For those Berwick supporters banging their head against the wall over the Coakley win, realize that the election didn’t have to be this way. Right now in our electoral system, you only need a plurality to win. In a race with 3 candidates, a candidate an win with just 34% of the vote. Likewise in races with more candidate, let’s say 6, a candidate can win with only 13% of the vote. This isn’t very democratic. Candidates are discouraged from running because they are worried they will be considered a spoiler, leaving us with a choice between candidates considered the lesser of two evil.
However, there IS a solution. Every year Representative Jay Kaufman files a bill for Ranked Choice Voting, also known as Instant Runoff Voting. Instead of filling a circle next to a single candidate, voters rank the candidates from most favorable to least favorable. If no candidate has a majority of the (1) votes, then the candidate with the least number (1) of votes is eliminated. Then the ballots from that candidate are awarded to the voters’ second choices. If a candidate still doesn’t have a majority, then the next candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. This continues until a candidate has majority. It’s as if the “spoiler” was never in the race at all. This eliminates the spoiler effect and allows voters to vote their conscience. It also allows a more diverse pool of candidates to run, since they don’t have to worry about spoiling the race.
Unfortunately this proposal dies in committee every year at the State House due to fierce lobbying from Town Clerks, who don’t want to spend more resources on elections. Harry Truman once said “Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.” Frankly it is sad that town clerks view efficiency as more important than the democratic process itself.
If you are frustrated with the outcome of this election, do something productive with your frustration and lobby your state legislators to pass Ranked Choice Voting. This is about the principles of democracy. People should be able to vote their conscience and not have to choose between a bad and a worse candidate. For more information on different types of voting check out Fairvote.org.
I do not have room on my plate to start rattling any new cages but I certainly would like to be in touch w/ said organizers!
First of all I don’t consider Berwick a spoiler, for previously stated reasons.
But where is the evidence that IRV produces better results? I know it’s been tried in California, but California is much more two-party competitive than we are.
I think the better value would be in allowing third parties to gain some traction.
I’d love to vote Green in a lot of races but don’t for a number of reasons (the current stock of green candidates being a major one).
The ability of IRV to strengthen third parties, which in MA will likely mean more Green/Rainbow/Labor competing with Dems, is what will make the fight a huge uphill battle.
Other voting changes like same-day registration, expanded early voting, and increased use of technology (with safeguards) to make voting easier are absolutely things we should have now, though.
Is a change that can occur from within the party without legislative input. Let’s start making our own primary more democratic.
And Jim it would have an impact in this race. I could’ve voted for 1,2,3 for Berwick, Grossman and Coakley and it’s likely after Berwick’s 22% was redistributed that Grossman might’ve benefitted more. It makes a lot of sense for a single candidate, single district race at the primary level.
At the convention…?
Where’s the thread that needs pulling?
I’m pretty sure the Primary rules are determined by the state and not the party when it comes to IRV. The convention is a bit different, but after this year, I’m not sure I want to get into that debate.
I was referring to the convention where we would have the power to get IRV. Even at that early stage, it would make a big difference and signal our commitment to getting this reform implemented in our statewide elections. Whether we could change the rules for the primary ballot I am not so certain, though I was told we could change to a closed primary without asking the legislature for permission. I know in some states, there is no primary at all, so I am certain it is usually up to the party, but our election rules seem a bit more arcane than usual around here.
That would take longer than it does now. I suppose you could conduct the vote and send people home to wait for the announcement, but where’s the fun in that? The attitude seems to be endorsements are nice, but not necessary, and only the 15% rule is what is important.
I’m fairly certain it is state law in MA that we have concurrent semi-open primaries for each party and that closing them would require a law change.
A paper ballot, read by machine, is more reliable than voice votes or hand counts anyway. It’s no harder to design a paper ballot for IRV than for conventional votes. The counting should be done by machine, and the results should be instantaneous.
Plus not doing it by roll call would take away a lot of the convention atmosphere that many of us value. I would like to experiment with announcing the results out loud with real time tallying like states do at the national conventions.
First of all, it only matters for races where there are three candidates. This year, that’s gov, lt. gov, and treas.
Secondly, there’s clearly room to reduce the “dead time” of the convention. It was discussed rather thoroughly on these boards. Start on time, move things along, and we’ve just found far more room.
For me, the tough part is choosing. I mean, it would require that I not just find my favorite, but also decide if I like some dude 3rd and some lady 4th, or instead some lady 3rd and some dude 4th.
We could do IRV at the convention. I’d love to see it. I think IRV makes a whole lot more sense in the elections, and I disagree with Bob that it would help the Republicans most of all. On the contrary, I think it would help the Dems figure out how to find candidates that attract voters from the various issues that are important to MA voters because we’d start to figure out quickly which issues resonate.
Or rather, a lot of them (us). Convention voting rules are determined by the respective state parties. For the Dems, convention voting rules are worried out in great detail by the Rules Committee (on which I sit) the summer or fall before each convention, and then approved, usually – but not always, as this past year’s initial committee recommendation to expand the15% threshold met with considerable opposition – by a fairly perfunctory, vote at the following full state committee meeting. Given that we will not have another nominating convention until 2018 (2016 being the one-in-three presidential cycle where Massachusetts sits out the Senate races), we have a good opportunity to leisurely explore this before being under deadline again. Contact your friends and allies on the Democratic State Committee, especially those who serve on the Rules Committee (the list is at massdems.org), to advance this issue!
California’s system is a little different. You don’t rank the candidates. There is an open primary, where the top 2 candidates go on to the general election, regardless of party. There is a list of juristictions that have tried it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States
We have a free-for-all, where unenrolled voters can choose a ballot. Let’s stop playing in the land of make believe in which the GOP is a viable party, and get the two strongest candidates on the November ballot.
Republican leaning unenrolled voters would need to vote for the GOP candidate, or they would risk not making the ballot. Compared to the current system, where a GOP voter is guaranteed to have their candidate on the ballot and they can have fun with a Democratic primary ballot, we would get a better result.
It would have the further beneficial effect of dis-empowering the party machine apparatus.
When combined with first past the post (most votes wins, regardless of majority), the top-two primary system is a stinker. The problem is that the number of candidates in the primary from the same party has a huge impact on the results.
If there are two Dems and five GOP candidates in the primary, the two Dems could get 20% each and no GOP get more than 19%. Now we’ve got a general election between two Dems, when in fact 60% of the voters in the primary supported a GOP candidate, and odds are would have chosen at least 1 (if not any of the 5) over either of the two Dems. With the top two primary, they don’t have that choice.
Had a third Democrat gotten in the same race and gotten 6% (3% from each of the two Dems), then it could well be two GOP candidates in the general instead of two Dems.
The results shouldn’t be so sensitive to candidates who aren’t very popular. The top two system is that sensitive.
Sounds like a feature to me. Anything that reduces the power of the extra-constitutional party structure is a feature in my book.
In any event, this sounds like it would rapidly lead to a marginalization of the outer wings of both parties, because the wings play an outsized role in primaries relative to their actual share of the voting population.
if the majority of people would prefer any of the people who don’t make the top-two to either of the candidates who do make the top-two?
Furthermore, primaries will continue producing “outer wing” candidates so long as primary turnout is low. You increase primary turnout and more moderate candidates will win the primary, including for the current method, for IRV, and for “top-two.”
I’ve suggested this before, I think that we should have closed primaries.
I think that in order to vote in a primary, you must register with that party preference a reasonable period (six weeks? eight weeks?) prior to the election. I think that people who are “unenrolled” on primary day should not be permitted cast primary votes.
I’m still not sure.
I do well remember the race after Joe Kennedy stepped down, when Ray Flynn got in. People were terrified that he would win, because there were nine candidates. So IRV would have united the anti-Flynners in the runoff.
But as it turned out we didn’t need it, Capuano won anyway (to the consternation of some people, it must be said).
I have to admit two things:
1. I don’t know enough of the math to rule it out.
2. I’m uncomfortable with it. It just runs counter to too much of what I know. Would campaigns call their 3s and 4s to push them to pick their candidates as second choice? Would casual voters feel alienated? (Yes, I think.)
In short, I have to be really sold on the benefits before I make so radical a switch.
We’d be asking voters what their rank preferences are and persuade them to consider our candidate for their second choice if not the first.
Why would casual voters feel alienated? To me this allows more freedom to vote how you would really like.
anyone from The People’s Republic care to chime in?
for City Council. Its main feature is that unlike IRV you do not need a majority to win.
Hard to extract just the transferable-ballot part from that and say how you like or dislike that.
…since municipal races are not done along party lines?
In Cambridge’s case, you need to exceed one ninth of the vote (after transfers) to get a seat on the City Council.
The idea is that instead of having 9 geographical districts, the process creates 9 virtual districts based on ideology or affinity.
A former Cambridge councilor who used to gripe to me that it made things “like the Knesset.”
…can you explain to me how I as a Cambridge voter would cast my ballot? Lowell also has nine councilors, but it’s simply a matter of the top nine vote-getters win. There are nine seats, all at-large, and I can vote for up to nine candidates. What does it mean to transfer my vote? Do I get nine votes in Cambridge or a lower number? What are the advantages to Cambridge’s system over Lowell’s? Because there is no majority requirement you cannot spoil the race in Lowell I don’t think.
IRV makes a lot of sense for single candidate-single district races. It makes less sense to elect 9 councilors and 5 School Committee member at large using PR. There are fractional votes, recounts are difficult and who get’s elected could change depending on which method is used to count the vote, and vacancies are not filled in by special elections but by recounting the last count but taking out the vacating councilor’s votes and transferring them elsewhere. It’s an expensive and somewhat confusing way of filling a vacancy.
I don’t like FPTP either, I think cumulative voting for the 9 at large seats, or, doing 3 at large via FPTP and creating wards or districts and doing those IRV, would be a better system. I do know it won’t go away, and those that grumble are a minority. But if it were up to me we would have a Plan B Charter like Somerville and elect via IRV for a separate strong Mayor and aldermen/school committee in wards with at large councilors. It will ensure every neighborhood is properly represented and take away the lunacy of having the city council vote on Mayors, which has deadlocked us in the past.
between IRV and PR. That was my point.
You could use IRV to elect 9 councilors with a majority threshold (as opposed t a ninth) if you like.
I actually like PR, which is also separate from Cambridge’s weak-mayor system (which you will find in Worcester too). You could have a popularly elected mayor with PR for the council though.
You are correct that the charter and PR issues are separate but intertwined. STV PR isn’t working, and Plan E isn’t working. But I would say the bigger effort should be made on switching the charter, I honestly wouldn’t mind dealing with PR if we had a Plan B charter. At least that way we would have wards, we would have an elected strong Mayor, and I think we would see turnout and civic engagement increase. Just looking north to Somerville and we see a very bold, very progressive Mayor making a name for himself and putting Somerville on the map with a lot of great policy initiatives and projects. And I just see a lot of stagnation on the Cambridge side.
I see Cambridge basically continuing the same failed post-rent control status quo of growth in the tech sector, rich and poor gaps increasing, and a whack a mole approach to the school system that is reactive rather than predictive or foundational. It’s hard to attract top notch political talent when the campaigns are so unique and difficult to run, and the Manager calls most of the shots. I have a great admiration for most of the City Councilors, and have a long time relationship with Craig Kelley and Marc McGovern whom I’ve campaigned for since high school. But there is only so much the council in present form can do, and reforming the charter would do a lot to empower a democratically accountable executive and also a council that has more duties and responsibilities.
We definitely need to have mock PR elections at CRLS though, nobody knows how to vote in that system, and civic education is appalling, particularly considering how many resources we have and how PR is supposed to increase youth involvement in theory.
Primaries in MA are state affairs, not private ones. Changing a voting method would require a change in the law.
A lot of Grossman supporters seem to assume that most, if not all, of Berwick supporters’ second choice would be Grossman, not Coakley. But I haven’t seen any evidence behind that.
Coakley won with about 42.4%. Ceteris paribus, Berwick supporters would have had to break almost 2:1 for Grossman for him to beat Coakley for IRV to yield a Grossman victory.
As a Berwick supporter, I don’t see why I should be “banging my head.” I think our candidate was an excellent guy who contributed a lot to the debate and the race, and I am proud to have voted and volunteered for him. Coakley will (and I’ll be positive with the “will,” not “would,” because I do think she will win) make a fine governor in my opinion–just not a particularly bold or visionary one. I did not see my vote or volunteer work as a way of “preventing Coakley from winning” so much as helping the candidate I thought would be the best for Massachusetts.
are Cambridge and Provincetown. Both went gave Coakley a plurality.
It’s not clear to me that the left-wing voters were all behind Berwick to the extent we experience that at BMG.
Steve Grossman’s policies and persona was much closer to Martha Coakley than to Don Berwick.
I think one group of voters chose Steve Grossman because he was “not Martha” and still relatively mainstream. I think another group of voters chose him because he was “not Don” (because of concerns about electability and governance).
I think the question you ask comes down to the relative sizes of those two groups.
I also think a fair portion of Ms. Coakley’s support is from unenrolled voters who are significantly more conservative than the party.
I don’t know about Provincetown, but I’m not sure Cambridge is particularly “left-wing” today.
…really did choose Steve Grossman because he was Steve Grossman.
Cambridge, like the national party, is increasingly liberal on social issues while toeing the Silicon Valley/Wall Street line on economic questions. Rent control, welfare rights, democratic schooling, and other issues that once animated neighborhood activists are long gone. It’s now about how to keep entitled tech executives from moving to Brookline since socioeconomically diverse schools somehow disadvantage their spoiled kids.
You’re pretty much unelectable in Cambridge if anti-choice or anti-equality, but Silicon Valley-style Libertarianism is definitely growing and welcomed.
I think it’s only in Amherst, Northampton, and a few other towns in that area where you will find consistently large groups of real leftists today.
Since that is a name used by communist countries I assumed it referred to economic liberalism and equality when used for Cambridge.
The radicals have been priced out.
but it’s been years since it was washed out or painted over.
In Cambridge, though, the vote difference between Coakley and Berwick was only 110: 4,566 vs. 4,456.
I would wager that polls show wider support and legitimacy of resulting governments in Australia and Ireland, where it is used. I don’t know if either of them use IRV for internal decision-making.
I don’t know what people you are talking about. I think many Berwick supporters don’t feel that Grossman is really an improvement over Coakley. If we had some sort of ranked voting, I would have bullet voted for Berwick.
In any case, I really dislike the voting scheme you describe because it requires that you have all ballots in one place (on the computer) in order to conduct the vote, would probably result in a nightmare if a recount was necessary, and could produce strange results that depend on the exact order that minor candidates finish in. I would prefer a much simpler scheme that would simply allow you to check off more than one candidate and add the votes up as usual.
I’d be down, it seems a lot more straightforward than STV-PR like we have in Cambridge. I am not sure if it has survived court cases, I know in IL we used to have it for state legislative races and it got thrown out. Again, don’t see what stops us from doing that for the convention and it would be simpler than IRV will also eliminating the downfalls of FPTP.
On what basis did the courts throw this out in IL? I don’t see any fairness issue. Was it just a technical issue with the wording of the state constitution perhaps?
Regardless of how people feel about this particular election, the point remain that elections should be more democratic and fair, and reduce the spoiler effect.
Ballots to not need to be all in one place for Instant Runoff Voting, results can be reported to the Secretary of State office and can be grouped and reported according to how they are ranked. For example
Berwick>Grossman> Coakley = 70 ballots
Berwick>Coakley>Grossman > 19 ballots
Coakley> Berwick> Grossman > 23 ballots
Coakley>Grossman>Berwick> 90 ballots
Grossman>Coakley>Berwick> 42 ballots
Grossman>Berwick>Coakley > 5 ballots
but since there are n! possible combinations this gets unwieldy really quickly for more than three candidates. For instance, with five candidates you would have to tally up 120 different possible values.
There’s n! if every voter votes for n (or n-1) candidates.
If, however, voters cast multiple blanks, there are more. For example, with 3 candidates, there are the six mentioned above, plus
Berwick>Grossman=Coakley
Grossman>Coakley=Berwick
Coakley>Berwick=Grossman
And this is another problem with IRV. What do you do if people don’t follow the instructions? What if they rank two candidates as #1 and the third as #3? Do you end up with a spoiled ballot?
It seems to me that a simple cumulative voting scheme wouldn’t suffer from any of these problems and probably would solve the so-called “spoiler” problem almost as well. Furthermore, it would eliminate ballots that currently would be considered spoiled because more than one circle was filled in.
What do you do if someone doesn’t follow the instructions in the system we have now? What if someone votes for two people for the same office? If I voted for Coakley and Grossman is that a spoiled ballot?
…. supports IRV.
Not sure I’ve every heard that before.
Instant Runoff Voting does seem to lead to better outcomes — extreme candidates that most of the electorate can not stand are not elected. Elections in areas that use IRV have fewer negative ads, and more ads featuring the positive aspects of their candidate — and that’s because in addition to wanting to be people’s first choice, you very much want to be everybody’s second favorite — and a negative ad against their top choice is a lousy way to get on people’s good side.
If you want a fairer vote that better represents the wishes of the people, then fancier ways of measuring the preferences of the tiny portion that actually goes to the polls is utterly useless. You first need to find a way to get people to actually show up and vote. Once you get 90% eligible voter participation, then you can think up more elaborate voting schemes.
n/t
In fact IRV might increase turnout because people feel they aren’t boxed in. Say you are a FL voter in the 2000 presidential election. You’re first choice is Nader, but you know the vote will be close and you don’t want to spoil it for Gore. You’re not motivated to vote for Gore, but you know he’s still better than Bush. Under IRV you vote Nader first, Gore second knowing that you cast the vote you really wanted to without being a spoiler. Under first past the post you may just decide not to bother.
You want people to vote? Eliminate the 160 house districts and 40 senate districts and make multi-member districts. Adopt proportional representation. Give smaller parties, which can bring up new ideas, a fighting chance.
There is nothing elaborate about IRV.
…which I don’t want to do. I also want to make sure we keep the geographic diversity that single-member districts get you. In NH multi-member districts often lead to disproportionate party representation. I prefer fairer districting and IRV as methods to address these concerns.
One possibility is for the house to be made up of geographic diverse districts, and the Senate to use Multi Member districts that represent the interests of the state as a whole. This would also add to the checks and balances. Right now the two chambers are very similar, compared to those in the Federal Government.
Here’s a mostly-facetious proposal for encouraging voter participation:
1. Change registration laws so that EVERY legal resident is ALREADY registered to vote.
2. Change voting laws to encourage absentee and early voting.
3. Change election laws so that the ballot for each election has a “default” vote for each item. If a voter doesn’t show up, the “default” vote will be cast as if that person had voted.
Under this proposal, the question of what the “default” vote should be for each office is hugely important, and probably sways the outcome. The existing government/legislature would set the default values for each ballot as part of the process for certifying the ballot. Seems like that’s not so very different from the mechanisms (like gerry-mandering) that we already use for the same purpose (to sway the outcome).
In this case, though, it seems to me that the proposal provides a reasonable incentive to encourage people to show up and vote for issues they care about.
I know this is a ridiculous bit of fluff, but I thought I’d offer it anyway.
I have tried to convince non-voters to vote by saying not voting actually is a vote for the status quo.
It never works.
And it would be great if we had a Secretary of State enthusiastic about implementing them! Maybe even using his deep connections with the legislature to give his office the authority to make these changes, and put everything up online and make it about as easy as downloading an app. Too simple though.
… is just a complicated — and unworkable– manner of tallying abstentions. I like the idea of tallying abstentions. I don’t like this idea of a default ballot to do it. This would require a yearly census (to print one ballot per registered citizen and one ballot per registered citizen only) and would create a cottage industry in roadblocks and obstructionism for those who favor the default vote as they seek to put obstacles to the paths of voters in order that their votes end up the default.
We discussed, some weeks past, the Australian system of mandatory voting. My suggestion was not mandatory voting but mandatory attendance at a voting place: you can show up and vote or not… at the end of the day the attendance numbers are compared to the number of votes and the difference is abstentions.
There already IS a yearly census, done by each town, to tabulate registered voters. I’m pretty sure that’s already required by state law.
The ballot can say on its face, for each office, “the default value for this office is …”. For each voter who doesn’t show up, a virtual ballot of all defaults can be cast for that voter. Cities and towns already sent numerous mailings to each resident, this is just one more. The only thing unique to the resident is the address on the front.
I think the practical outcome of this is to make the consequences of not bothering to vote more obvious to people.
… enforced as a dependency or binding as a function of the vote: it is tabulation only. It is legal and administrative paperwork and not a mechanism to enhance the vote or require the absolute total number of ballots and –under your scheme– to require a ‘default’. Such a census would have to be much more rigorous.
And I think the unscrupulous amongst us would see this, obviously, as a reason to physically, actively and energetically prevent people from voting. Anyone who favors the default, in your scenario, will merely have to pull fire alarms, throw up roadblocks and otherwise obstruct in order that the default position comes in more often.
Voting is a choice and it’s not always a simple choice between yes and no. Abstentions, also, are a choice and, like I said, I think we should tally them. I don’t think we should tally them by saying “well, if you don’t vote we’ll punish you by counting your vote in a way you may not like…”
…to be a vote for the incumbent, or at least incumbent party if the incumbent is not seeking re-election.
Practically speaking, it is equivalent to the current practice.
Some pundits speculate that people not voting means they are content, but currently if 25% vote for the challenger, 20% vote for the incumbent, and 55% don’t show, the challenger wins, whereas with the default blank or no-show counting for the incumbent, the challenger still gets 25%, but the incumbent is credited with 75% and thus would be declared the winner.
If the 55% who didn’t show really ARE content, then it seems to me that your scenario more accurately reflects the “will of the people” than replacing an apparently popular incumbent with a challenger supported by only 25% of the people.
If that 55% are not content, then perpetuating the unpopular incumbent spanks them for deciding not to vote.
…but I would not want to write that assumption into law.
What this approach would write into law is a much more explicit reminder of the consequences of lethargy, sloth, or apathy.
No voter would be excluded in this approach — to the contrary, the three steps I sketched would make it far easier for every citizen to vote.
If we care about our dismally low voter turnout rates, then it seems to me that lighting a bit of a fire (yet still NOT “mandatory” — pure carrot, no stick) under the butts of the no-shows might help.
I would suggest if we do this to include a “none of the above” option for those who don’t like any of their choices. That line couldn’t win, but it would be a way to cut into the incumbent’s default total.
For a voter who casts a ballot at a polling place, leaving an office blank (or entering “none of the above” in the write-in space) accomplishes that, I think.
Without pretense to expertise in this area I’ll merely note that, it appears to me, that IRV,’ranked choice’ or similar systems are attempts to take the forms and equations of proportional representation (for multi-seat parliamentary systems of elections) and bolt them unto our single seat elections for no clear reason other than novelty. The mathematics are not as compelling as they are proclaimed: a 15% threshold at the convention is functionally no different than a ranking system such as IRV.
Proportional representation, as I understand it, seeks to find and reflect the proportions of interests and factions in the electorate and gives up on the idea that one representative can fulfill or reflect these needs (or, rather, recognizes that one representative will be so pulled and pressured from so many differences in interests coming at him/her as to either affect paralysis or invite corruption). IRV ignores this notion, the fundamental premise underlying proportional representation, and says of course one representative can represent different groups so let’s just use the proportionality equations.
This not a call to eschew IRV or other such systems, in the context of a convention at least, on the contrary the notion of a single ‘endorsement’ from the delegates is what’s at odds here. The idea the Steve Grossman ‘won’ the convention and gained the endorsement of the party is at odds with a 15% threshold to get on the ballot. Rather than the ‘winner’ — and some random number of ‘others’– the idea of ranking the choices is the idea of ridding oneself of winner take all ‘endorsement’ from the party.
To the extant, however, that we are not going to change our single-seat system of congress for a multi-seat system then ranked voting makes no sense whatsoever.
…is it eliminates the potential for a 3rd-party candidate to spoil the chances of one of the two major parties. If you have three candidates – a GOP, a Dem, and a Green – running, you might get a result of 48% for the GOP, 47% for the Dem, and 5% for the Green. By first past the post the GOP candidate wins this election even though 52% wanted somebody more progressive. With IRV there are two possibilities. Either the percentages for first ranked votes are the same as above and those who voted Green are likely to have ranked the Dem second, thus pushing the Dem ahead of the GOP after the Green is dropped from the rankings; or more people who voted Dem give their votes to the Green thus giving the Green a fighting chance to actually be elected without feeling guilty about spoiling the race.
…This is so much an advantage of IRV as the presence of a spoiler is a possible disadvantage of a plurality single seat system. If that’s so, then IRV is a band-aid for the corner case and complication to no affect for all other cases. As I said, it makes sense in the context of a convention for multiple (relatively unbounded) number of positions on the ballot. For a single seat, which a party nomination is and the Governorship is and always will be, you’re merely attempting to salve the pain of a zero sum game with the pretense that it really isn’t a zero-sum game.
As the name suggests, IRV is a run-off election, done on one ballot. Instead of having two elections, on two different dates, it is done all at once.
In 2012 France had 10 parties with candidates for President. The top two, Hollande (28.63%) and Sarkozy (27.18%) moved on to the next round. Hollande then won with 51.64% of the vote. In our system he would have won in the first round with just 28.63% of the vote, or with 71.37% of the people voting for someone else.
In IRV people would have the choice to rank the candidates, 1-10, and depending on the law, for as many or as few candidates as they want. The two rounds of voting, which were done two weeks apart in my example, that runoff would be done with just one ballot.
I don’t really know about voting at the convention, but it would seem you’re right about the threshold. But you are mixing up systems. The convention doesn’t need only 1 candidate winning, hence the threshold. In that case an actual proportional system, like STV, could be used. I’m not sure what use it would do, maybe just decide the order on the primary ballot.
Ranked choice refers to both IRV (used in Ireland and Austrlia) and STV (used in Cambridge), though STV can only be used in multi-member districts. When it’s used in a single-member district, like governor, it becomes IRV.
I just checked PD43+ for governor, both primary and general. There have been eight cases of candidates winning without a majority of the vote.
2014 – Coakley (Primary) – 42.4%
2010 – Patrick (General) – 48.4%
2006 – Patrick (Primary) – 49.5%
2002 – Romney (General) – 49.8%
2002 – O’Brien (Primary) – 32.5%
1994 – Roosevelt (Primary) – 47.9%
1986 – Hyatt (Primary) – 48.2%
1970 – White (Primary) – 34.3%
This has also happened for other statewide offices, mainly in primaries. Kerry won with 29% of the primary vote in 1982 for LG.
IRV wouldn’t guarantee a candidate with a majority wins, but it makes it much more likely. It really depends on how many choices people rank. I’d imagine it would also be possible to eliminate primaries and just send all candidates to the general election. Or, just use IRV in both the primary and general.
progressivemax, your math is a little off. In a 3 person race someone only needs 33%+1 vote to win. A 6 person race would 1 divided by 6 +1 vote.