By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
Published March 29th 2003 in The Progressive Populist
Spurred by third party threats to incumbents and by a desire toavoid
expensive runoff contests, instant runoff voting (IRV)has moved to the
top of major parties' reform agenda in severalstates. At the same time,
a growing number of social change activists are coming to support IRV
as
a means to bring new ideas and energy into electoral politics. IRV is a
perfect "win-win" solution for those who want to work within the major
parties and those who want to challenge them as independentsor third
parties.
IRV ensures winners have more than half the votes. It simulates a series of traditional "delayed" runoff elections, but in a single round of voting that corrects the flaws of delayed runoffs and plurality voting. At the polls, people vote for theirfavorite candidate, then indicate their "runoff" choices byranking candidates first, second, third and so on.
If a candidate receives more than half of first choices, she orhe wins. If not, the candidates with the fewest votes are eliminated, and a runoff count occurs. Each ballot counts for the top-ranked remaining candidate. Not only are eliminated candidates no longer a "spoiler" because that candidate's supporters can have their vote count for their runoff choice, but those candidates in fact may inspire greater voter participation and boost the chances of the major candidate who would be helped that greater participation.
States have the power to immediately implement IRV for all federal elections, including the presidential race. Momentum to do just that in Vermont has grown to almost a fever pitch, with support from ex-governor Howard Dean, civic groups like the League of Women Voters, Grange and AFL-CIO and a grassroots surge that swept through more than 50 town meeting votes last year. The media is full of stories on the effort to pass it this year.
In Maine, the leaders of both the senate and house have sponsored IRV legislation, with the senate president declared she wants it in place by 2004. With a nascent Green Party boosted by Maine's public financing of elections, Democrats are worried about losing control of the Senate due to split votes with third party candidates. The organizations which led the effort to pass clean elections in 1996 are now spearheading the IRV effort, seeing it as a natural complement to the increase in candidacies promoted by public financing.
In Massachusetts, another clean elections state, grassroots activists have joined with statewide organizations like CommonCause, Commonwealth Coalition and Mass Vote to push IRV. They organized a one day conference in Boston that turned out a packed audience despite a blizzard raging outside. Last fall FairVote Massachusetts sponsored two non-binding referendums in the Amherst/Northampton area, polling local
voters about their support for IRV. Both of those referendums passed with over 70 percent of the vote. Currently, activists are working with Democratic legislators who have introduced three IRV-related legislative bills.
Other statewide IRV efforts include: Utah, where the Republican Party's use of IRV to nominate Members of Congress at conventions has sparked interest in its use in more elections; Hawaii, which had a hearing on IRV legislation on February 10; California, where reformers expect to see at least one bill introduced; Washington, where IRV bills have the support of four out of six of the Democratic Party caucus leadership; Florida, where state senate leaders want to consider IRV as an alternative to traditional runoff elections that cost the state millions; and New Mexico, where state senate leader Richard Romero has introduced IRV legislation. In the wake of the growth of Jesse Ventura's party in Minnesota and the Green Party threat to the Paul Wellstone candidacy, IRV has drawn endorsements from the state's governor and the
Minneapolis Star Tribune.
To advance IRV, cities are good targets for IRV campaigns. San Francisco achieved a major victory in March 2002 when its voters passed IRV for most major local races despite morethan $100,000 spent by downtown business interests that were worried IRV would strengthen the city's progressive majority.The first IRV election for mayor and other offices will be in November 2003, a tremendous watershed in the history of voting system reform. Charter commissions in Austin (TX), Kalamazoo (MI) and Albuquerque (NM) have recommended using IRV, and voters in Santa Clara, San Leandro, and Oakland (all in California), and Vancouver (WA) have approved ballot measures to make IRV an explicit option in their charters.
IRV is a reform that students can work for directly as well. Inan exciting new movement, students in a number of majorcolleges have adopted IRV for student government elections.Duke, University of Maryland, University of Illinois, Vassar,UC-Davis and Whitman have all recently adopted IRV, with more on the brink of success. Universities using IRV for years include Caltech, Harvard, Princeton, Rice and Stanford.
To achieve truly fair representation for legislative elections, full representation remains the Holy Grail. But IRV is the quickest way to eliminate the spoiler dynamic that suppresses candidacies -- and the debate and participation they could generate. If progressives learn one lesson from Election 2000, let it be that all of our elections should be conducted under fairer rules. Real democracy needs a rainbow of choices, not the dull gray that results in one of the lowest voter turnouts in the democratic world.
IRV ensures winners have more than half the votes. It simulates a series of traditional "delayed" runoff elections, but in a single round of voting that corrects the flaws of delayed runoffs and plurality voting. At the polls, people vote for theirfavorite candidate, then indicate their "runoff" choices byranking candidates first, second, third and so on.
If a candidate receives more than half of first choices, she orhe wins. If not, the candidates with the fewest votes are eliminated, and a runoff count occurs. Each ballot counts for the top-ranked remaining candidate. Not only are eliminated candidates no longer a "spoiler" because that candidate's supporters can have their vote count for their runoff choice, but those candidates in fact may inspire greater voter participation and boost the chances of the major candidate who would be helped that greater participation.
States have the power to immediately implement IRV for all federal elections, including the presidential race. Momentum to do just that in Vermont has grown to almost a fever pitch, with support from ex-governor Howard Dean, civic groups like the League of Women Voters, Grange and AFL-CIO and a grassroots surge that swept through more than 50 town meeting votes last year. The media is full of stories on the effort to pass it this year.
In Maine, the leaders of both the senate and house have sponsored IRV legislation, with the senate president declared she wants it in place by 2004. With a nascent Green Party boosted by Maine's public financing of elections, Democrats are worried about losing control of the Senate due to split votes with third party candidates. The organizations which led the effort to pass clean elections in 1996 are now spearheading the IRV effort, seeing it as a natural complement to the increase in candidacies promoted by public financing.
In Massachusetts, another clean elections state, grassroots activists have joined with statewide organizations like CommonCause, Commonwealth Coalition and Mass Vote to push IRV. They organized a one day conference in Boston that turned out a packed audience despite a blizzard raging outside. Last fall FairVote Massachusetts sponsored two non-binding referendums in the Amherst/Northampton area, polling local
voters about their support for IRV. Both of those referendums passed with over 70 percent of the vote. Currently, activists are working with Democratic legislators who have introduced three IRV-related legislative bills.
Other statewide IRV efforts include: Utah, where the Republican Party's use of IRV to nominate Members of Congress at conventions has sparked interest in its use in more elections; Hawaii, which had a hearing on IRV legislation on February 10; California, where reformers expect to see at least one bill introduced; Washington, where IRV bills have the support of four out of six of the Democratic Party caucus leadership; Florida, where state senate leaders want to consider IRV as an alternative to traditional runoff elections that cost the state millions; and New Mexico, where state senate leader Richard Romero has introduced IRV legislation. In the wake of the growth of Jesse Ventura's party in Minnesota and the Green Party threat to the Paul Wellstone candidacy, IRV has drawn endorsements from the state's governor and the
Minneapolis Star Tribune.
To advance IRV, cities are good targets for IRV campaigns. San Francisco achieved a major victory in March 2002 when its voters passed IRV for most major local races despite morethan $100,000 spent by downtown business interests that were worried IRV would strengthen the city's progressive majority.The first IRV election for mayor and other offices will be in November 2003, a tremendous watershed in the history of voting system reform. Charter commissions in Austin (TX), Kalamazoo (MI) and Albuquerque (NM) have recommended using IRV, and voters in Santa Clara, San Leandro, and Oakland (all in California), and Vancouver (WA) have approved ballot measures to make IRV an explicit option in their charters.
IRV is a reform that students can work for directly as well. Inan exciting new movement, students in a number of majorcolleges have adopted IRV for student government elections.Duke, University of Maryland, University of Illinois, Vassar,UC-Davis and Whitman have all recently adopted IRV, with more on the brink of success. Universities using IRV for years include Caltech, Harvard, Princeton, Rice and Stanford.
To achieve truly fair representation for legislative elections, full representation remains the Holy Grail. But IRV is the quickest way to eliminate the spoiler dynamic that suppresses candidacies -- and the debate and participation they could generate. If progressives learn one lesson from Election 2000, let it be that all of our elections should be conducted under fairer rules. Real democracy needs a rainbow of choices, not the dull gray that results in one of the lowest voter turnouts in the democratic world.
