt. Governor Office. Let’s do it quickly so $2 million can be cut from the FY11 budget.
Mr. Plummer & Republicans - This would be a great time to showcase your support for “less government” and “saving costs.” Brady, Dillard & Plummer should all come out at a press conference and state this office should be nixed.
- T.J. - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:48 pm:
“Paying voters already occurs in many wards…”
I know. I didn’t just get to Illinois.
- muon - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:53 pm:
I think that the IRV is worth a look. Multiple ballots are used by the presidential conventions until a nominee reaches 50%. Runoff elections are expensive, but IRV eliminates the cost.
It would take effort to educate the public on how to use the system. An IRV does not need to require filling in the whole list of placings for candidates for an office. Like undervotes for offices, I would expect that many voters would only mark one candidate, and it would be no different than if there was a runoff that they skipped.
- siriusly - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 1:59 pm:
Willy, I don’t think that Brady outspent or outworked any of the other candidates. This was a matter of math working against them. Three moderate Republicans from suburban Chicago going after the same base vote. They each got a nice chunk of it. The other major candidate in the race squeeked ahead by having a different base.
If I was going to criticize any of them, I would have to point my finger at Jim Ryan for not realizing what he was doing to Dillard.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 2:00 pm:
Stick to the question, please.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 2:14 pm:
My post(s) are/have been about low turnout & lack of GOTV and that effect on the question of “Runoff” elections, and why I am against them citing the 2010 election(s) … Siriusly, I am leaving my thoughts on the “runoff” at that, regardless.
- vole - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 2:35 pm:
The parties could have pre primary conventions. Delegates from each county, precinct, township, or whatever would select the two strongest candidates for each primary race.
This could put some juice back into party politics and build citizen involvement. I am not sure whether this would select for the more centrist candidates vs. the extreme right or left, but having equal representation from diverse parts of the state might tend to put the more moderate, electable centrists on the ballot.
- Reality - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 2:36 pm:
Ditch the primaries and swith to a caucus.
- Responsa - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 2:44 pm:
Leave the primary processes as they are. As the formal party organizations are losing some of their power and influence the primaries may have a wild west quality for a while. This particular election last week was like a 100 year storm. Candidates will learn from it and I predict in the future some will strategically drop out earlier if they know they have no chance to win.
- lake county democrat - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 2:54 pm:
Not in favor of run-offs just b/c under 50% — too costly, extends campaign season (i.e., aren’t you enjoying the relative lull in commercials?), etc.
PS Mandatory voting is, imho, an awful idea - let the people who care enough about elections vote, those who don’t are saying they are satisfied enough, or don’t favor candidates that much over others to warrant giving 100% support to one over the other, or don’t think they can make a difference. Nothing objectionable about that.
- county clerk - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 3:17 pm:
The counties and other election authorities have enough budget problems without another election.
The state cut funding already for elections.
The state has already mandated us to death with more hours to be open for early voting.
The state mandate the stupid undervote system that ready did not help and cause more problems.
The best thing would be hold this election in May.
- Barb - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 3:28 pm:
IRV is being repealed all across the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJgK_GHM0_U
- PalosParkBob - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 3:31 pm:
I’ve got an idea that would make the final selection fairer, most representative of the voters, create no additional cost, and add a lot more civility to campaigning.
If no candidate receives 50% or more of the votes in the primary, the final candidate would be chosen by a caucus made up of all the candidates on the ballot.
Each candidate would have a “weighted vote” based upon the number of votes they received in the primary.
This fairly represents the voters since the candidate for whom they voted would be proxying their votes for another candidate.
This would cost nothing since there would be no additional election.
This loosely follows the presidential primary system.
One huge added benefit is that negative campaigning could doom a candidate.
Imagine McKenna having to go back to Ryan and Dillard and say, “Hey guys, I know I called you low life slimeballs in my ads, but how about voting for me in the caucus?”
Delicious.
- Fed Up - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 3:41 pm:
PaolsParkBob -
“One huge added benefit is that negative campaigning could doom a candidate.”
One huge negative is the stink of the backroom deals and payoffs that would happen under your scenario.
- PalosParkBob - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 3:52 pm:
Fed up-
You mean like the stench we have in presidential campaigns?
This method isn’t perfect, but it is the only one that ensures minority (volume wise, not racially) participation in who is the party candidate.
If the majority of voters voted for opportunistic slimeballs that would sell their votes for personal gain, then they got what they deserved!
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 4:53 pm:
I am in favor of Instant runoff as a way of selecting consensus candidates best representing the collective will of the people when the primary race does not reflect a majority vote.
- downstater - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 6:00 pm:
NO THEY SHOULDN’T . WHAT PART OF WIN DOESN’T REGISTER WITH PEOPLE….IT’s GETTING ONE MORE THAN THE OTHER GUYS. THE COST WOULD BE PHENOMENOL & TRULY UNNECESSARY. LOOK AT WHAT A “RE-COUNT” WOULD COST IN TIME AND MONEY. ITS NOT FAIR TO THE VOTERS EITHER WHO CAST THEIR VOTES FOR THEIR CANDIDATE. AS TO THE GOP, A SIX WAY RACE, IN A PRIMARY ELECTION, EVERYONE KNEW IT WOULD BE CLOSE. CLOSE RACES DO HAPPEN. IN ILLINOIS, GIVEN OUR FINANCES, A REAL NEEDLESS MONEY DRAIN.
- Northwest Chicago - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 7:25 pm:
Lincoln wasn’t exactly a consensus candidate. His eventual “team of rivals” couldn’t get enough support on their own to win and he became the nominee. Seems that’s the way it works. You want more of a majority, get a candidate who can earn it.
- Barb - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 8:02 pm:
Six Degrees of Sep:
IRV Doesn’t elect the “consensus” candidate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEkrFkqIHHI
Nor the most popular candidate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=img9y2AYTQA
- Its Just Me - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 9:53 pm:
47th Ward at 11:42 a.m. : ARE YOU CRAZY?! Requiring people to vote? The problem we have now is that uninformed people are already voting, let’s not make it worse!
I don’t support a run off because it would be too expensive, and you would have people from one party crossing over just to play games (more so than they do now). I think the current system works fine, I just wish the party leadership would get a little bit more engaged to help weed out the crazies and unelectable (like Scott Lee Cohen and Dan Proft). Ranking people on the ballot seems interesting.
- Jechislo - Monday, Feb 8, 10 @ 11:15 pm:
I say leave it up to each party to decide how they select their candidate. It’s no-one else’s business. If a major party thinks a runoff is good for them, then let them change their rules. Kind of a moot point right now though. The Republican candidates all played by the “majority” rule this primary and that’s why Brady will be their candidate. I doubt if you will see this ever play out to this extent again though. I think voter anger exacerbated the situation and caused so many candidates to announce in the Republican primary.
- JB - Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 5:44 am:
One interesting backer of Ranked Choice Voting/IRV for primaries in Illinois? Barack Obama. Check out info on his support and that of others like John McCain at:
http://www.instantrunoff.com/supports/elected.php
Contrary to what one person said here, IRV is getting more adoptions in the US each year, not fewer. And according to the BBC, the House of Commons in Britain will vote on having a national referendum on going to IRV today as well.