circle_small.gif (2760 bytes)
library
whats_new
online_library
order materials
get_involved
links
about_us

library

National Civic Review

Instant Runoffs: A Cheaper, Fairer, Better Way to Conduct Elections

By Rob Richie and Caleb Kleppner, Center for Voting and Democracy, and Terrill Bouricius, Vermont state legislator

Introduction

In 1997, Democrats in New York City faced an uphill challenge in seeking to oust incumbent mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Their leading contender, Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger, finished a clear first in the September primary, but fell short of a popular majority. The open question was whether she won less than 40% of the vote, which would trigger a citywide runoff election against Rev. Al Sharpton, the second-place finisher.

Messinger's vote total was so close to 40% that delays in tabulating ballots forced the city and the candidates to prepare for the possible runoff. The city spent some $2 million, while Messinger was delayed in turning her attention to uniting Democrats for the general election. She ultimately avoided the runoff, but the uncertainty contributed to her general election defeat, in which voter turnout among black voters -- Sharpton's political base -- was particularly low.

Meanwhile, in San Leandro (Calif.), Sheila Young in 1996 won a four-person city council race with only 39% of the vote, far less than a majority. Two years later, also in a one-round, non-partisan election, she was elected mayor with 44%, again less than a majority. In the same election, Glenda Nardine won a city council seat with 37%. These and other plurality wins led to calls for a majority requirement with a second-round runoff. The idea of runoffs, however, prompted concern about making taxpayers pay for and participate in two elections. Skeptics also pointed to remarkably long campaign season associated with many local runoff elections in California. In 2000, many jurisdictions will have the first round election in early March and a runoff fully eight months later if no candidate wins a majority.

Despite the political costs created by the runoff law in its 1997 mayoral primary, New York City Democrats have good reason to ensure nominees can obtain a reasonable threshold of support -- a primary winner with less than 25%, as happened in a key congressional race in 1998, might well be a weak standard-bearer. In San Leandro, opponents of runoffs have reason to be wary of the downsides of two-round runoff elections.

Fortunately, there is a simple reform that resolves these dilemmas and promises to improve political participation, representation and governance. Instant runoff voting lowers the campaign costs for candidates, saves taxpayers money, boosts voter turnout, reduces negative campaigning and ensures majority rule. Because of these advantages, voters in Vancouver (Wash.) and Santa Clara County (Calif.) recently passed charter amendments to allow the use of instant runoffs. Legislation to enact the instant runoff is under consideration in a rapidly growing number of states and cities.

The Return of the Voter?

Many Americans bemoan low voter turnout, especially in local elections. It is disturbing enough that most eligible Americans abstained from voting in the 1996 presidential election, and turnout in local elections is usually much lower. Turnout among registered voters fell well below 10% in major Texas cities like Dallas and El Paso in May 1999 mayoral elections.

No single reform will bring most non-voters back to the polls, but certainly we must address their frustration and growing cynicism with campaigns that too often skirt issues and devolve into personal attacks. Attitudes such as, �All elected officials are liars� and �What�s the point of voting?� are disturbingly common today.

Reformers propose many remedies to low turnout: same-day voter registration, vote-by-mail, internet voting, weekend or holiday voting, increased access for candidates to the media, spending and contribution limits, public financing of campaigns, codes of conduct for candidates, tax credits for voting and compulsory voting. At least some of these proposals deserve consideration, but none address an important underlying cause of our dwindling participation: the voting system.

By "voting system", we mean the method of translating votes for candidates into winners. Most American elections use a plurality voting system. This means that the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the candidate receives less than a majority (50% plus one) of votes cast. Another widely used voting system, particularly in party primaries and municipal government, is the two-round runoff. In a runoff election, the two highest vote-getters advance to a second round runoff if no candidate receives a majority (or established threshold, such as 40%) in the first round.

Plurality voting systems and runoff elections both contribute to such problems as costly elections, low voter turnout, negative campaigning and simplistic debate. The instant runoff is gaining support across the country because it addresses such problems and complements other proposed reforms.

Defects in Plurality Voting

When the United States was founded, there was little experience with alternative voting methods. The only recognized alternative to plurality voting's failure to ensure majority rule was holding repeated elections, in hopes that a natural culling of candidates or modification of voter sentiments would lead to a majority winner.

Eventually most states settled on one of the two available pragmatic "solutions" -- one-round elections with plurality rules, often combined with laws making it difficult for candidates to gain access to the ballot, or two-round elections with a runoff between the two top vote-getters.

That we already use more than one voting system suggests that no system is perfect. In fact, economist Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize for proving that there can never be a perfect voting system -- they all inevitably have a weakness, and not all jurisdictions have the same goals for elections. The instant runoff is gaining support because it fixes important defects in our most popular voting systems - plurality elections and two-round runoff elections.

Plurality voting suffers from three principle defects:

It does not provide for majority rule, allowing candidates to win with a narrow band of support.

It can create opportunities for "spoiler" candidacies.

It promotes negative campaigning.

Violates majority rule: By definition, a candidate in a plurality election can be elected with less than a majority of the vote. As a result, it is quite possible that most voters dislike the winner who "represents" them. At the very least, minority-vote winners have a weaker mandate to govern.

In the 1992 presidential election, for example, the winner of all the electoral votes in 49 out of 50 states was opposed by a majority of that state's voters. George Bush failed to win a majority of the popular vote in any state, while Bill Clinton only won a majority in Arkansas. Senate Republicans pointed to Clinton's 43% of the popular vote as a rationale for their frequent filibusters with 43% of Senate seats.

In fact, more than a fifth of our current governors have been elected by a plurality vote in one of their primaries or general elections, including several who won with less than 40%. In 1997, Jim Baca was elected mayor of Albuquerque (New Mexico) with 29% -- meaning 71% of voters supported a different candidate.

An observer of one-round, non-partisan elections for the troubled Washington, D.C. school board noted that some winners simply have found the angriest group in their district, pitched their message to them and won with some 25% to 35% of the vote -- barely even acknowledging the vast majority of their future constituents in their campaign. If winning instead required 50%, a successful candidate would have to reach out and win the support of more constituencies -- a particularly valuable demand in racially and ethnically diverse districts.

Winning office with less than majority support is not necessarily wrong for all elections -- to elect legislative bodies, we support proportional representation, which ensures both fair representation to the majority and the minority -- but it is unjust for elections where the majority can lose the right to decide, let alone be completely shut out.

Permits "spoiler" candidacies: Plurality elections also suffer from the �spoiler� phenomenon in races with more than two candidates. Someone with no chance of getting elected can gain enough votes to swing the race between the two leading candidates.

By gaining the power to determine the winner, unscrupulous candidates can gain leverage over major candidates. At the same time, many minor candidates genuinely seek to raise important issues. Their supporters must make a tough decision: to vote for their favorite candidate, knowing that the candidate won�t win and might even throw the race to the supporters� least preferred candidate, or to settle on a less preferred candidate who has a chance to win. In other words, voters must accurately judge not only which candidate they prefer, but whether that candidate has a chance of winning.

This need for calculation illustrates a profoundly undemocratic feature of an outwardly democratic and simple system. Yes, it is simple for everyone to cast one vote, and have the candidate with the most votes win. But it is hardly simple or democratic for some worthy candidates to have a disincentive to participate and for their supporters to have a disincentive to vote for them. With the rise in support for third party and independent candidates today and with bigger fields in many non-partisan elections, plurality voting's anti-participation bias is an increasing problem.

Promotes negative campaigning: Plurality elections lead to negative campaigns that, with ever-increasing sophistication about how to win office in today's multi-media world, drive far more voters away from politics than bring them to it. Knowing that voters will ignore minor candidates because they can't win, the two leading candidates can focus their attention on each other. Turning a voter away from an opponent is just as effective -- and often considerably easier and cheaper -- than persuading an undecided voter to support you. Plurality voting creates direct incentives for negative campaigning and personal attacks; candidates generally will only eschew negative campaigning if they think they can win without it.

Defects in Two-Round Runoffs

Two-round runoff elections were developed in response to non-majority victories in plurality voting. In addition, they allow voters to scrutinize the final two candidates more thoroughly during the period between the two rounds of election. Runoffs first came into wide use at the turn of the century, with the advent of party primaries, because primary elections in races without an incumbent frequently had more than just two candidates vying for a particular office. Seventeen states have used runoffs in federal primaries at some time. A dozen states, mostly in the south, use runoffs today for primaries.

Runoffs also are frequently used in non-partisan elections because, like primaries, they tend to draw more than two candidates. A 1986 survey of American cities with populations above 25,000 revealed that most of the 946 cities contacted had a runoff provision.

Although successful in guaranteeing that winners receive a majority of the second round vote, runoff elections create new problems and fail to correct all of plurality voting's defects. Problems with runoff elections include:

Candidates must raise money for a second campaign, often with little time to raise funds.

  Taxpayers must pay for administration of two elections.

  Voter turnout can be significantly lower in one election round because voters must pay attention to two campaigns and go to the polls twice.

  Runoffs do not correct plurality voting's defects; they still can thwart majority rule, create opportunities for �spoiler� candidacies and promote negative campaigning.

Exacerbates problems with money in politics: Campaign costs at all levels of election continue to mount. Runoffs create a particular burden for candidates, who usually have to raise money for a runoff election on a very short timeline. Candidates in the first round often spend nearly all their campaign funds in seeking to avoid a runoff or to fight their way into one. They then can have as little as two weeks to mount a second campaign.

Runoff elections thus increase opportunities for donors and potential donors to influence candidates. At the same time, many campaign contributors grow weary of the increased demands created by runoffs.

Adds costs to taxpayers: Elections are not cheap. Setting up polling places, training and paying poll workers, printing ballots and voter guides and counting ballots all cost tax dollars. Election administration typically costs $1-to-$2 per resident and can cost much more in small and special elections. A citywide election in San Francisco costs some $1 million. The next runoff in New York City, likely to occur in the 2001 citywide elections, may cost more than $10 million.

In addition, more jurisdictions are having trouble finding pollworkers. Doubling their burden with runoffs makes this task all the harder. In 1996 in Texas, some jurisdictions had to open polls eight times: for city elections with runoffs, for federal primaries with runoffs, for school board elections with runoffs and for three U.S. House elections that required general election runoffs.

Discrepancies in voter turnout : Voter turnout often varies widely between the two elections, particularly when either the first or second round coincides with elections that draw more interest. In the 1992 U.S. Senate race in Georgia, for example, incumbent Wyche Fowler won 1,108,416 votes in the November election, but fell just short of a majority. In the December runoff, without the draw of the presidential race, Paul Coverdell beat Fowler with 635,114 votes -- a majority of the runoff vote, but nearly half a million votes fewer than Fowler's vote total a month before.

In California, many jurisdictions will have a first-round in March 2000, when turnout likely will be relatively low. A top finisher with 49.9% will have eight more months of campaigning and face a runoff in the November election with much higher turnout. A candidate with 50.1% in the March round will be elected, although must wait nearly a year to take office.

In both cases, a decisive election can take place when far fewer voters participate than when the decisive election might have occurred. The whole concept of runoffs producing majority rule is brought into question by such contradictions.

Finally, the more times that citizens are asked to vote, the less likely they are to vote in any given election. Many political scientists attribute low voter turnout in the United States to our unusually high number of elections. Runoffs only increase that burden.

Fails to correct plurality voting's defects: At the same time, runoff elections fail to correct any of plurality voting's major defects. Runoffs still can thwart majority rule, create opportunities for �spoiler� candidacies and promote negative campaigning.

Voter turnout discrepancies raise serious questions about majority rule when a candidate can win in the second round with far fewer votes than the loser won in the first round. Furthermore, if there are several candidates and no clear frontrunner -- as is often the case when no incumbent is running -- the combined vote total of the two candidates who advance to the runoff can be less than a majority of the first-round vote. In Salt Lake City's mayoral race in 1999, the two candidates making the runoff gained only 42% of the first-round vote -- the second-place finisher made the runoff with 19.5%, while the third and fourth place finishers were eliminated with 19.4% and 18%, respectively. Runoff participants had a combined vote under 50% in two of five city council races in Vancouver, Washington in 1999 -- results which contributed to the city's passage of an amendment authorizing instant runoffs in November.

Runoff elections also still can suffer from �spoilers.� There are no spoilers in the head-to-head runoff election, but in the first round, voters still must decide whether to support their favorite candidate or a candidate with a better chance of getting into the runoff.

Finally, just as with plurality elections, runoff elections promote negative campaigning, particularly in the runoff itself. In a head-to-head runoff, campaigning can become extremely negative because it is a zero-sum game -- "I win when you lose." In a statewide runoff in Louisiana in November 1999 for insurance commissioner, the incumbent overcame a recent indictment with a slashing attack against his opponent's integrity; only 27% of registered voters ultimately participated in the runoff. Having more than two candidates can moderate negative campaigning in the first round, at least, but it still is an "all-or-nothing" vote. Candidates know that they won't benefit from reaching out to voters who are sure to support other candidates.

How the Instant Runoff Works

The instant runoff corrects the defects found in plurality and runoff elections. Although new to many Americans, it is recommended by Robert's Rules of Order and is a proven system that has been used for more than a century in this country and elsewhere.

The instant runoff works much like a traditional runoff, but with significant improvements. In a traditional runoff, each voter casts one vote in the first round. If a candidate gains a majority, that candidate wins. If not, the top two candidates advance to the second round. In that second round, those who voted for one of the advancing candidates in the first round likely will continue to support that candidate, but the remaining voters must choose between the two advancing candidates.

The instant runoff simulates a traditional runoff exactly, with the added refinement of eliminating only one candidate at a time rather than all but the top two candidates. (As detailed in Robert's Rules of Order, this gradual elimination avoids the problem of the top two candidates having less than a majority of the first-round vote.) The instant runoff can occur in a single election because its inventor had a simple realization: that voters can indicate which candidate they would support in a runoff without having to return to the polls.

Rather than vote for just one person, then, voters in the instant runoff can rank candidates in order of choice: a first choice for their favorite candidate, a second choice for their next favorite and so on. Ranking candidates indicates which candidates voters would support if their top choice were defeated. Doing so is literally as easy as "1, 2, 3," and voters have shown a quick capacity to use the instant runoff wherever it has been adopted.

Ballots are counted like a series of runoffs. If a candidate wins a majority of first choices, that candidate wins. If there is no initial majority winner, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and a second round of counting takes place. In each round, ballots count as one vote for the top-ranked candidate who has not been eliminated. In other words, your vote counts for your first choice candidate as long as that candidate remains in the running. If your first choice candidate is eliminated, then your vote counts for your next-choice candidate, and so on. The election is over when one candidate wins by gaining a majority of votes.

Ranking more than one candidate is optional. Voters set in their ways or unfamiliar with more than one candidate are free to vote for a single candidate just as they do in plurality voting. In fact, most voters usually will rank a candidate first who is among the final two candidates, meaning that their ballot will count for their top choice throughout the ballot-count.

Even so, a voter has every incentive to rank more than one candidate because ranking additional candidates never harms a voter's top-ranked candidate. If there is any chance that a voter's top choice candidate will be eliminated in the course of the count and if that voter has any preference among the remaining candidates, that voter should rank his or her next favorite candidate -- just as they might still return to the polls for the second round of a runoff election after their preferred choice lost in the first round. Ranking other candidates increases the electoral chances of voters' next-choice candidates in case their first choice loses.

Note that voters usually are allowed to rank all candidates in a race, but to simplify ballot design and ease the administration of the election, the number of permitted rankings can be limited with minimal impact on the performance of the system.


How Instant Runoffs Fix the Defects of Plurality and Runoff Elections

The instant runoff addresses each of the defects found in plurality voting and traditional runoffs. In contrast to two-round runoffs, the instant runoff only requires one election to produce a majority winner. Doing so cuts the cost of campaigns nearly in half and saves taxpayers the cost of administering a second election. By scheduling the election when voter turnout is highest or when other state or local elections take place, turnout is maximized for the decisive election.

In contrast to plurality voting, the instant runoff provides that winners have majority support and eliminates fears of "spoiling." Even if a majority of voters split votes between two or more candidates, the candidate with the most overall support will win in an instant runoff.

Eliminating fears of "spoiling" and maximizing the number of people who influence the outcome of elections could significantly improve our electoral process.

Voters would probably have more choices, but more importantly, they would be more likely to like their choices on election day.

  With the need for winners to appeal to other candidates' supporters, there would likely be more acknowledgment of other people's concerns, more coalition-building and more positive, issue-oriented campaigns.

  Opportunities for good governance would increase. Winners would take office after more inclusive, positive campaigns. They also would often have a clearer mandate due to receiving majority support and learning more about the issue priorities of supporters. Such a mandate could establish greater accountability.

The combination of better choices, less money in politics, clearer mandates and less negative campaigning could lead to higher voter turnout and increased overall participation in politics.

Why Aren't Instant Runoffs More Widely Used?

The instant runoff in fact is widely used. For decades, millions of people in Australia and the Republic of Ireland have used instant runoffs for their most important elections, and Malta has used a similar candidate-ranking system in multi-seat districts. Instructively, Malta and Australia have had the highest voter turnout in the word in the 1990's.

More nations are moving to the instant runoff. It was used in Fiji for parliamentary elections this year and recently was adopted for Bosnia's next presidential election; in both cases, promoting coalitions among ethnic groups was seen as crucial. The instant runoff also will be used in London's first-ever election for mayor in May 2000 because of interest in producing a majority winner in one election.

In the United States, the American Political Science Association is among many private American organizations using the instant runoff. No governmental jurisdictions currently use it, but it has been used in the past. Starting in 1912, four states -- Florida, Indiana, Maryland and Minnesota -- adopted versions of the instant runoff for some party primaries. Seven other states used another candidate-ranking system known as "the Bucklin system" for important offices, including gubernatorial races. In Bucklin, voters ranked only two candidates. If the first-count did not produce a majority winner, all second-choice ballots were counted simultaneously. Bucklin was found to be defective as it sometimes resulted in a voter�s second-choice vote helping to defeat that voter�s first-choice. As a result, most voters learned to refrain from indicating second choices, which thwarted the goal of discovering which candidate was favored by a majority of voters.

By the 1930's all of these ranked-ballot systems had been eclipsed, generally by two-round runoffs that were seen as easier to administer. In the years since, some cities used the system, including Hopkins (Minn.) for mayoral elections and New York City for electing Staten Island's city councilor at the same time that the rest of the city used a proportional system also based on voters' ranking city council candidates.

The most recent use of the instant runoff was in Ann Arbor (Michigan) in its 1975 mayoral race. A third party, the Human Rights Party, had created lively, three-way elections that caused concerns about splintering the vote. After adopting the instant runoff in a 1974 initiative, it was used for the first time a few months later. The Democratic nominee, the city's first-ever black mayor, won a cliffhanger on the strength of being the second choice of nearly all supporters of the Human Rights Party candidate; he trailed the Republican incumbent 49% to 40% after the first count, but ultimately won a majority.

Republicans, who had benefitted from split liberal votes under plurality rules, sought to eliminate the system. A legal challenge failed as the U.S. Circuit Court upheld the constitutionality of instant runoffs, but a repeal succeeded in a low turnout special election in 1976. Although tinged with racial undertones, the repeal effort focused on the difficulty of counting ballots by hand -- and indeed there had been problems given the short time for election administrators to prepare.

Election administration almost certainly is the major reason why instant runoffs haven�t been more widely used in the United States. Most jurisdictions for years have used automatic voting equipment that was incompatible with instant runoffs. Only recently, in 1997, did Cambridge, Massachusetts become the first city to use modern ballot-scanning voting machines with the type of rank-order ballots used in instant runoff elections. Implementing instant runoffs in the past would have required jurisdictions to switch to counting ballots by hand, which few jurisdictions were willing to do. In contrast, nations like Ireland and Australia that use instant runoffs have always counted ballots by hand.

Plurality and runoff elections also generally escape scrutiny. Most people aren�t aware that alternative voting systems even exist; they rarely are taught in school, and few Americans follow the details of other nations' elections. Some might notice that winners of athletic awards are often elected by journalists who rank the contenders, but even these elections are misleading. They are weighted systems, where a first choice might mean five points, a second-choice four points and so on -- systems that in public elections would lead to most voters only ranking one candidate due to not wanting support for a lesser-preferred candidate to count against their top choice.

However, several developments are drawing attention to instant runoffs. Major candidates are getting knocked out more frequently by spoilers. Support for independent and third party candidates is growing. Money is playing an increasing role in politics. The downsides of costly, time-consuming runoffs are becoming better understood; in the past two years, voters in two American jurisdictions -- Santa Clara County (Calif.) and Vancouver (Wash.) -- have passed stand-alone charter amendments to permit replacement of two-round runoffs with instant runoffs.


Addressing Concerns

In spite of the instant runoff's obvious benefits, concerns are natural. Although recognizing that no voting system is perfect, most of these concerns are easily answered.

Instant runoffs are not too confusing: In November 1999, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors came close to putting the instant runoff on its March 2000 ballot. The proposal ultimately was sent back to committee for further study because of some supervisors' belief that the system was �too confusing.� (The postponement also was closely tied to the fact that at the same time the legislation was under consideration, the sponsor, Board president Tom Ammiano, was waging a write-in campaign for mayor against incumbent Willie Brown and winning a spot in a runoff election.)

The system in fact is simple for voters. They can choose to vote as they do now or rank some number of candidates in order of choice: 1, 2, 3. Voters in Australia and the Republic of Ireland, where turnout is far higher than in the United States, have used the system for decades. If the system isn�t too confusing for them, why should it be too confusing for Americans?

Indeed Americans have used rank-order systems in many parts of the country with little trouble. Recently, high school students in Vermont were surveyed about how they liked the system after participating in mock instant runoff elections. More than nine out of ten students said that instant runoffs were not too difficult. Only 1% said it might make them less likely to vote after they turn 18, while 46% said it would make them more inclined to vote. At the largest mock election, at St. Michael's College in 1998, 197 students voted in a mock instant runoff election without casting a single invalid ballot.

In the recent debate in San Francisco, some argued that voters are capable of casting equally-weighted votes on several candidates in an at-large election for six seats, but would be unable to rank-order more than one or two candidates. In fact, people make decisions through ranking choices all the time: in choosing what meal to order at a restaurant, what video to watch, what television program to watch and so on. In elections, most people in elections choose a candidate to support after an internal process of weighing and ordering candidates. They mentally divide candidates into �worth considering� and �not worth considering,� then further divide the candidates into serious contenders for their vote and long-shots, and finally settle on one, their top pick.

Consider asking a small child about her favorite ice cream. Chocolate, she might way. And what if there is no chocolate, you ask? Then she'll have strawberry. And if there's no strawberry, she'll settle with vanilla. The child just ranked three candidates: chocolate, strawberry, vanilla. That�s all there is to the instant runoff.

Finally, note that in plurality and runoff elections, some voters have to make complicated strategic decisions about whether to vote for their favorite candidate or for a candidate with a better chance of winning. In an instant runoff, voters are free from such calculations, which in turn makes voting decisions easier and more enjoyable.

Instant runoffs do not give extra votes to supporters of losing candidates: In the instant runoff, most voters typically only have their vote count for their first choice candidate because their candidate won't be eliminated before the field narrows to two. Given that other voters will have their second-choice or subsequent choices count, some allege that supporters of eliminated candidates get more votes than supporters of more popular candidates.

But of course every voter only has one vote count in any given round. Just as all voters get one vote in both rounds of a traditional runoff, everyone's ballot counts as one vote in each round of an instant runoff.

Some then rephrase the argument: only supporters of losing candidates get a chance to switch their vote to another choice. But surely these voters would rather their vote remain with their first choice than have to count for a lesser-preferred candidate. Just like in a traditional runoff, only supporters of losing candidates must switch their votes, while supporters of more popular candidates can continue to support their top choice.

Elimination of candidates in the count is not arbitrary: Some express concern that the process of eliminating candidates is arbitrary and can change the results. But eliminating candidates in order of their strength of support is a sensible standard consistent with our political traditions.

Of course most of the candidates who are eliminated during the course of an instant runoff are too weak to have any chance of winning the election. However, it is possible that a third-place finisher in a three-candidate race could be the second choice of most supporters of the other two candidates and thus could have been able to defeat either of the other two candidates in a hypothetical one-on-one race.

But such a candidate of course also would lose in a plurality election or a two-round runoff, and indeed such results occur in our system -- some believe that Ross Perot could have won the 1992 presidential race if matched against either George Bush or Bill Clinton. The only reason we would even know of such a possible result in an instant runoff election is because the system allows voters to provide more information about their preferences than possible in plurality voting or runoffs.

Every election system must reflect the priorities of its designers. Plurality elections put a high premium on strong core support. An alternative system might emphasize the importance of having the broadest possible support even if the support were so shallow that the candidate would be unable to ever win in a plurality election.

The instant runoff is a compromise between these positions. As with plurality voting and runoff elections, winners must have enough core support to avoid early elimination. At the same time, in contrast to plurality voting, winners must have the capacity to reach out to supporters of other candidates to forge a real majority. We believe that such a balance preserves important values of our current system while creating conditions for cheaper, better and fairer elections.

Modern voting equipment can accommodate ranked-ballots: Many jurisdictions currently use voting equipment like lever machines and punch-cards that is incompatible with instant runoffs. Administering an instant runoff would require these jurisdictions to acquire new voting equipment or use a time-consuming hand count. Current legislation to enact instant runoffs in Vermont is founded on the idea of handling the count of ballots beyond first choices in the same way that a re-count would be handled, but some jurisdictions would be unwilling to consider any counting of ballots by hand.

Fortunately, more modern voting equipment, such as optical scanners already in wide use and computer touch screen equipment can handle instant runoffs at no additional cost beyond a one-time upgrade of software. Vote-by-mail elections, already the law in Oregon and many localities, and of course internet voting make ballot-counting much easier. Once jurisdictions modernize their voting equipment for reasons of efficiency, speed and security, they can adopt instant runoffs at no additional cost.

In the two localities where voters recently approved instant runoff charter amendments, the amendments allow, but do not require, the use of the system. In both places, existing voting equipment was incompatible with ranked ballots, but now the jurisdiction is empowered to use instant runoffs once the jurisdiction acquires new equipment. For jurisdictions interested in exploring use of instant runoffs, this is a wise approach if current equipment cannot accommodate instant runoffs.

The instant runoff gives voters enough time to evaluate candidates: Allowing voters additional time to scrutinize the leading candidates is one of the strongest arguments for traditional runoff elections. If voters don�t learn enough about all the candidates in the first round, they can benefit from more time to study the top two candidates.

Of course we don't have this extra time in most of our major elections because runoffs are not used in presidential elections and rarely to elect governors and members of Congress and state legislators. And extra time doesn't necessarily change minds. The winner of a runoff often has more to do with who bothers to vote a second time rather than any change of support.

Runoffs of course bring their own problems. In places with a November general election followed by a runoff, turnout generally drops. The very dispersal of the decision -- with voters aware that the first-round may not produce a winner -- can lead to decreased attention by the media and electorate on the candidates. And the extra time of campaigning may be devoted more to negative attacks than informing the electorate about one's own positions.

In an instant runoff, on the other hand, voters have incentives to learn about more of the candidates because of their chance to rank them. All of the candidates have incentives to put their ideas forward, and the media has reason to cover all the candidates. Instant runoffs thus give voters the benefits of runoff elections -- additional scrutiny of the candidates -- without the costs.

Instant runoff can win at the polls: Some charter commissions and elected officials might like the idea of the instant runoff, but fear that it would lose at the polls. In fact, rank-order systems have a strong history with voters, both here and abroad. Most recently, voters in Vancouver (Wash.) in 1999 and Santa Clara County (Calif.) in 1998 approved charter amendments to allow instant runoffs; the leading newspapers and political forces in these localities endorsed the idea.

Cambridge (Mass.) uses the proportional representation variant of the instant runoff. The system survived several repeal attempts -- organized by those opposed to the fairer representation of diversity provided by proportional representation -- and now is widely accepted. Similarly, Ireland's proportional representation variant of instant runoffs has survived two national referendums seeking its repeal. There currently is no movement to change rank-order balloting for presidential elections in Ireland or Australia's parliament; polls indicate the system is very popular in both nations.


Future Prospects

As we approach the end of the twentieth century, it seems to us highly unlikely that Americans will maintain antiquated rules like plurality voting very long in the coming century. Our society evolves so quickly in nearly every area but our political institutions. That can be a strength, but not when old rules like plurality voting and two-round runoffs fit poorly with the modern world.

Instant runoff voting has burst onto the political landscape in this decade. In 1997, Texas became the first state to consider a statute on instant runoffs. By 1998, legislation to enact instant runoffs for statewide and federal offices had been introduced in New Mexico and Vermont. In 1998, a charter commission in Santa Clara County (Calif.) placed an amendment on the November 1998 ballot that explicitly allowed instant runoffs to replace runoffs in future county elections. The measure won after gaining the endorsement of the San Jose Mercury News, Chamber of Commerce and other key political players.

In 1999, legislation to enact instant runoffs for statewide and federal offices passed the New Mexico state senate, again was considered in Vermont and was introduced and seriously debated in Alaska. There are real chances for adoption of instant runoff in those states in 2000 given the following circumstances:

Vermont: In 1997, Vermont passed a public financing law for statewide offices that likely will result in more third party and independent candidates winning votes. The state constitution requires certain statewide offices, including that of the governor, to be elected by a majority, and the instant runoff was proposed as a means to accommodate increased candidate participation.

In 1998, the Vermont house established a citizens' commission to advise the legislature on instant runoffs. The eleven members of commission, appointed by the League of Women Voters and Common Cause, included Democratic and Republican former members of the Vermont House of Representatives, independents and unaffiliated

citizens. The commission issued a unanimous report in January 1999 that recommended adoption of instant runoffs for all statewide elections beginning in 2000. Since that report, the list of formal endorsers of instant runoffs for state elections include the Vermont chapters of the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the American Association of University Women, the Grange and the Older Women's League.

New Mexico: In 1997 and 1998, special elections were held in two of New Mexico's three U.S. House seats. Green party candidates won more than 15% in each race, helping "spoil" the races for narrowly-defeated Democrats. A constitutional amendment to enact instant runoffs for state and federal elections gained influential supporters both in and outside the state in the course of passing the state senate.

Nationally, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and Congressman Patrick Kennedy were among those who spoke to New Mexico legislators to advocate the legislation. Lydia Camarillo, the executive director of Southwest Voter's educational arm, travelled to Santa Fe to urge passage of the legislation. In-state backers included former governors Toney Anaya (a Democrat) and David Cargo (a Republican) and the Democrats' 1998 gubernatorial candidate Martin Chavez.

Alaska: Just as Democrats were a driving force for instant runoffs in New Mexico, Republicans have promoted the reform in Alaska. The Republicans have large majorities in both houses of the legislature, but have not elected a governor in more than two decades -- in large part due to splits among conservative candidates. Leading Republicans such as the state's representative on the Republican National Committee convinced nearly the entire party leadership of the merits of instant runoffs. A 1999 bill to enact instant runoffs for all state elections passed one house committee, but in a reversal of roles from New Mexico, the Democratic governor was seen as likely to veto the legislation for partisan considerations. As a result, a well-backed initiative campaign was launched; the measure may well be on the November 2000 ballot and still has a chance in the legislature in 2000.

Instant runoffs are also on the table in other state legislatures, including North Carolina, where an election laws commission was created in 1999 in part to specifically research the possibility of replacing runoff elections for state primary elections with instant runoffs -- a change particularly pertinent in light of interest in public financing of primary elections. At a city level, a charter commission in Austin (Texas) in December 1999 recommended inclusion of instant runoffs in its charter package; the city council will decide whether to place the package on the ballot in 2000. Other local campaigns for instant runoffs initiated either by citizens or elected bodies are being discussed in Kalamazoo (Mich.), New York, Oakland (Calif.), Pasadena (Calif.), Prince George's County (Maryland), San Francisco (Calif.) and San Leandro (Calif.).

These developments indicate that when public officials believe that instant runoffs solve a problem -- whether it be overcoming spoilers, meeting a majority requirement, shortening an overly-long campaign season or accommodating new campaign finance reform laws -- their support for reform can crystallize rapidly. Republicans are promoting the instant runoff in Alaska and Utah, Democrats in New Mexico, independent progressives in San Francisco and the Chamber of Commerce in San Leandro (Calif.). And whatever the impetus for consideration of the instant runoff, its ultimate strength is that it is a non-partisan, good government reform that benefits everyone -- the voter, the taxpayer and candidates -- over time.

Note also that a growing number of private organizations and political parties use instant runoffs for internal elections. These groups include the American Political Science Association, the American Psychological Association and the Academy of Motion Pictures for Oscar nominations (using the proportional variant of the system). The Reform Party plans to use the instant runoff to nominate its 2000 presidential candidate in a national, vote-by-mail primary which may draw national attention to the system.


Conclusion

Plurality voting, runoff elections and instant runoff elections generally elect the same candidate: the one with the greatest support. But both plurality and runoff elections are susceptible to breakdowns generating undemocratic results: plurality voting when more than two reasonably strong candidates run and runoff elections when turnout discrepancies are large.

Instant runoff voting prevents such breakdowns of majority rule, but perhaps more importantly, it is about improving our politics. In an era of shrinking participation in elections and government, it is critically important to look at a simple reform that would take money out of politics, promote positive public debate, save tax dollars and encourage winners to reach out to more of their constituents. The rapid rise of interest and support for the instant runoff suggests that Americans are ready for a change.

 
 
 
 
top of page


 
______________________________________________________________________
Copyright � 2001 The Center for Voting and Democracy
6930 Carroll Ave. Suite 901    Takoma Park, MD  20912
(301) 270-4616 ____ [email protected]