Can someone walk me through this system? I'm thinking of the Presidential election of 1992, in which the plurality winner of popular votes (not majority winner), Bill Clinton, beat Bush & Perot. The final numbers were:
Clinton: 43%
Bush: 37%
Perot: 19%
I've always felt that the will of the people was that a conservative should be elected, whereas a minority of the population actually voted for Clinton. Under our system, of course, Clinton was the clear winner with 370 Electoral votes, but given the controversy surrounding the 2016 results, it bears reexamination.
With ranked voting, it stands to reason that most people would vote along ideological lines; most conservatives would rank Bush #1 and Perot as #2 or vice versa, while liberals would rank Clinton as #1. In this scenario, would Clinton still have won? Or would the ranked approach have awarded the Presidency to one of the conservative candidates? If the will of the people was that a conservative be President, then a parliamentary system would reflect that more accurately than our winner-takes-all approach.
In the scenario you describe, with 37% voting Bush 1 and Perot 2, and 19% voting Perot 1 and Bush 2, Perot would be eliminated and Bush would win in the final round of counting with 56%. (Other candidates receiving 1% of first prerefences between them would be eliminated before Perot.)
Then again, I suppose that not everyone voting for Perot would have had Bush as their #2 choice. Plus, a number of Bush supporters didn't like/trust Perot, especially after he backed out, then reversed himself and restarted his spoiler campaign.
Yes. In reality it might have been more complicated than I suggested. And maybe I read more into your comment than I should have. I do think IRV would have been an improvement over FPTP in the elections featuring Perot and Nader, though.
Clinton: 43%
Bush: 37%
Perot: 19%
I've always felt that the will of the people was that a conservative should be elected, whereas a minority of the population actually voted for Clinton. Under our system, of course, Clinton was the clear winner with 370 Electoral votes, but given the controversy surrounding the 2016 results, it bears reexamination.
With ranked voting, it stands to reason that most people would vote along ideological lines; most conservatives would rank Bush #1 and Perot as #2 or vice versa, while liberals would rank Clinton as #1. In this scenario, would Clinton still have won? Or would the ranked approach have awarded the Presidency to one of the conservative candidates? If the will of the people was that a conservative be President, then a parliamentary system would reflect that more accurately than our winner-takes-all approach.