...especially for third party voters.
I've not seen a discussion about this topic yet on JU, so I hope I'm not treading on anyone else's toes by bringing this up (if you've blogged about this, feel free to post a link below). Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a concept where you vote for presidential candidates in the order that you would prefer rather than voting for one and only one, and risk an independent candidate stealing votes from, say, a Democrat (like Nader and Gore in Florida....?).
For example, this year we have Bush, Kerry, Cobb, Nader, and Badnarik (and one more guy). In IRV, you'd vote in order of your preferences. A libertarian might vote this way:
1. Badnarik
2. Cobb
3. Nader
4. Kerry
5. Bush
6. Other guy
Basically, IRV will count the first tier of votes--those candidates who've been marked as #1 on the voters' ballots (Badnarik for this libertarian)--and if a winner cannot be declared with a 50% plurality, it'll continue to the second tier (those candidates who were marked at #2), and on until a winner can be declared. Rather than try to understand what I just wrote, go to this link Link, which is an interactive guide explaining how the system would work. The site uses data from the 2000 election to explain how it would work.
In the end, it keeps votes from being wasted--especially for those of us who'd vote for third party candidates. It is a major boon to third party candidates because then people would be less afraid of "wasting their votes" (i.e. voting for a third party candidate rather than Bush/Kerry), giving third party candidates more exposure and, ultimately, more power.
I'm new to the IRV idea and I'm not sure what its pitfalls are (feel free to find and name them). It would probably not be embraced by Republicans or Democrats, for whom it's easier to have a two-party system. It's much easier to combat one enemy than five. But it would be nicer to have more than two choices, especially when the thought of voting for either one makes one's ulcer flare up....
-A.