Problems
with American elections run deeper than shoddy voting equipment and
inadequate election administration. For instance, there is the
problem of our top leaders winning with less than a majority of the
popular vote.
The last two California governors, including Arnold
Schwarzenegger, won their elections without support from a popular
majority. In Massachusetts, the Democratic primary for governor was
won by a candidate with a mere third of the vote. Since 1990, most
states have had governors who won elections with less than 50
percent of the popular vote. And of course, Bill Clinton and George
W. Bush both won their initial presidential elections with less than
a majority of the popular vote.
And then there's the problem of filling vacancies through special
elections. With the death of longtime Congressman Bob Matsui,
California must now hold a special election in May. Special
elections are notorious for low voter turnout, and by law if no
candidate wins a majority in a congressional special election, a
runoff election is required to fill the vacancy, an additional
expense for taxpayers. The city of Oakland, Calif., will also soon
hold a special election to fill a vacancy on its city council. But
they don't use a runoff, and in their last special election, the
winner had 33 percent of the vote. In Massachusetts, three special
elections soon will be used to fill vacancies, including the seat of
former Speaker of the state House Thomas Finneran.
Fortunately there's a solution to both problems of winning
without a majority or needing a runoff election to ensure a majority
winner. It's called instant runoff voting. IRV elects a majority
winner in one election by simulating a series of traditional
runoffs. Voters rank candidates in order of choice: first, second,
third, and so on. If no candidate wins a majority of first choices,
voter rankings are used to determine which candidate has support
from a popular majority. If your first choice gets eliminated from
the "instant runoff," your vote counts for your
second-ranked candidate - the one you'd support if forced to come
back to the polls.
In last November's election, San Francisco used instant runoff
voting for local races. Two exit polls showed that city voters liked
their new system and found it easy to use, including the city's many
non-English speaking minorities. Previously, San Francisco decided
majority winners in December runoffs. Citywide runoffs cost on
average about $3 million, and voter turnout plummeted by as much as
40 percent in recent years. Candidates also had to raise more money
for the runoff, and independent expenditures tended to soar.
But with IRV, San Francisco taxpayers are saving millions of
dollars. The city also is electing winners when voter turnout is at
its peak in November, and reducing the costs of campaigns. Other
cities or states electing leaders in multiple elections (including a
primary-general election cycle) could see similar gains by adopting
IRV.
The use of IRV has national implications as well. Think back to
the 2000 presidential election. If the nearly 100,000 Ralph Nader
voters in Florida could have ranked a second candidate as their
runoff choice, many probably would have chosen Al Gore and boosted
him to the presidency. Similarly, Republicans could have responded
to Ross Perot's candidacies in 1992 and 1996 by trying to get second
choices from Perot voters, enhancing their chances against Bill
Clinton.
IRV is the fairest way to deal with the spoiler controversy that
produces non-majority winners. It allows independent and third-party
candidates to run and raise important issues that major-party
candidates have decided to avoid in this era of poll-tested sound
bites and bland appeals to swing voters. Voters are free to cast
their ballots knowing that, even if their first choice can't win,
their vote can go to a front-runner as their second or third choice.
IRV also offers something for those tired of polarized politics
and mudslinging campaigns. It discourages negative campaigns because
winners may need to attract the second or third rankings from the
supporters of rival candidates. In San Francisco's IRV elections, we
saw a noticeable rise in positive, issue-based campaigning and
coalition-building in many races. In fact, a New York Times article
was headlined: "New Runoff System in San Francisco Has the
Rival Candidates Cooperating."
Legislative bills for instant runoffs were introduced in 22
states in the past two years, with states poised for real action in
2005.
The topic has drawn bipartisan support from Republicans such as
Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democrats such as Howard Dean, the
new chairman of the Democratic National Party and former Vermont
governor. Ballot measures supporting IRV passed by 2-to-1 margins in
all three cities where it was on the ballot in 2004: Ferndale,
Mich.; Burlington, Vt.; and Berkeley, Calif. Places like Australia
and Ireland already have been using instant runoffs for decades to
elect their highest offices.
California often has started national trends, from hula hoops to
property-tax revolts. Instant runoff voting could be next - an
upgrading of our democratic methods that better accommodates the
reality of American politics today.
Steven Hill is Irvine Senior Fellow with the New American
Foundation and author of 'Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's
Winner Take All Politics.' Rob Richie is executive director of
FairVote, the Center for Voting and Democracy.