USA Today
Election
Day replay poses avoidable problems November 29,
2002
Election Day is long gone for most Americans, but in
Louisiana, campaigning is reaching a fever pitch as voters prepare
to trudge back to the polls Dec. 7 for a runoff election. Incumbent
Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, denied a majority of the vote in a
field of nine on Nov. 5, faces the No. 2 vote-getter, Republican
Suzanne Haik Terrell, in a new election that's costing millions of
dollars more and luring President Bush back for a campaign visit
Tuesday.
Unknown in much of the country, runoffs are used by
Louisiana, eight other states ��� from Texas to North Carolina ��� and
scores of cities. The idea is to make sure winners garner more than
half the vote for public offices, an important goal that prevents
fringe candidates from winning with a small minority of ballots in a
crowded field.
But the system is needlessly costly ��� a $3 million tab
for taxpayers in Alabama's runoff primaries alone this year. It
sends candidates and their backers into a renewed frenzy of
fundraising. And turnout frequently plummets from the earlier
election.
There is a better way: instant runoffs. Instead of
voting for just one candidate, voters rank their preferences for
candidates from first to last. If no one receives a majority of
first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and the
second choices from those ballots are added to the totals for the
remaining candidates. The process continues until one candidate
emerges with a majority. Ireland and Australia have used the system
in national elections, and it has been adopted in parts of Great
Britain.
Now, the idea is starting to catch on in the USA.
Louisiana residents who vote from overseas by absentee ballot
already have that option. San Francisco will start using instant
runoffs next year and several other municipalities, largely in the
West, are preparing to go the same route.
In Vermont and New Mexico, support for the idea is
growing in response to significant third-party movements that raise
the prospect of candidates regularly winning state offices with less
than majority support. Several local non-binding votes in
Massachusetts this year also showed support for the idea because of
growing concern about candidates winning primaries and general
elections with slim percentages.
Critics say ranking candidates violates the principle
of "one man, one vote," an argument that spurred voters in Alaska to
reject the system this year. But the courts disagree. Though the
goal of ensuring that the "least objectionable" candidate wins might
not always be achieved, that's less a worry than the risks of highly
undemocratic minority representation under the current system.
Candidates aren't the only immediate winners from
instant runoffs. The idea also saves money, spares voters the need
to return to the polls, and improves the chances that the wishes of
a majority are truly heard. |