In the right races, it might also make third party challengers far more important (even if still doomed) and pave an easier road for a challenger in the presence of a third candidate. Libertarian candidates could undermine old, crusty Republicans whose constituents are tired of, but not tired of enough to punch a D button, leading to outcomes like 43% R, 9% L, 48%D.

So let's start cultivating Libertarian friends.

Oh God, did I just say that?

I will not be cultivated!

While an outcome like the one Shelby presents is possible, it is not likely, particularly when it comes to incumbents. Most incumbents can sleepwalk to 45%.

Where this new plurality rule really has impact is in party primaries. A vulnerable incumbent who gets a challenge in the primary. Quite frequently in a 3 way race, the incumbents gets between 45-50% and then usually loses the runoff. Hardly ever would they get less than 45% though. Under the new rule, the incumbent getting 47% wins and doesn't have to face a runoff. Cynthia McKinney vs. Hank Johnson is the perfect example.

DG - GA is the first state that I have lived in that uses runoffs and non-partisan special elections.

I don't have a problem with IRV. My concern is this....when you have an election the first ballot is the will of the voters. They voted for whomever they wanted to win. That should be the end of it. I don't care if they get 25% or 44%.

I'm not a big fan of instant runoff voting either for the reason you state.

I don't think that's exactly right though, sndeak. The way it's set up now, people DON'T always vote for who they want. They vote for who they want among those who are perceived as front-runners, because they don't want to "waste" their vote on somebody not in the top 2 or 3 in the polls.

Jerry - from your post about polls I am assuming you are talking more about a statewide race. Let's drill down to the local level for this.

A City Council race. 1 At-Large seats with 5 people running. People are going to vote for 'their' candidate.

By the way, I think these so called non-partisan special elections are stupid. Let's hold the party primaries and have the candidates run in the open.

At least with Instant Runoff you are selecting your choices rather than having to conduct another run-off election in 30 days.

Shelby, actually the thinking goes that third party candidates tend to help the incumbent when there is no 50% requirement.

Most voters are making a binary choice, vote for incumbent or vote against incumbent. Or if you will, a series of binary choices, starting with that one.

So, vote to retain or vote against? That's the first choice. With a 50% requirement, third party candidates are good for the primary minority party, because after they've initially made the decision to vote against, they have multiple landing options. The primary challenger isn't competing to get 50% necessarily, just to hold his opponent below 50%.

This is why some Democratic thinkers pushed for libertarian ballot access while we were still in charge. Of course, fearful legislators and bureaucratic protectors (Cox) blocked that: it's too much extra work for elections workers.

But now, into the land of 45% victory margins. Now when an incumbent loses a vote they are no longer operating in binary land (get 50% or lose). All of a sudden the third party candidate is an attractive ally of the incumbent...you don't like me, that's fine, but my opponent is also a scumbag, why don't you just vote for the 3rd party!

As DecaturGuy says, any incumbent worth anything can get 45%.

Finally, I think 3rd parties in general take votes away from the challenger. Hence, a lot of libertarian votes used to get taken away from Republicans (certainly the case in the '96 Senate race) but now they are definitely more likely and probably most likely to come from Democrats, simply because Republicans run the state and if you were happy with the way things were going, why wouldn't you just vote for the Republicans?

The 50% rule for General Elections was a stupid (on the Republican's part) over-reaction to getting bit by the 45% rule when they used to be in the minority. They've wised up and realized that even though they have sour grapes from the '90's when the 45% requirement robbed them of some elections, everything has changed and now they benefit from it.

What it boils down to is that Democratic challengers need all of the votes of people upset with the status quo (Republicans) in order to win, and Republicans aren't stupid. That's why they are bringing this rule back.

Another way to think about this is, that without the 50% requirement, third parties are now simply spoliers instead of bargaining players.

The likelihood of a third party candidate drawing enough of the vote to prevent both of his major opponents from getting over 45% is very small. Mathematically, unless the third party candidate(s) gets at least 10% of the vote or more, one of the other candidates is guaranteed to receive at least 45%.

Libertarians did pretty well in 2006, some getting in the 4-5% range statewide. They'll have to double or triple that to have any sort of electoral impact down the road. This is a great bill for Republicans. May I remind you that all of the drama of the Governor's race (can Taylor at least force Perdue into a runoff) would have been gone had this law been in effect. It would have been even more depressing than it already was!

sndeak:

"My concern is this....when you have an election the first ballot is the will of the voters. They voted for whomever they wanted to win. That should be the end of it. I don't care if they get 25% or 44%."

Could you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand the

Re: IRV

One of the long term advantages of IRV is less divisive campaigns. Imagine a primary race of 3 candidates. Candidate One's primary issue is the environment; candidate two's primary issue is universal health care; and candidate three's primary issue is transportation. If candidate one play's nice and highlights the transportation advantages of his environmental plans then he or she may have a good chance at getting candidate three supporters to pick him/her second.

Coalitions begin to form and the ugliness is toned down. Granted, this will take some time, but it is a likely scenario.

Addtionally, from a fiscal standpoint, IRV is the way to go. I can't remember how many millions it cost to have a runoff, but that is money that could be much better spent.

We'll need to educate the voter on how it works, but I think it's a step in the right direction.