Another election approach not mentioned in that article is to have several election rounds. In each round, the least popular candidate(s) are removed. The advantage of this is that you don't have to vote tactically but can vote sincerely instead. You don't risk anything by voting Nader in the first round, since you can vote on the Democratic candidate in the last round if that's the lesser evil that's left at that final stage. But since people can vote sincerely from the starting round, third parties could have a real change of beating one of the two big parties.

Several countries have at least two election rounds for their presidential elections, and as a result there are usually more than two candidates with a realistic change of winning.

The multiple rounds system can be combined with the alternate voting schemes mentioned in the article.

Kristian: You raise an interesting point. So far as I can see, the 'instant run off' system basically creates several 'rounds' at once, thereby apparently eliminating the need for multiple voting rounds while enabling the same outcome through the same process. But perhaps you see a particular advantage in having the vote spread out over time, and over several rounds, rather than collapsing them into a big round?

Here might be one argument for your view. Consider the Borda counting system:

Suppose...that voters prefer candidate A to candidate B to candidate C and candidate B then drops out. The voters should still prefer A to C, right?

This is a standard rational choice theory algorithm, and is a relatively simple transformation of the mathematical axiom that if A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C (The 'greater' and 'lesser' being spelled out by assigning numbers of varying value to different choices).

But how accurately does this preference model reflect the reality of political decision making? I think it is at the very least misleading because not all 'preferences' are obviously commensurable. For instance, suppose I support candidate A because she supports abortion and opposes (some) war, as well as striking me as highly trustworthy. Now, candidate B supports (said) war but also supports abortion, yet strikes me as highly untrustworthy. Candidate C opposes abortion and opposes (said) war, but seems to me highly trustworthy. If I rank B ahead of C while ranking A first, this implies that support for abortion is more important to me than opposition to war. But does it also mean that I have ranked a policy issue over a personality issue (trustworthiness)? So far as I can see, so long as A is in the game, that need not follow.

Here's why: If I expect A to win, I might put B second to signal support for the issues he represents, while thinking I can have it both ways (policy and personality) with A. But if A drops out, the political playing field has changed--I now have to decide whether two incommensurable 'preferences', a policy issue and a personality issue (trust), is more important to me because I can't now have it both ways with A gone. Given that changed circumstance, it may now strike me as more important that a candidate be trustworthy than that they match my policy preferences exactly--so only after A drops out would I prefer C to B, but not otherwise. Hence, A dropping out changes the principles I use in arriving at a preferred outcome, because the changed playing field led me to accord more weight to trust over policy. Therefore, it wouldn't follow my preferring candidate A to B to C would mean that if I cannot have A over B and C, I would prefer B over C.

Now one might object that this example works only because I am supposing that I am being inconsistent (i.e., 'irrational') in my voting behavior. But charge is philosophically loaded. The example is designed to show the incommensurability of different kinds of preferences, such as non-policy issues ('trustworthiness') and policy issues, and I see no reason to assume these different issues are simply reducible to 'preferences', since they address very different concerns. But is the changed circumstances that have led me to apply my principles differently, not an irrational inconsistency in those principles or the way I apply them.

"It's not the French, it's us"

So a so-called progressive organization is bashing the French and using right-wing talking points in order to Bash McCain? Disgusting!

If "Ourfuture.org" represents the Democratic party, then the politics of the U.S. is even worse than I would have imagined! sigh..

And I want to know who "OurFuture.com" aka "Campaign for American's Future" is supporting.

This video from their website amounts to the kind of xenophobic low-down tactics that i would expect from the "freedom-fries" Republicans.

And yet there are Americans on that site who have no problem with this type of bashing which alienates our allies...

sigh!...

I would like to know what both Hillary, and Barack and John have to think about this type of xenophobic ad.

It's true that in this primary season has demonstrated how low that we as Americans can descend, but just HOW low is that?!

sigh..

Forgive me for all of my grammatical mistakes, but I was typing so furiously, that i failed to preview. I thought that Democrats were all about improving our relations with other countries...

SIGH!

As a past Nader voter/support let me offer this...

Obama on IRV http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1755

As a state Senator in Illinois during the 2002 session, Barack Obama introduced SB 1789 which would have adopted instant runoff voting (IRV) for congressional and state primary elections in Illinois and authorized IRV for local elections.

McCain on IRV http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1758

“Instant runoff voting will lead to good government because voters will elect leaders who have the support of a majority. Elected leaders will be more likely to listen to all and cities will be able to enjoy big tax savings and keep majority rule.” ~Senator John McCain

Now try to find Nader's views, statements or platform regarding IRV... After spending a lot of time trying to figure out why Nader ducks this issue I believe he sees IRV as a threat and enjoys the the power of "spoiling."

Adam,

You may Have seen this.

Chicago law announced that Obama was indeed a Professor.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html