By William Redpath

May 12, 2003

Earlier this month, the Republican primary for mayor of Findlay produced a plurality winner, Tony Iriti, who received 47% of the vote in a four way race.  The endorsement of outgoing Mayor John Stozich had a ’Äúsignificant’Äù impact on his vote total, Mr. Iriti admitted.  Without Mr. Stozich’Äôs backing, or had Mr. Stozich stayed in the race, it is possible that the primary winner would have won with less than 40% of the vote.

 

Is this the best way to elect winners in single winner elections, be they primary or general?  A polarizing candidate might win a plurality election with 30% of the vote, but be totally unacceptable to the other 70% of the voters.  Occurring in a primary, this could be a recipe for general election defeat.

 

Would a non-majority winner in a general election be any more acceptable?  The same result might occur’Äîa winning candidate that does not best represent the sentiment of the voters.  How can we assure majority support for winning candidates in single winner elections?

 

A solution to this problem is gaining political momentum across the nation’Äîinstant runoff voting (IRV).

 

IRV works like this.  Each voter ranks candidates in order of preference for as many or as few candidates as he or she likes.  In a four-way race, you could simply rank your favorite candidate #1, or you could rank all four candidates from your favorite to least favorite.

 

After all votes are cast, the candidates are listed from top to bottom in order of first choice votes.  If the first place candidate does not have a majority of votes, the candidate at the bottom is then eliminated.  All voters who gave that candidate their #1 rank will have their votes transferred to their #2 choice candidate.  If the top candidate does not then have a majority of votes, the new last place candidate will have his voters’Äô votes transferred to their next choice candidate.  This process continues until one candidate has a majority of votes.

 

IRV not only assures majority support for the winner of an election, it will also help reduce negative campaigning because candidates will court the supporters of other candidates in the hope of getting their second or third choice vote.

 

OnMarch 5, 2002, San Francisco voters approved an initiative to adopt IRV for all citywide offices and the Board of Supervisors.  Before you say, ’ÄúWell, leave it to San Francisco’Ķ,’Äù please note that the Republican Party of Utah also uses IRV to elect state party officers and nominate its Congressional candidates, and that IRV draws support from office holders and election officials from both major parties in many states.

 

On the same day that IRV passed in San Francisco, Vermont voters in 52 of 55 towns voted to endorse a League of Women Voters resolution to use IRV for statewide elections.  Nineteen states (not including Ohio, unfortunately) have considered IRV legislation.   IRV has been endorsed by many major newspapers, including USA Today.

 

Ireland elects its President, Australia its Parliament and London its mayor, using IRV.  Many private organizations and student governments also use IRV for single winner elections.

 

IRV is easy for voters to understand.  Voters just rank candidates in order of preference. If the Irish, the Australians and the British get it, so will we.  The counting process is quick and easy with today’Äôs voting machines.

 

Courts have ruled that IRV does not violate the principle of ’Äúone man, one vote’Äù because the vote counting process replicates a runoff election’Äîwithout people traipsing to the polls more than once.  This eliminates the need for costly, low turnout runoff elections to determine majority winners.  With IRV, every voter is treated equally; it is up to the voter to decide if he or she wants to participate in any instant runoff elections that might occur in the vote counting process.

 

In the end, IRV will make for a more vibrant democracy by eliminating the ’Äúspoiler’Äù issue’Äîthe ’Äúwasted vote’Äù syndrome--surrounding minor party and independent candidates.  Most importantly for voters, it allows people to vote their conscience without helping to elect the major party candidate they most dislike.  Our current plurality voting system is what produces the choice of ’Äúthe lesser of two evils.’Äù  It doesn’Äôt have (and shouldn’Äôt have) to be that way.

 

One four-way race down in Findlay, with another straight ahead.  There will be four candidates on the general election ballot this November.  While it won’Äôt be instituted in time for that election, IRV will sooner or later be changing the methods of American democracy for the better.