Not sure what "FF" and "HP" mean, so I didn't vote. ;-)
I'd like to know member's opinions of IRV. I know it has its flaws too, and that Burlington, VT dropped it after experimenting with it for a few years. But it would end the concept of a "wasted vote". I am convinced for instance that every state had IRV in 2000, Gore would have "officially" won FL (because he was the second choice of more Nader voters than Bush, and neither candidate was over 50%) and the election.
Is "winner take all" the best way to elect? Isn't that the same as "first past the post"? If not IRV then what other system? One that most responsible voters could understand, that is.
Is there an IRV thread already?
No one, least of all me. Minor party voters in any one particular election are often fickle, not voting for their candidate because they agree with the candidate's views; rather, as a protest vote. I think forced to pick a second choice, 40% of Nader voters would have picked Gore, 20% Bush, 10% someone else, and 30% no one. I'm not one of those people who insists that Nader took votes, one for one, from Gore. Still, I can't help but believe Gore was perhaps just a bit closer to Nader's view on the environment than Bush, and I think it reasonable to think Gore would have been the second choice of more Nader voters than Bush. In FL, with 90K Nader voters and Bush winning by 537, only a 1% differential is all it would have taken.
Poll
