|
Important Lessons
Learned
for IRV Advocates in Alaska
By Rob
Richie
The following was written by
the Center's executive director for reformers who were closely
following the Alaska campaign.
In the wake of a big win for instant runoff
voting (IRV) in San Francisco this spring, fair election advocates
had a remarkable chance this summer to advance the growing movement
for IRV. On August 27, Alaska became the first state in the nation
to vote on implementing IRV for president and nearly all of their
other major state and federal elections. Parties from across the
spectrum backed the change, including Republicans, Greens,
Libertarians, Republican Moderates and the Alaska Independence
Party. A win, coupled with the news that Sen. John McCain supported
the measure, likely would have accelerated the progress of IRV
toward becoming a major political story this fall and beyond. The
campaign fell short, however, with 36% of the vote, a result that
caught some advocates by surprise. Ten days out from the election,
the Yes campaign was ahead among likely voters, and in those 10 days
supporters called some 10,000 likely voters in live calls, initiated
tens of thousands of pre-recorded phone calls from respected
Alaskans, sent targeted mailings in the state's biggest cities and
most competitive legislative districts, bought television and radio
ads and won the endorsement of one of the state's three biggest
newspapers in Juneau. The opposition spent significant money and its
concerns were widely covered in the media, but advocates believed
they were running a better, more energetic campaign. So why did the
measure lose and what does it mean for future efforts? While too
soon to say anything definitive, there still are important lessons.
First and foremost, IRV can definitely be won in the United States
-- as evidenced by this spring's San Francisco win in the face of
opposition spending by downtown business of more than $100,000 and
by the near-sweep of Vermont town meetings on an advisory question
about using IRV for statewide elections. But it is important to pick
targets wisely and build the case for change effectively when
seeking something as significant as adopting IRV for president. The
opportunity for a win in Alaska was predicated on two factors.
First, the state has a high number of independents, with fewer than
half of voters registered in a party, and the Alaska Independence
Party had won the governor's race in 1990. Second, in addition to
IRV having the support of all small parties, the state's biggest
party was on board. Republican Party activists understood that they
had lost major races due to the non-Democratic vote being split, and
party leaders played a major role in collecting signatures to put
the initiative on the ballot two years ago and supporting it this
year. But ultimately this was not enough, especially in a
low-turnout primary electorate disproportionately dominated by
supporters of the two major parties. One basic problem was that most
Alaskans did not understand the flaws of plurality elections -- how
they smother independent candidacies and deny majority rule. There
was a small core of committed advocates, but not the kind of
grassroots network that could regularly generate letters to papers,
talk with neighbors and make presentations to civic groups. The
campaign did not go into high gear into just three weeks out from
the election, and half as much money ultimately was spent as in San
Francisco. In a critically important development, the Alaska League
of Women Voters came out against IRV, writing the official argument
against the measure in the voters' guide and writing letters and
commentaries in papers around the state -- a significant blow, as
the League commands respect. Several state Leagues have endorsed
IRV, but the Alaska League chose to take its position without a
formal study. Regardless, its opposition definitely hurt with swing
voters, and was an indicator that the non-partisan case for
reforming current rules was not well-understood. Without wide
acceptance or a problem to be solved, opponents of IRV could attack
the measure from a range of angles that likely stripped off
potential supporters for different reasons. Republicans were not
united, as many elected Republicans weren't sure what the change
would mean for their own elections and some party activists weren't
convinced that split votes would hurt the party in future elections.
Too many of the state's many independent voters did not understand
that IRV would restore choices in elections that many believe had
been taken away with the recent elimination of the blanket primary
system (a system in which voters had received one ballot, and could
vote in any party's primary for any given office rather than have to
take just one party's ballot) --this problem was exacerbated by a
ballot question that implied a Yes vote was an endorsement of the
elimination of the blanket primary system and by the fact that the
pro-IRV Republican party had taken the lead in eliminating the
blanket primary. Many Democrats and liberals saw Republican support
for IRV as a sign that they should fear it and likely voted heavily
against IRV. And without any experience of IRV being used in Alaska,
all voters were susceptible to opponents' demagoguery about IRV
being "too confusing," potentially costly to implement and too much,
too soon. Looking to the future, state reformers are now eying
Fairbanks and Anchorage, where there is debate about eliminating
current runoff laws -- IRV would be a reasonable alternative. Indeed
wins for IRV will become easier the more it is used in the United
States -- in local elections, in state elections where the case is
most powerful and in elections within organizations, on campuses and
for identifying favorite athletes, movies and flavors of ice cream.
Reformers who want to adopt IRV would do well to start with a
rigorous assessment of opportunities and pick targets where there is
a convincing case against the status quo. If traditional delayed
runoff elections are used for any public elections, for example,
they provide an easy target, as IRV saves public money in running
elections, acts as campaign finance reform for candidates having to
run one fewer election and boosts turnout which so often drops in
runoffs. Certainly if advocates are part of any organization in
which votes are held, they should suggest using IRV when are more
than two choices. Our Center's website provides a full range of
suggestions and resources for activists. |
