PLACE FAQ: Difference between revisions

Line 315:

Another option that gets mentioned for single-winner is IRV (also annoyingly called RCV). This is promoted by the largest US voting reform nonprofit, FairVote. Unfortunately, while they do good work on #PropRep, FairVote seems blind to the flaws in IRV. While I'd vote for IRV if the only other option was FPTP, and while I definitely believe that [http://electology.org/blog/maine-supreme-court-gets-it-wrong-irv voters who've chosen IRV should get to see it implemented], I don't think FairVote has the best path forward on this issue.

==== Electoral college and national popular vote ====

=== Campaign finance ===

In the US, an important special case of single-winner reform is the presidential system, where constitutional issues involving the electoral college (EC) complicate matters. As far as I can tell, the [http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ National Popular Vote Interstate Compact] (NPVIC) idea is the best way to solve those issues. [https://equalvotes.us/ Larry Lessig's court challenge to statewide EC winner-take-all] also deserves mention, though personally I suspect it's unlikely to win.

⚫

=== ~~Ballot~~ access and other electoral system reforms ===

In any case, solving the EC without fixing the single-winner voting system seems as if it would be a missed opportunity. As I read it, the NPVIC would be compatible with approval voting, and could with a little work be made compatible with 3-2-1 voting. But I think that more people should be working on, or even just talking about, combining these ideas.

⚫

=== Campaign finance, ballot access and other electoral system reforms ===

(

== Political strategy ==