The 'alternative' or 'instant run off' vote - better known as 'preferential voting' in these parts - has been well-established in Australia for nigh on a century.  Its constitutionality has never really been doubted, as a litigant in person found out in our highest court recently:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/1999/41.html?query=%22preferential+voting%22

Yes, preferential voting deals minor parties into the equation in important ways (and gives voters subtler and fairer choices, which some believe distort the process of choosing).   It leads to horse-trading over recommendation of preferences and deals between sympatico parties - eg over the manning of polling booths to hand out 'how-to-vote' (HTV) cards, which recommend preference flows, and in worst cases, 'sham' HTVs masquerading as rival party's preference recommendations.  

It probably won't lead to any more minor parties being elected, except in districts where they already have such concentrated strength that they could currently run second:  in those cases they may succeed on 2nd preferences of the least favoured major party supporters who otherwise might not feel able to give them a 'tactical' 1st preference.  Whether pref voting increases 'negative' voting as opposed to first pas the post is a moot point.    My colleague Tom Round could give a deeper account for the merits (or lack of them) of preferential voting in 3rd party representation.

Graeme Orr
Lecturer, Law
Griffith University
Brisbane 4111
Australia

"Dan Johnson-Weinberger" <proportionalrepresentation@msn.com>
Sent by: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
26/08/2002 12:11 PM MST
Please respond to "Dan Johnson-Weinberger"

To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Re: Alaska Voters to Consider Adding Instant Runoffs to Elections

Or as we say in the campaign, the lies that the League of Women Voters is spreading. . .

;-)

For the constitutionality of instant runoff voting, please see the campaign's rebuttal statement:

http://www.alaskanforvotersrights.com/rebuttal.htm

Dan Johnson-Weinberger
National Field Director
Center for Voting and Democracy


Note the interesting quote from the League of Women Voters
president claiming that IRV appears to violate one person,
one vote.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-instant25aug25.story