Why don't we have instant run-off elections or something similar?

Question

In the 90's a wrench was thrown into the Presidential Elections by Ross Perot, and in the ots, by Ralph Nader. Were there instant run-off elections in these cases, we could have been assured in who the President should have been. There is nothing that I can find unconsitutional about instant run-off elections in this our non-parlimentary democratic republic, so why don't we have them?

Answer 1

There is actually a big movement afoot to get our electoral system changed.

See: http://www.instantrunoff.com/

Answer 2

The effect of 3rd parties is a wrench only if you are an enthusiast of whatever political party the 3rd parties sucked voters away from.

There are many people who are not entirely satisfied with the choices of Republican vs. Democratic.  3rd parties appeal to them.  Major weaknesses with 3rd parties are that they tend to focus on a smaller number of issues, and attract malcontents from both major parties.  When you have a party jointly run by the extreme left, who not like the Democrats, and the extreme right., who not lke the Republicans, it is very difficult for them to agree on anything.

I think the 3rd parties do best when they focus on local and state elections, and stay out of the national politics until they can combine forces with the other single issue interests to present a unified platform that can compete.

Primaries are a run-off of the many different people competing for candidacy within one party.

Answer 3

The US needs to reform the electoral system. I like Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) because it would let voters rank their favorite candidates. Maybe if we could add a "None of the Above" and Write-In columns plus the option of having one of the top 2 candidates withdraw (provided that no candidate has reached the absolute majority of the 1st preferences needed) and endorsing a candidate that came in 3rd or so (provided it gets like at least 15% in the 1st round). Thanks!