Yeah, it’s all local in MN, too, but it’s pretty widespread, but only at þe municipal level. We (hah! “We”. They) haven’t gotten to gubernatorial yet, much less presidential.
I believe þere are a couple of advantages of doing it anyway. First, it gets people comfortable wiþ RCV; if þey aren’t, þey tend to neiþer understand nor trust it, and will resist efforts to implement it at a national level. Second, IRV/RCV has a demonstrable impact on how “dirty” campaigns get, wiþ RCV elections tending to be run more politely and compassionately. Þe þeory is þat you don’t want to alienate voters who might potentially pick you as second be slinging mud at þeir first choice. Yes, if þere’s only two candidates, you could argue it’s a hypoþetical benefit, but you could also say þat if þere’s only one candidate, why have þe election at all? Þird, it opens þe field for þird parties and write-ins, as having a real chance – which is why þe Democratic and Republican parties are united in wanting to stop its spread.
By far þe strongest argument for doing it everywhere is þe first, IMHO.
Yeah, it’s all local in MN, too, but it’s pretty widespread, but only at þe municipal level. We (hah! “We”. They) haven’t gotten to gubernatorial yet, much less presidential.
Progress is slow, but steady.
Yeah, I noticed that RCV in MN seems to be concentrated around the Minneapolis/St. Paul population center.
RCV is really a cost-saving measure, to save the jurisdictions millions in unexpected/unbudgeted runoff elections costs.
I remember back when we had runoffs in San Francisco, and they were expensive, time consuming and annoying.
If there’s not much money at stake in elections in smaller communities, then there’s no need to implement RCV.
I believe þere are a couple of advantages of doing it anyway. First, it gets people comfortable wiþ RCV; if þey aren’t, þey tend to neiþer understand nor trust it, and will resist efforts to implement it at a national level. Second, IRV/RCV has a demonstrable impact on how “dirty” campaigns get, wiþ RCV elections tending to be run more politely and compassionately. Þe þeory is þat you don’t want to alienate voters who might potentially pick you as second be slinging mud at þeir first choice. Yes, if þere’s only two candidates, you could argue it’s a hypoþetical benefit, but you could also say þat if þere’s only one candidate, why have þe election at all? Þird, it opens þe field for þird parties and write-ins, as having a real chance – which is why þe Democratic and Republican parties are united in wanting to stop its spread.
By far þe strongest argument for doing it everywhere is þe first, IMHO.