�Another useful reform could be readily implemented right now by the states.  It's called �instant runoff voting� (IRV)�This simple change in the system would allow voters to vote affirmatively for their favorite candidate without wasting their vote outright or being a �spoiler� and handing the election to a candidate with whom they disagree strongly� It would ensure that whoever wins all of a state's Electoral College votes receives at least a majority of the votes cast in that state.�

�Advocates of instant runoffs in the U.S. are pushing�to use it more widely� [A] Vermont state commission in January 1999 concluded that instant-runoff voting is �as easy as 1-2-3,� and recommended that it be used for all statewide voting. �Voters do not need to learn any of the intricacies of the transfer-tabulation methodology, just as hardly any citizens understand how the Electoral College works,� the commission said� The proposal has substantial support, but hasn't been adopted.�

�What better message than providing for direct popular election of the President -- preferably using instant runoff voting -- to ensure that our leader commands support from a majority of voters?�

�IRV would guarantee us a President elected with at least the grudging support of the majority. As a bonus, it would enable people to express themselves by voting for third parties -- such as the Greens, this year -- without running the awkward risk of helping elect their most unfavorite candidate.�

�Majority rules? Increasingly not, says Robert Richie of the Washington-based Center for Voting and Democracy, which researches voting systems and voter participation. Richie and his staff have just completed a major study of plurality winners in federal and state elections. They found that plurality winners have become more common in the past decade�What's wrong with plurality winners? Their victories often come at the expense of the candidate who would have been the choice of voters in a two-candidate race, Richie said. Thus the winner is the candidate who was disliked by a majority of the voters�Richie's solution is what he calls Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)� [H]e said, �Given the increasing number of plurality victories in Senate races, adopting IRV would be an important step toward building a healthier democracy.��

�If Sen. Specter and others really want to advance �majority rule,� they can address the fact that whenever more than two candidates are in a race, one can win with less than a majority of the total vote. It probably will happen in this election; it happened in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president with 43 percent of the popular vote; and it happens frequently in local and state balloting. One way to solve the problem  --  --  and still not discourage the Ralph Naders and Pat Buchanans from running, or their supporters from voting for them --  would be to adopt �instant runoff voting,� or IRV� It's a sensible system, used in Australia, Ireland and elsewhere, and it ought to work well in the United States.�

�Rather than mandate a low 40 percent threshold and two rounds of voting, any amendment to the Constitution should allow electoral mechanisms to determine a majority winner in a single election. The most efficient and inexpensive method is instant runoff voting.�

Steven Hill & Rob Richie, The Hartford Courant [and elsewhere], 11/9/00, �The Case Against the Electoral College�

�Although common in many nations and in many states and cities, runoffs are an awkward, inefficient process. If the top two finishers in the presidential contest faced off in a second, national round of voting, the costs would be exorbitant. Candidates would have to grub for tens of millions of dollars in extra cash to run a new campaign, and the cumulative additional costs to local election administrators would be vast. And voter turnout easily could drop in the decisive runoff�Instead, the Constitution should permit other mechanisms, such as instant-runoff voting, a more efficient and inexpensive method used in several nations.�

�[W]ith optical scanners and computers widely available to count votes today, technology is no longer an excuse for the Legislature to ignore the instant-runoff alternative�[IRV] would also reduce campaign fundraising and spending, and not just by those candidates in runoffs. Florida's election law sets separate $500 contribution limits for the primary, the runoff and the general election even when a candidate won't face a runoff. And an instant runoff would save the public millions of dollars from the cost of conducting elections�Other countries use the instant runoff, and other American states are studying it. It deserves thoughtful consideration here.�

�The instant runoff would strengthen democracy and expand debate in several ways. First, it would give winners a real majority mandate. Second, it would give all voters incentive to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of electing their least favorite, since they could list a backup choice in case their first choice gets eliminated. As a result, the media would have incentive to cover third party and independent candidates and the issues they are raising. This would improve public debate and give more voters the ability to cast an informed vote that helps elect a candidate they like.�

�One of the most promising ways [to mitigate the distortions of the electoral college]-and the one getting the biggest push around the country-is instant runoff voting (IRV)� According to five-term Vermont state representative Terry Bouricius, a Member of the Progressive Party, IRV has good chances of passing in his state, where a bill favoring it will soon be introduced with tripartisan support.  �Established politicians can recognize how it can benefit them, at least in the short term,� he says, �even as in the long term, it opens up third-party participation.� �

Alison Solomon, Village Voice, 11/22/00-11/28/00, �Florida Fiasco Puts Radical Reforms on the Table: Taking Back the Vote�

�If IRV had been in place this past election day, we would be facing a very different political landscape. The Greens would have gotten their 5 percent, and possibly more, as IRV would have freed all of us eco-minded citizens to vote our consciences without jeopardizing our interests. Gore would be heading to the White House, perhaps chastened by the knowledge that he was the second choice of a significant percentage of the polity. And (most important) I wouldn't have to spend my next four years fighting the malevolent environmental proposals that, without a doubt, will start emanating from the White House come January if Bush takes the helm.�

�Although most Americans are unfamiliar with IRV, it is a recommended voting system in Robert�s Rules of Order�Instant Runoff Voting offers a bright hope that the 2002 gubernatorial campaign and vote on election day will do the following: Produce a winner with a majority; give every citizen who votes a chance to vote for the candidate of their real choice; take away the fear of the spoiler; give third parties a chance to present their ideas to the public without the distorting filter of spoiler politics; and enable each candidate freely to appeal to all constituencies and not just special interests.� 

John Rensenbrink, Times Record (ME), 12/26/00, �A Way to Remedy Electoral Process�

"�[IRV is] essentially like doing a two-round runoff,� said Steven Hill, western regional director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, which has pushed the idea for four years. �Except we're saying we don't have to bring you back to the polls. Tell us who you want.� �