March 11, 2003 

AMHERST - Area activists continue to press for reforms such as Clean Elections and instant runoff voting despite the state's fiscal distress. If anything, the hard economic times have bolstered some of the political activists' arguments.

Under the instant runoff voting system, voters rank multiple candidates in an election according to their preference. If after a first count, no one candidate receives more than 50 percent of the votes, the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated. The votes are then retallied - almost instantly using computer technology - with the votes of those who supported the eliminated candidate shifting to their second choice and on down, until one candidate emerges with a majority.

Voters in the 1st and 3rd Hampshire House districts approved using instant runoff voting in statewide elections in a non-binding 2002 ballot question, and the system already is in place in Australia, Ireland, England and in San Francisco city elections, among other places.

Instant runoff voting makes more sense now for Massachusetts than ever before, since primary and general elections could be combined into one, saving money, said proponent Peter Vickery.

Vickery is talking to officials in Greenfield, where 15 people have taken out nomination papers to run for mayor. By having one instead of two elections, in which all of the candidates are on the ballot and voters rank them in order of preference, Greenfield could save an estimated $12,000, Vickery said.

"It's something we can point to and say, IRV will save you money," Vickery said, noting that there are 44 cities and towns in Massachusetts that have mayors.

"We're going to focus on that, because now isn't the time to be trying to sell great ideas that cost money," Vickery said.

Under Clean Elections, the campaign finance reform law approved by voters in a 1998 ballot question, candidates for legislative and statewide offices receive public funding if they adhere to strict fund-raising and spending guidelines.

But implementing the system, which relied on the Legislature approving its funding, has run into every conceivable obstacle over the past four years, and the House and Senate are widely believed to be ready to repeal it soon.

Critics of the Legislature's in-action say incumbent lawmakers were not interested in making it easier for newcomers to run for office by publicly funding their campaigns.

Now, supporters in the Legislature have come up with an alternative plan to save Clean Elections, even though its critics say there is no way the state could afford the approximately $9 million a year it would cost.

Local Clean Elections proponents say the plan, whose leading advocate in< the Legislature is state Rep. Ruth Balser, D-Newton, makes sense.

Under Balser's proposal, money to pay for Clean Elections would not come< from the state's general fund but from a surcharge on court cases and a fund amassed from a voluntary check-off on state income tax payments that would go up from $1 to $3.

The system would cost less, because it would only apply to legislative candidates and not, as it does now, to candidates for constitutional offices, such as governor, whose campaigns cost hundreds of millions of dollars instead of tens of millions. The cost for a two-year election cycle is estimated at $5.2 million.

Clean Elections activists M.A. Swedlund of Deerfield and Alice Swift of Amherst, both think amending the law as Balser has suggested makes sense.

"In an ideal world it would be nice to have the constitutional races included, but I see this as a way of proving the system really works and eliminates some of the fear factor for incumbents," Swedlund said. "Once the trust is there we could add the constitutional offices."