Should the US go toward more runoff elections?

[rob in cal]

   Here in California we now have the so called top two primary law which amounts to both a primary and a first round election. Only the top two, regardless of party, make it to the general election (i.e. the runoff).  Over time, California's third parties, if they are politically coherent (a big if), could start to tailor their political arguments toward this new system.  They could tell voters not to worry about "wasting their vote", as there will be a runoff anyway, and so could see a rise in their support, assuming that there are plenty of closet Greens, Peace and Freedomites, Libertarians and American Independents out there just waiting to get out of their plurality winner straight jackets.
    Runoffs could also consist of a primary, a general election, and then a runoff if noone gets a majority, like Arizona did for its governor in the 1990's.
    Anyway, I wonder how other people on the board feel about this idea.  I hate the idea of plurality winners, the "don't waste your vote" argument etc, and with a runoff those issues are gone.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Maine definitely should.

[Supersonic]

No, no! Three way races or even four (Texas '06) are far more exciting!

[DC Al Fine]

Why not just have the primaries and general elections together and use IRV?

[Mr. Morden]

Why not just have the primaries and general elections together and use IRV?

That's exactly what I suggested in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154660.5

Nearly anything would be better than the current FPTP primary system used in most states.  I think the primary system in the USA has contributed more to the current dysfunction in Washington than most people appreciate.  When most Republicans in Congress, for example, are many times more worried about a right wing primary challenger than they are about a general election defeat, it's going to lead to some perverse incentives.....which just didn't exist in the same way back when party bosses picked nominees.

[Franzl]

The US should abandon the stupid district based system.

[Mr. Morden]

The US should abandon the stupid district based system.

But that would require a constitutional amendment, which would be almost impossible to pass.  IRV, Top Two, or any similar such revisions involving runoffs or changes to the primary system could be done state by state with simple majorities in each state legislature.

In fact, that's probably the future of the electoral system in the USA....a weird patchwork of different systems in different states.  Now that CA and WA have implemented Top Two, you could get similar experimentation in other states.

[Franzl]

The US should abandon the stupid district based system.

But that would require a constitutional amendment, which would be almost impossible to pass.  IRV, Top Two, or any similar such revisions involving runoffs or changes to the primary system could be done state by state with simple majorities in each state legislature.

In fact, that's probably the future of the electoral system in the USA....a weird patchwork of different systems in different states.  Now that CA and WA have implemented Top Two, you could get similar experimentation in other states.

Didn't say it had any chance of happening

[rob in cal]

     Actually getting rid of elections by district wouldn't require an amendment.    Until 1967 states could elect US house members statewide.  I know in the 1940's Illinois and New York each elected two US house members state wide, still in a winner take all format, however, and all it would take would be for the a new law to allow it to happen, and then states could individually decide if they wanted their members elected at large (via a PR system or winner take all) or by district.  And of course states right now could experiment with a PR elected legislature, or runoffs, or whatever.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ideally, what Franzl said, but realistically, the CA system is a huge improvement, yeah.

[rob in cal]

     Looks like Montana voters will vote on going to a top two system next year.  Democrats not happy about this decision which will meant no Constitution or Libertarian candidates on the ballot in the general elections unless they are in the top two finishers.