Democracy, Polical Transparency, and Instant Runoff Voting

Thanks to Bob Richard and his comment on yesterday's post, which included a reference to Second Choice Voting. The premise is the same as Instant Runoff Voting, which I had heard of before but couldn't remember what to call it. This is really an idea whose time has come. According to Fairvote.org (http://www.fairvote.org/?page=19), McCain and Obama have supported it in the past. I don't see why any American would be opposed to it.

I would welcome any comments or insight as to why Instant Runoff Voting has not become more popular. One possible suggestion is that the established politicians may see it as a threat as they hoard up votes from 3rd-party supporters who are afraid to waste votes and who ultimately support the main party candidate who most resembles their values.

Another concept I discussed with friends the other night is proportionate representation, which allocates political representatives based on the percentage of voters, rather than a winner-take-all mentality. If 5% of people vote for the Burrito Party, then the Burrito Party gets to comprise about 5% of the congressional representation. I believe England has this sort of thing going on. Some would say that proportionate representation dilutes the governing body and makes it harder to achieve results since more than two major opinions need to be considered. It seems to me that proportionate representation would lead to more compromise and sophistication in the process.

There is so much disconnection between what happens in our government and what the will of the people is that people seem fairly desensitized to it. We often appear to have become resigned to the fact that our vote doesn't count, our voice isn't heard, and government is just for the deep-pocketed. If that is the case, then we cease to live in a democracy. We are coming dangerously close to that point. I am heartened by the voter turnout in the current election process.