http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff

"The party delegates vote secretly and individually. No additional names may be placed in nomination once the voting has begun, and the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped after each ballot until one candidate has won a clear majority of the votes cast. If no majority winner is declared on one ballot, voting resumes straight away on the next."

"The effect of the rules is to force many delegates and candidates in multi-ballot conventions to reconsider their options and to vote for a candidate on later ballots other than their most preferred one on the first ballot. This promotes "strategic" voting on successive ballots, and prompts most candidates who withdraw or are gradually eliminated from the race to "throw their support" on the convention floor behind an erstwhile opponent."

>> can't seem to add a second comment so I'll add to this one…

@Rick Actually here in Canada the results are often unexpected because of the "strategic" voting aspect i.e. the ones that lose don't throw their support behind the person that just beat them. That's exactly what happened in 2006 in Alberta when Stelmach (a virtual unknown even by the media) with only 15% of the vote ended up winning with 58% – three rounds – one day http://is.gd/39mA

As the "War on Drugs" has shown, attempts to curtail economically rational activity is difficult at best.

2. Electronic voting – vote a library or at home – instant and accurate – no Florida recounts till you get the answer you want…

But there are other problems as well. Having consecutive days of voting would only serve to aggravate the American people who don't much care for politics anyway. Not to mention it would make for terribly uninformed decisions with the candidates changing from day to day.

In addition, opening the field to all comers and requiring just a 10% threshold to progress would tilt the playing field dramatically in favor of fringe candidates. Without a party nominating process to winnow the field, you would have many mainstream candidates willing to roll the dice. These folks would split the vast majority of votes and likely come in under 10%. At the same time a single-issue or ultra-ideological candidate could mass one of the extremes fairly easily to surpass the 10% since there are fewer viable candidates to compete with them.

Even if a true fringe candidate didn't emerge, you would still tilt the process toward the extremes. For all the complaints about the existing system, it does a pretty good job of weeding out the more extreme candidates.

No electoral system is perfect. Our national process is indeed imperfect. But it also isn't the arena where we should be experimenting with dramatic new plans. If another process were to take hold within a state that proved itself over time, it might be worth considering at the national level. But let's not roll the dice with the presidency.

First, in a country as large and complicated as the US, it is just impossible to have a totally clean and honest election. So, there will always be some voter fraud, tombstones voting, lost votes, polls that had lines too long and closed too soon, questions about who was illegally registered to vote, etc. So, there will always be some disputed votes.

Second, with just direct popular voting, if an election is close, then 10 votes disputed anywhere in the country can hold up the whole election.

So, what does the Electoral College do? It means that nonsense in some one state usually doesn't hold up the whole election. First, if the vote in that state is not close, then a few disputed votes in that state can't change the Electoral College vote of that state by even one vote. Second, if the vote in that state is too close to call, then the decision is up to the legislature of that state. This is not a way to guarantee fairness; it is a way to settle disputes quickly in rare circumstances that otherwise might have election disputes go on for months and hurt the country.

Yes, in some cases, even the vote in the Electoral College can be close. Then have to go to the usually VERY few states where the popular votes were close, do a recount, maybe use the legislatures in some of those states, etc. to solve the problem.

But in most states, the vote is NOT close so that in those states a little voter fraud is irrelevant. BRILLIANT.

Mostly the Electoral College just gives the same election results as the popular vote, but it has some BRILLIANT properties to stop the bickering over voter fraud and get the election DONE.

That's the way it works in France (the 50% and multiple turns). Also, you should make sure that election day is a national holiday so that everyone can vote.

Granted, some of Arrow's assumptions can be questioned. And the electoral college system–not to mention the primary / caucus process–is hardly anyone's idea of an optimal expression of popular choice. But, if you're serious about electoral reform, at least read the theory. It's a much harder problem than you might think.

I say go for it. Talk of popular vote being disastrous back in Jefferson and Adams days doesn't hold much weight…things aren't that great with the current system. The Republicans wanted to impeach Bill for getting some Monica love and The Democrats want to impeach George for Iraq.

In my book, things are getting more and more heated in this nation and it isn't just because of the elected officials. The people do not feel like they are being represented. The electoral college…that's a disaster. It was invented because the population wasn't trusted to be informed enough to vote. These days there is an over abundance of information and the electoral college does no better than the average Joe at filtering the truth from the political propaganda.

As for California…they make up 12% of the population. We still have 88% left. They can influence but not dominate the election. If we came down to a 49.9% vs 49.9% vote…American Samoa's 0.02% is pretty important.