So here in the state of Georgia, we (or at least me and the 30% of voters who care enough) will vote again on December 2, 2008 in the runoff election for U.S. Senate between incumbent republican Saxby Chambliss and democrat Jim Martin.  All because Saxby Chambliss missed the absolute majority of the vote (50%+1 vote) required by state law to be declared the winner.

Republican--Saxby Chambliss: 1,867,090 votes (49.75%)
Democratic--Jim Martin: 1,757,419 votes (46.83%)
Libertarian--Allen Buckley: 128,002 votes (3.41%)
Socialist Workers--Eleanor Garcia (write-in): 43 votes (0.00%)
Independent--William Salomone, Jr. (write-in): 25 votes (0.00%)

Chambliss got 49.75% of the vote, but because it is not a majority, there is anouther month of endless campaign television and radio ads and a costly (to state taxpayers) runoff.  But at the same time, I don't think anyone can "win" with under 50%; I'm reminded of a primary earlier this year for some congressional race that was "won" with 38% of the votes (no runoff in the state), which is just ridiculous.

I see both sides, but I lean towards having the runoff.  Thoughts?

So here in the state of Georgia, we (or at least me and the 30% of voters who care enough) will vote again on December 2, 2008 in the runoff election for U.S. Senate between incumbent republican Saxby Chambliss and democrat Jim Martin.  All because Saxby Chambliss missed the absolute majority of the vote (50%+1 vote) required by state law to be declared the winner.

Republican--Saxby Chambliss: 1,867,090 votes (49.75%)
Democratic--Jim Martin: 1,757,419 votes (46.83%)
Libertarian--Allen Buckley: 128,002 votes (3.41%)
Socialist Workers--Eleanor Garcia (write-in): 43 votes (0.00%)
Independent--William Salomone, Jr. (write-in): 25 votes (0.00%)

Chambliss got 49.75% of the vote, but because it is not a majority, there is anouther month of endless campaign television and radio ads and a costly (to state taxpayers) runoff.  But at the same time, I don't think anyone can "win" with under 50%; I'm reminded of a primary earlier this year for some congressional race that was "won" with 38% of the votes (no runoff in the state), which is just ridiculous.

I see both sides, but I lean towards having the runoff.  Thoughts?


Wow, only 43 voting socialists in all of Georgia. You'd think there'd be more than that.

Wow, only 43 voting socialists in all of Georgia. You'd think there'd be more than that.


They're registered as Democrats until being a member of the Socialist party does not mean being "Anti-American"

Wow, only 43 voting socialists in all of Georgia. You'd think there'd be more than that.


Apparently the Georgia public schools are still in a decent shape.  ;)

I'm not even getting in to a debate on that, I just want to prod.


I like runoffs - Majority > Plurality.

Wow, only 43 voting socialists in all of Georgia. You'd think there'd be more than that.


Only 25 Independents?...Well yeah, that fits.

There is a simpler way.  Its called instant runoff voting.  Where there are more than 2 candidates voters rank them.  If no one wins the first round, the least vote candidate is dropped and those who had that person as first choice get reassigned to there second choice.

In France, they have run-off voting for all their elections.

I favour run-off elections, since requiring a candidate to get at least fifty per cent of the vote results in a more decisive mandate for the winner. Also, run-off elections give smaller parties more of a chance, since people aren't afraid of throwing their vote away on them in the first round.

Wow, only 43 voting socialists in all of Georgia. You'd think there'd be more than that.


I think they'd have gotten a lot more votes (maybe a couple of thousand or so) had their candidate not been a write-in candidate.

There is a simpler way.  Its called instant runoff voting.  Where there are more than 2 candidates voters rank them.  If no one wins the first round, the least vote candidate is dropped and those who had that person as first choice get reassigned to there second choice.

That sounds like what we'd call the "Alternative Vote"... heads off to check... sure enough:

This wiki article"]IRV is also referred to as majority-preferential voting in Australia, the alternative vote (AV) and preferential ballot (though the latter can also refer to the system called Borda voting) in the United Kingdom and Canada, and sometimes ranked choice voting in the U.S. It is also referred to as the Hare system or Hare method, after Thomas Hare, an inventor of single transferable vote (STV) because IRV is the same as STV for a single seat election: Even though voters can mark multiple candidates in preference order, the elimination process results in only a single transferable vote cast for the office.
..it's a lot more efficient than having a run-off election, but for large elections, it's a bit of a counting headache unless you can count electronically (while making sure your software works properly ;)).

I think runoffs are ok.  They're still not as good as Instant Runoff Voting, but they're a step in the right direction.

Runoffs make it more likely that people will bother to vote for a 3rd party candidate, since it lessens the "spoiler" effect.