By Erik Engquist and Daniel Massey
Published October 18th 2009 in Crain's New York Business
State Sen. Liz Krueger says instant runoff voting would do more than save the expense of repeating elections when no candidate gets 40% of the vote. It would reduce negative campaigning and boost turnout, she says. Voters would rank candidates, and if no candidate wins a majority of No. 1 votes, the last-place finisher would be dropped and a new count made combining No. 1 and No. 2 votes, and so on until someone surpasses 50%.
“Candidates don't want to be seen as nasty [to rivals], because if they can't get your vote for No. 1, they want your vote for No. 2,” says Ms. Krueger, D-Manhattan.
She has a bill pending that would allow localities to implement instant runoff voting. The bill would not have affected the increasingly nasty mayoral race, but it could have elevated David Yassky over John Liu in the Sept. 15 Democratic primary for city comptroller. Turnout plunged in the runoff two weeks later, and Mr. Yassky lost by 12 points.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.