Campus Interest in
IRV
Keeps Growing
Major Student
Association Adopts IRV, More
News
July
2002
Two major
state universities adopted instant runoff voting in the past year.
Below are news and articles from more campuses using alternative
systems.
University of
Wisconsin
The United Council of University of Wisconsin Students has
adopted IRV. The United Council is the nation's oldest, largest, and
strongest statewide student association, representing over 140,000
students at 24 UW System
Campuses.
Stanford
This spring the Associated
Students of Stanford University (ASSU) held its second IRV election
of its president, and for the second year in a row, avoided a costly
and runoff election. See results and a copy of the online
ballot
. IRV also received good press in the student newspaper.
The April 16 top story
was an explanation of how IRV works and why
it was adopted, accompanied by a flow chart . The
editorial below was also part of the April
16 edition. Also below is commentary
from Dave Robinson of California IRV.
In addition, we recently learned
of two universities in the past year where editorial writers
strongly backed instant runoff voting. Read the pieces below from
the University of Michigan and the University of Minnesota.
Dave Robinson of California IRV writes:
Candidates included a student government insider, a
dark-horse candidate who won major endorsements, a labor activist, a
left-wing protest slate, and a joke slate put forward by a satire
magazine.
It was nice to see that IRV allowed the protest/joke
slates to expand the debate without raising the risk of a 'spoiled'
election. The other big issue is that campaign spending limits were
ruled to be in violation of the student government's charter. The
three serious candidates each spent between $1000 and $2000 in a
one-week campaign. An additional two-week runoff campaign would have
meant punishment rather than victory. The student government insider
(who spent almost $2000) came in third, and his elimination handed
victory to the labor activist, who spent the least of the
three.
The senior and sophomore class presidents also
required several instant runoff rounds to determine majority
winners. The election was administered professionally and smoothly
by the ASSU election commission.
Democracy ASSU-style
Stanford Daily By Josh Sohn
April 16, 2002
Ah, Election Day. The day where we reaffirm democracy
here at Stanford...the truth of the matter is, the structure of ASSU
elections and the ASSU itself is incredibly democratic. In fact, the
ASSU could teach our national government a few things about being
of, by and for the people...
The "instant runoff" feature of ASSU elections allows
for multiple viable candidates, and prevents the kind of two-party
stranglehold that exists in our national elections. For example,
suppose I really like the Chappie [satire] slate for ASSU president
and vice-president, but I don't think they have a realistic chance
of winning. Under ASSU rules, I can still vote for them without
worrying about throwing my vote away. I simply put my preferred
"serious" slate as my second choice, and if the Chappie slate is
eliminated, my votes are automatically redistributed to that backup
slate.
Imagine if we had this procedure on the national
level. In the last election, a liberal voter could have voted for
Nader, put Gore second, and not worried about indirectly electing
Bush to the White House. In other words, minor parties can flourish,
because their support doesn't impinge of the support for the two
major parties.
In the name of democracy, I propose that we send an
ASSU delegation to Washington, to educate those backward,
uncivilized politicians on the way to set up a proper representative
government.
... So when you cast your vote today, do it
with pride. Know that you are supporting a great democratic
institution, a far purer system then the shoddy affair we keep in Washington.
We may not have the biggest government in this great land of ours,
but damned if we don't have one of the best.
Runoff voting can help fix a
failing democracy
Michigan
Daily (University of Michigan) Staff Editorial October 2, 2001
Ann Arbor - The past two weeks have seen numerous
pundits discussing the value of democracy in various foreign states,
ranging from Saudi Arabia in the Middle East to Afghanistan in
Central Asia. What is lost in this finger pointing at other states
is that our own democracy is far from perfect.
Democracy is traditionally defined as a majority rule
-- yet in the United States, touted as a beacon of democracy, the
last three presidential elections have resulted in a winner with
less than 50 percent of the vote. In local elections this trend is
even more pronounced as candidates often win city council elections
with less then 30 percent of the popular vote. There is, however, an
easy solution: Instant Runoff Voting. Traditionally, voters select
the candidate they wish to vote for and that individual gets their
vote. This system is flawed because when there are more than two
candidates the chances of a candidate winning with a plurality are
substantial. The IRV would have voters rank their candidates in
order of preference: 1, 2, 3, etc. In the case of no candidate
receiving more than 50 percent of the vote, the candidate with the
least amount of first choice votes is eliminated and the second
choice votes from these ballots are transferred to other candidates.
A recount then takes place. This procedure is repeated until one
candidate receives more then 50 percent of the vote.
In the past this system has been discredited as being
too labor-intensive for those who must count the votes. However, the
implementation of computer voting systems makes IRV a possibility
without being a detriment to the speed or accuracy of the elections.
This ystem has already taken effect in several countries; in
Australia IRV is used to elect the prime minister, while in London
it is used in mayoral elections.
There are numerous benefits to the IRV. Initially, it
would allow more independent or third party candidates to run for
office without being accused of being a spoiler. With the IRV,
voters could select the candidate of their choice without the fear
of wasting their vote or inadvertently helping a candidate that they
dislike to win. Additionally, it would lend legitimacy to winners of
controversial elections. Last year's Florida debacle would have been
avoided had Florida been using the IRV.
The IRV is not flawless. It would require time and
money to educate voters about how the IRV works. However, this would
be considerably better than continuing with our current system of
voting, which often results in winners having less then majority
support. There is currently an initiative in Ann Arbor, Mich., to
get the city council to use IRV in City Council elections; members
of the University of Michigan community should support this
initiative, as the IRV is currently the best way to restore
legitimacy to U.S. democracy.
Staff Editorial
Minnesota Daily (University of Minnesota) March 14, 2002
Meaningful election reform has finally landed in the
United States, and Minnesota voters need to start pressuring city
and state officials to make sure it finds its way here. Last week,
California voters approved an amendment to their state constitution
requiring all ballots be counted -- an idea U.S. voters had taken
for granted until the 2000 presidential election and, specifically,
the election mismanagement by Florida Secretary of State Katherine
Harris. Even more important, San Francisco voters approved a
resolution calling for implementation of an Instant Runoff Voting
system in an effort to fix the city's contentious system. IRV, an
old idea that has recently resurfaced in the United States after
making its rounds in Europe and Australia, gives voters the option
of ranking candidates instead of picking just one. If no candidate
receives more than 50 percent of the vote, the candidate with the
lowest number of first-choice votes is eliminated. The second-choice
votes of those who ranked him or her first are then distributed to
the remaining candidates, and the process repeats until one
candidate gets the majority of the votes.
This system provides voters with more
choices than election practices currently in place without forcing voters to
settle; citizens don't have to rank their choices and can still vote
for one candidate. In addition, this system substantially reduces the problems many
voters have faced during the past three elections that resulted in
many people voting for the lesser of two evils instead
of voting for the candidate in whom they believed. By
doing away with the need to vote strategically simply to
prevent a worst-case scenario, the true intentions and beliefs
of voters will be documented, allowing for a more accurate
sampling of public opinion and giving public officials a better understanding
of their constituents' ideals.
It also carries the added benefit of
fostering the growth of minor parties into major political forces,
which would aid the ultimate goal of true representation of the
population among government officials.
Political squabbling over election reform resulting in
a history of marked inaction on the issue within the federal
government gives little reason to believe this reform can take place
on a national level. Like nearly every step of meaningful progress
taken in U.S. history, the push for a switch to IRV will have to
begin locally.
San Francisco voters took the long-overdue first step
last week. Minnesotans should follow their lead and change the way
local elections are conducted. Beginning there, this reform can
prove its effectiveness and eventually make its way to the state and
national levels. But it must first take root in individual
communities. |