|
San Francisco Chronice
The Promise of Instant
Runoff Voting
By Adam Rose
August 19, 2003 The
Gov. Gray Davis recall may cause some motion sickness, but in the
long run it could cure a more serious political disease. California
will learn that instant runoff voting isn't just an experiment in
local elections, but a valuable system that we need statewide. One
hundred thirty-five Californians have qualified to run for governor.
It isn't hard to imagine a winner with a laughable 10 percent
"mandate." Hypothetically, a candidate could win with less than 1
percent. The door is wide open for a small but dedicated faction to
invade the governor's office while advocating just about anything.
Imagine a headline such as "New governor demands secession from
union!" As wild as it sounds, it could happen in an election where
any plurality will do. The obvious solution is to hold a runoff so
the public can eliminate all unacceptable candidates. Unfortunately,
most people think that runoffs are not practical because of the time
and costs for multiple election days. But a few Bay Area
communities have realized that runoffs don't have to be so
impractical. A major breakthrough came last year when San Francisco
passed Proposition A and accepted instant runoff voting for city
elections. IRV is an efficient system that produces a clear winner
with a true majority. The process is fast and simple for voters and
can save an election department millions of dollars normally spent
on runoffs. Under IRV, voters simply rank their top few choices
instead of choosing only one. Just like the current system, whoever
gets the majority of first place votes is the winner. If no
candidate gets at least 50 percent of the first-place votes,
however, the last place candidate is eliminated and the ballots are
awarded to the premarked second choices. The process repeats until a
real winner can be declared with a real majority. This is the exact
same idea as a regular runoff, but it saves a staggering amount of
time and money. IRV is already working across the country and
around the world. New York City uses IRV to elect community school
boards, as do many areas in Vermont. Australia's House of
Representatives, Ireland's president and London's mayor are all
elected with IRV. Endorsements for the system range across the
political spectrum, from former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean to U.S.
Sen. John McCain. In San Francisco, IRV was endorsed by a host of
parties: Democratic, Green, Reform, Labor and Libertarian. The
American Political Science Association uses IRV to elect its
officers and they should know a little bit about elections. IRV
could solve another big headache for California after the recall.
Depending on who emerges as governor, some political leaders have
already threatened to file another recall against a new governor.
The main reason cited is that no candidate will be able to get a
majority. IRV would solve that problem by narrowing the field and
presenting a clear winner. California isn't the only state that
could use IRV. In New Mexico, IRV might unite a liberal majority
that is divided between Democrats and Greens. Likewise in Alaska,
the conservative vote could be softened by the undeclared and
nonpartisan voters (more than 225,000 registered) who outweigh the
Republicans and Democrats combined (less than 190,000 registered).
And who can forget the 2000 presidential election in Florida? Ralph
Nader took just enough votes from Al Gore to give George W. Bush all
27 electoral votes despite a narrow 48.8 percent plurality. With
IRV, Gore might have won by a large enough margin to eliminate the
recount debacle. Back in California, IRV will keep us from using
one problem to hide from another. Many have defended Davis by
arguing that a recall would produce a governor with only a fraction
of the vote. This type of argument is based on problems with the
system. It has nothing to do with Davis' merits as governor. IRV
will give us more options while allowing us to focus on real issues.
Adam Rose (adamrose@usc.edu) is a student in
the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of
Southern California and an editorial associate at
Fightback.com
. |
