The Oregonian
Letters to The
Editor Instant Runoff Voting Sunday, June 10,
2001
Runoff best
for all voters The editorial on
instant runoff voting implies that it is a Green Party issue. That
is not the case. It is an issue that is important to the 24 percent
of registered voters in Oregon who are not Democrats or Republicans.
In 1950, 50.36 percent of the voters were Democrats, 48.07 percent
Republicans and 1.56 percent other. In 1998, 40.28 percent of the
voters were Democrats, 35.84 percent Republican and 23.88 percent
other. In the past 50 years, the two major parties have
disenfranchised one in five voters, and the current voting system
effectively shuts out their voices unless they vote for a party they
have chosen not to join. In the last election there was much talk
about wasting one's vote. With instant runoff voting there is no
such thing as a wasted vote. It is time that Oregon gave a voice to
the 24 percent of the voters not affiliated with the major parties.
-ANDY REID Southeast Portland
Let voters show preferences
Your June 4 editorial condemning
instant runoff voting seemed poorly conceived and anti-free
expression ("Don't dilute meaning of vote"). The editorial implies
that voters do not make tradeoffs when voting for one of two or more
candidates and that this would be too difficult for them using a
ranking system. In fact, all votes are rankings. Rarely do voters
feel 100 percent for one candidate and zero percent for other(s).
Elections officials would have little trouble explaining a ranking
system to voters (mark 1 for your first choice, and so on). An
instant runoff system would allow people to more effectively show
how they feel about candidates. When their first choice, candidate
"A," gets the least number of votes, they still have shown that they
prefer "B" over "C." Instant runoff voting allows freer and more
complete expression of voter preference and should be quickly
approved for use in major elections in Oregon.
-STEVEN BRENNER Southwest Portland
Other nations
are a step ahead
While I certainly expect any
thinking person to view proposed voting reforms with a critical eye,
it appears that The Oregonian has completely missed the point in its
June 4 editorial against instant runoff voting. I suspect that your
view of instant runoff voting as a whimsical art form would surprise
the voters in Australia, Ireland and London who elect their
Parliament, president and mayor (respectively) with this method.
Your characterization of instant runoff voting as a "double-choice
election" also is misleading. Instant runoff voting is nothing more
than a traditional runoff process condensed into a single election
to save time and money. The true beauty of instant runoff voting
lies in its ability to determine voters' ranked preferences, thus
ensuring that the winner of an election will actually have majority
support. Unlike many of our elections, which end as plurality
victories, a winner in an election decided by instant runoff voting
can truly claim to have a mandate to govern.
-DEBORAH WHITCOMB Southeast Portland
Make sure the majority
matters Your editorial opposed to
instant runoffs does a disservice to voters. The purpose of instant
runoff is to ensure that whoever wins is indeed the choice of the
majority of voters. What's wrong with allowing the majority of
voters to select a candidate they can agree on? As a lifelong
Democrat and chairman of the Democratic Party of Multnomah County, I
encourage election reform to increase voter participation and
strengthen the voice of the voters. While the Democratic Party voted
not to endorse the instant runoff, I personally support the
proposal. As mentioned in your editorial, we need to eliminate
punch-card ballots. We also need to increase voter education and
guard against the major problems that occurred in Florida. When less
than half of the eligible voters participate in elections, the
system is broken and needs to be fixed.
-JIM ROBISON North Portland
Runoff voting is wise,
efficient Your June 4 editorial opposing
instant runoff voting completely missed the most important and
attractive feature of this idea. The only difference between instant
runoff voting and the current system is that the runoff election
would effectively be held at the same time as the general election,
with voters being invited (but not required) to mark a second choice
at the same time as their first. Just like the current runoff
system, voters under instant runoff voting would have their votes
counted twice. In the case of instant runoff voting, their votes
would be counted both before and after the low-scoring candidates
were eliminated. This would be true whether or not the voter chose
more than one candidate. Instant runoff voting would completely
eliminate the waste of time and money (both public and private) of
requiring the top two candidates to conduct an entire second
campaign and then holding a second election.
-CHRIS BILLE Southwest Portland
|