Instant runoff better than term limits

Term Limits seem to be the popular issue this election cycle.

Being able to kick politicians out of public office after a set number of years sounds (on the surface) like a good idea. How convenient; if the voters are unable (or unwilling) to remove politicians from office with their votes, the system will remove the politicians for you. But is it really a good idea?

Seems to me, if the politicians (and political parties) like the idea, we ought to be wary. We need to exercise due diligence. Having to vote for a new politician every couple of years, instead of voting for someone you know (and trust and appreciate), means that you have to vote for the unknown.

You have to trust the political parties to nominate someone who will do what they say they will do. You have to trust that the candidates have been properly (and completely) vetted by the political party that nominates them.

This gives tremendous power to the two existing political parties.

So how did the two major political parties do "vetting" their presidential candidates this year? Are you pleased with the choices we have for president? Did the political parties do a good job?

Do you trust them to do it again, essentially for every major elected office and every politician, year after year? Wouldn't you rather be throwing out the political parties instead of the politicians?

Go read up on "instant runoff" voting, where you rank your candidate preferences, instead of just voting for only one. This encourages multiple political parties and multiple candidates to run for office.

This means that the secondary political parties are not just "spoilers" in an election, but rather they get a fair vote. Maybe then you could find a choice you won't be embarrassed about.

Phil Graf

Rolling Meadows