Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Your presidential candidate: Hot or not?
The best way to make American elections fair, according to a new book, is to use a voting method known for ranking drunk sorority girls.
By Farhad Manjoo [2008-02-12]
The letters thread is now closed.

  • No constitutional amendment required

    Some have dismissed election reforms such as IRV as unattainable because it would require amending the U.S. Constitution, but that is not the case. Each state is free to use whatever system they want to determine who wins that state (as long as it doesn't discriminate against minorities, women, etc.). So it's not even in the hands of the U.S. Congress. Not that getting it adopted at the state level would be any small feat, but it's a lot less daunting than having to convince two thirds of the country would be.

    By the way, it's worth noting that both John McCain and Barack Obama are among those who advocate instant runoff voting.

    -- TomJohnson
    [Read TomJohnson's other letters]
    Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:25 PM

  • We vote AGAINST candidates, not for them

    The eventual adoption of some simple variation of IRV is inevitable for three reasons: 1) it can be explained to the electorate, 2) it is the least (literally) that can be done, and 3) the political parties will accept the change (unlike getting rid of the electoral college, for instance).

    My variation would look something like: vote YES for at most one, vote MAYBE for at most one, and vote NO for the rest. A majority of YESes wins outright, otherwise factor in the MAYBEs (in some fashion TBD). If there is no majority, delete the underperforming candidates and vote all over again. That is - NO wins by default.

    Note that this could be used to eliminate the primary election season entirely.

    The problem with range voting can be seen with reality TV shows. A popularity contest judged by millions of people with too much time on their hands results in polarizing candidates being preserved until the final showdown, while good consensus candidates depart week after week.

    Rather the field should be pruned early by voting out those who are unacceptable. I haven't voted FOR a Presidential candidate since learning better with John Anderson. Every election is an obligation to vote (strategically or not) against some horrific monster. A good election is when I don't have to hold my nose to mark the ballot for the other candidate.

    It never rises to the level of voting FOR one candidate over the other, always AGAINST. Factor this into the voting mathematics.

    -- Rob Seaman
    [Read Rob Seaman's other letters]
    Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:06 PM

Letters Help