Why don't the Illinois Democrats ram through instant run-off voting in state elections?

[BolivarianHero]

There are so many races in Illinois, both in this cycle and in its predecessors, in which the Green Party and others left of the Democrats poll between 5 - 20%. Why don't the Dems use the control they have now to stop Repukes from winning offices like governor and senator because of vote splitting?

[bemildred]

1. Is this a rhetorical question? nt

[BolivarianHero]

2. Not really...

I honestly don't know the answer. There are so many states where trashing plurality elections would benefit the Democrats, and yet they don't do it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Maybe they're like the typical DU voting reform specialist

Go to the Election Reform forum, and you'll see IRV regularly denounced as the Work Of The Devil.

[BolivarianHero]

4. Meh

I like it for executive elections but not so much for legislative elections. I wish we had it for mayor in Ottawa, but I would never advocate it for the Canadian Parliament or any provincial legislature. MMPR or even STV are both superiour for legislative elections.

The nature of the US Senate is such that it makes more sense to treat it like an executive election, however.

[bemildred]

7. Eh, OK, it's like this ...

An instant runoff system would undercut the two-party system by making independent and third party candidates more viable. Neither of the established parties will support it, in the same way that they always work together to thwart open primaries. The party elites need to be able to control who the candidates are and whether they get elected, or their power is reduced or lost altogether. This is also why both parties hate populist and insurgent politics, if the people rule, the elitists don't. The way they like it is they select the party candidates and then they decide which ones get supported in the general election. All of this used to be done in back rooms, the primary system was instituted as a "reform" to allow the voters to have some sort of say in the process, but it is still pretty easy to manage the outcome most of the time, and the long campaigns that we have here are essential to the process of managing election outcomes, as is the constant barrage of polls, and various other odd features like the glut of election money that is legal here.

[depakid]

5. Because they're not interested in promoting Democracy or saving time & money

[tritsofme]

6. Not sure your premise is correct here. I can't recall a single Republican governor or senator

in at least the last 20-30 years if not ever, where the victorious Republican did not win a clear majority of the vote.

Thompson, Edgar, and Ryan all won clear if not commanding majorites in their victories, as did Peter Fitzgerald in his 1998 Senate bid.

It is possible that Kirk could win a plurality in a race tipped by the Green candidate this year, but this is far from the norm as you suggest. A better example might be Minnesota.