|
Prince George's
Journal (MD)
Instant
runoffs could reform costly special elections
By Eric C. Olson
May 7, 2002 Voters in Prince George's County Council District 8
must go to the polls twice within the month in primary and general
elections to fill the seat of "Ike" Gourdine, just as District 1
voters made two recent trips to the polls to elect Councilman Tom
Dernoga after "Mike" Maloney's death. It is only appropriate that
Prince George's County holds special elections to fill council
vacancies. Both Maloney and Gourdine were ardent believers in
trusting voters to pick their representatives. Two-round special elections,
however, present a number of problems that deserve scrutiny. Among
other issues, consider the following:
Low turnout:
Often, special elections result in low voter turnout, particularly
in the decisive, second election. In the recent District 1 special
election, turnout was under 16 percent. ``Voter fatigue" and taking
time out of schedules twice within a few short weeks both contribute
to low turnout. In District 1, the special primary came the week
before Christmas; in District 8, the second round will be near
Memorial Day. No matter what time of year a vacancy occurs, finding
two dates for each special election is difficult. Disrupts our
school system: The law states that public buildings must be
available for elections. Because of these elections, there has been
considerable turmoil within schools and a disruption of the school
calendar. Schools closed during the December primary to fill
Maloney's District 1 seat, but they chose not to lose a school day
for the January election. In District 8, schools remained open for
the April 23 primary and will be open for the special general
election on May 21. In District 1, 14 schools were used as polling
places during the two elections, while in District 8, that number is
19 schools. That means disruption for students, teachers and
administrators both during the two elections, but also in preparing
for the event. Further, it means outsiders in the schools twice in a
month, and more traffic on school grounds around thousands of
children. Inefficient: Holding two special elections - a primary
and a runoff - to fill a seat is redundant and inefficient when only
one is necessary to produce the same result. Particularly to fill
vacancies, two election rounds are a hassle for voters, candidates
and election administrators. Citizens are subjected to an additional
month of politicking, phone calls, political mail and partisan
appeals; candidates and their supporters must raise more special
interest campaign money in a hurry; and election officials lose a
month from their normal duties. Costly: There is, of course, a
monetary cost to Prince George's citizens for holding a second
election round - paying poll workers, printing voter education
materials and the like. The city of San Francisco estimated it
would save $2 million by eliminating one election round. In a time
when Prince George's schools seek greater funding, we can
ill-afford to waste money on a superfluous second round of
election.
Seemingly,
there is logic to two-round, primary and general special elections:
to prevent one-round first-place-wins-all results, where a fragment
of the vote could result in a low plurality winner. France, for
example, could have experienced a disastrous result if April's
election were only one round and if the right-wing candidate, Jean
Marie Le Pen received only a few percentage points more - he could
have become President with barely over 19 percent of the vote in one
round. Thankfully, there is a more efficient election method that
simulates election rounds, even though voters only need to come to
the polls once. Instant runoff voting allows voters to rank
candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority
of first-choice votes, the candidates with the least support are
eliminated sequentially, and their supporters' runoff choices are
tallied as they would be in a two-round election. This continues
until a majority winner emerges. Used for major elections in
Ireland, Australia and London, among other places, instant runoff
voting is quickly earning support in the United States. On March 5,
San Francisco voters passed a referendum to adopt instant runoff
voting for citywide elections. Right here in Prince George's County
this spring, the University of Maryland's student government adopted
this voting method for their elections. Last year, Robert Hertzberg
(D), speaker of the California State Assembly, introduced
legislation to implement instant runoff voting for filling
congressional and legislative vacancies. In Vermont, 52 of 55 towns
recommended that the state should adopt instant runoffs for
statewide elections, and supporters there include Gov. Howard Dean
(D), Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz (D), the League of Women
Voters, and Common Cause. The Utah Republican Party uses instant
runoff voting to select their candidates, and Illinois Rep. Jesse
Jackson Jr. (D) introduced legislation in Congress to encourage
instant runoffs for presidential elections. As the Prince George's
County Council considers reform of the County Charter, they should
resolve the problem of holding too many costly elections on one
hand, while ensuring that officials are democratically elected by a
majority on the other hand. Our County Council would be wise to
consider and adopt instant runoff voting, especially in special
elections with large fields of candidates. Eric C. Olson is deputy
director of the Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org), a national
nonprofit organization based in Takoma Park, and is a member of the
College Park City Council.
|
