If you don't include some line about the supremeness of God and the holiness of Christ, you're not even going to get a whiff of the Oklahoma state legislature.

We shot down SQ 790, bo. We're not Texas.

the supremeness of *the Oklahoma City Thunder and the holiness of *Russell Westbrook

That's far more accurate. It's also the only thing that can unite the people of Oklahoma regardless of political lines.

Oklahoma still doesn't deserve a basketball team.

Instant runoff sounds good, but this appear to be another name for single transferable vote (STV) which we use in ireland (to great effect)

What do you mean, ghug? Bonding over a shared hatred of Kevin Durant (traitor) is the one thing that sustains our relationships here.

Please. Our entire team up and left us and you're complaining about one player not wanting to spend so much time in Oklafuckinghoma?

Best of luck catching STV. We've had it for years at a municipal level. Works very well for electing the "least worst" candidates.

You've still got the Seahawks.

Heavily used in Australia. I am no expert so I can't say whether it works or not but it does fit the Westminster style of government well in that it drives votes toward the major parties. (As does compulsory voting, so I guess in Australia it's hard to work out what comes from where.)

@potato, really? I think it helps the minor parties...

The UK and US have a first past the post system which tends to favour two parties at the expense of everyone else - except regional parties. Whereas in Ireland (with STV) we've had a small green party manage to make it into government because of transfers...

Ok, i did some reading, and it looks like Aus has single seat constituencies. Which seems very odd to me. (See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_district )

One of the things which makes the Irish system more proportional is the multi-seat constituencies; because after one person reachs the quota to be deemed elected, all further votes for that person will be transfered to other cnadidates, possibly electing a second person from their party (if the candidate is popular enough) or conversly, if the party fails to gather enough votes to elect two candidates, once the second candidate is eliminated the votes transfering to the main candidate will usually push them directly over the quota... (We have 3-5 seat constituencies, so the larger parties will often run 2-3 candidates, while the smaller parties will only run a single candidate)

TrPrado: They just passed this in Maine. I would take a look at their law first.

Having precedent to look at makes it easier to write.

Also writing it in the US would be even easier to write based on the Australian system than on the Irish. Except in cases of city council elections or in special election like if a senator retires early and so both seats are up for vote.

The closest thing at a state/national level would be presidential electors, and that'd be a helluva strange way to allocate. You'd have to have people vote for their top choices for electors instead of for president, and that'd be a hassle in big states.

For US congress elections, you could do a statewide vote (for states with less than 5 representatives.

For electiral college votes, you could just have a stv popular vote, and continue to allocate all a state's electors based on whoever wins the single seat (because being president is a single seat)

Or you could follow Maine's example and have congressional districts vote - so each district has a much smaller area to campaign over and one electoral vote. (How many of Gary Johnson's votes would have transfered to Trump or Clinton isn't the question to ask ... It is a very low %, byt how many people would have voted for Gary Johnson as their first preference if they knew their vote wouldn't be wasted if it Johnson lost and their vote would transfer to their second preference - but unfortunately, without a National Popular Vote, one elector choosing Johnson would still be a wasted vote. So implementing it on a elector based level would fail to ahieve the desired ends...

Technically in congressional district method you're casting a vote for 3 electors: the district elector and the 2 state electors.

"This initiated bill provides ranked-choice voting for the offices of United States Senator, United States Representative to Congress, Governor, State Senator and State Representative for elections held on or after January 1, 2018. Ranked-choice voting is a method of casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, tabulation proceeds in rounds in which last-place candidates are defeated and the candidate with the most votes in the final round is elected."

I don't want to deal with writing a state question (I'll leave that to state legislature), so this is all the text (from Maine's Question 5) that matters to me in the case of writing IRV into my bill.