Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
I've been a big, highly vocal, consistent proponent of IRV for, oh, call it, in round figures, about four decades. Happily, IRV and variations (STV, etc.) have been making gradual inroads, e.g., San Francisco city elections have been using IRV since 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States#San... (To said inroads, my basic reaction is 'It's about bloody time.') Outside of real-world politics, for _many_ decades, IRV has been used for final-ballot voting for the WSFS annual Hugo Awards for best science fiction / fantasy novels, artists, editors, dramatic presentations, etc. -- with a modification called the 'No Award Runoff'. The process is documented here: http://www.thehugoawards.org/the-voting-system/ (I said 'final-ballot' to distinguish that phase of voting from nominations, which just closed five days ago for 2016's Hugo Awards.)
The last few years would have been a good time for the Republicans to push for an "Australian Ballot".
Well, maybe they need their meds adjusted, first. ;->
I think it's unfortunate that the Australian parties never took the logical next step of offering multiple candidates for some seats. Instead of having back room deals to determine who is nominated for a "safe seat" they should have multiple candidates from that party contest the election. I live in a zone for a Labor safe seat, it would be nice if Labor offered me multiple candidates to choose from.
If the US had a similar system there could be candidates representing the Tea Party and the mainstream Republican party competing for a seat. That would save the Republicans from the candidate who wins a primary can't win an election problem.
Not an objection to your suggestion, but just as a point of clarification for anyone who doesn't know: Please remember that political parties are _not_ part of the US political system -- and I do mean that seriously -- at either the Federal or state (or local) level. They are private political associations. The US Founding Fathers didn't anticipate the emergence of political parties -- again, I mean that seriously -- and were reportedly taken by surprise by the emergence of the Federalist party in the early 1790s, and their opposition 'anti-Federalists' coalescing into what became the Democratic-Republican Party starting in 1791. Nothing in the US Constitution nor (to my knowledge) state constitutions calls for them. They were merely an emergent effect of the voting framework. In consequence, to this day, US political parties basically govern themselves. You could speak of the 'US having a system' for political parties in the sense of the Federal government encouraging particular things and discouraging others, I guess, but that basically doesn't happen. My state of California accomodates political parties to the extent of being willing to include party 'primary election' functions (where parties pick their candidates for the general election that follows a few months later) on state funded ballots. I infer that California's logic in this is that it's paying for a June ballot anyway for various other state electoral issues, so it's willing to also include the 'primary election' functions of qualified parties. Listing criteria: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/qualified-political-partie... http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/political-party-qualificat... In short, aspiring political parties, to be on my state's June ballot, must show they've registered at least 0.33 percent of the total number of recent California voters, or submit a petition of registered voters equal to 10 percent of the votes in the most recent Governor election. These five currently qualify and are on the ballot: American Independent Party Democratic Party Green Party Libertarian Party Peace and Freedom Party Republican Party There are few victories by other than the big two, because of Duverger's Law (First Past the Post voting in winner-take-all polities tend towards two parties). Of course, the general election (both in California and elsewhere) is _not_ in any way limited to candidates of these or any other party. Any candidate who meets state qualifications about minimal support can be put on the ballot, and write-ins are also accepted. (Once a candidate for a general-election partisan position proves the minimal support required by state criteria, he/she can and invariably does provide the party name to be stated next to the candidate's name. (Some state and local positions are deemed non-partisan, and party affiliation is not listed. See http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/household.html for local details in my area.) California voters approved an interesting reform in 2012 to moderate the effect of Duverger's Law and specifically punish and discourage party extremism and politicians' maintenance of 'safe' district seats in the state Senate and Assembly, and resulting gridlock in the Legislature. It's called the 'top two primary', and seems to be working pretty well. Details here: http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/06/03/a-last-minute-guide-to-californias-to... Likewise, redistricting was taken out of the hands of the Legislature by a voter initiative in 2010 and assigned to a state commission of retired judges and other similar folk: http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/ This was done to eliminate the gerrymandering formerly used to create 'safe' districts, which of course, was another foundation of partisan gridlock. This, too, appears to be working pretty well. But anyway, getting back to the point, the internal functioning of the political parties is entirely left up to the parties' respective leaderships to decide, because they (the parties) are _not_ public bodies, i.e., not themselves part of government. E.g., if I'm not happy with the conduct and policies of my political party (Democratic Party), I am free to change to (e.g.) Green Party or Peace and Freedom Party, or to change to a no-preference voter who declares no party affiliation, _but_ I have no direct say in my party's conduct and policies. Nor does the US Federal government, nor do any of the states.