Instant Runoff Voting: 
One, Two, Three

	Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a system of runoff election that happens simultaneously to the regular election.  IRV guarantees that the winner receives support from a majority of voters in just one election.

How Instant Runoff Voting Works:

	1 The Voting   
You, the voter, rank the candidates in the order of your preferences using a ranked ballot.  By using a ranked ballot rather than a traditional ballot, you are able to indicate both your favorite choice and your runoff choices.  If your first choice is eliminated, your vote counts for your runoff choice.

	2 The First Count   
If a candidate is the first choice of more than 50% of the voters, he or she wins.  However, in the following example, no candidate receives 50% of the first choice votes.  In plurality elections (where a candidate can win with less than a majority), Smith would be declared the winner even though 59% of the voters voted against this candidate.  In a delayed runoff, voters would have to return to the polls to cast their vote again for either Smith or Garcia but in an instant runoff system this isn’t necessary. Voters will have already indicated their runoff choices on their ranked ballot.

	3 The Instant Runoff 
In our example, Adams is eliminated from the race for finishing last and in the second round all votes are recounted towards their favorite candidate that is still available.  Most of the voters who favored Adams — 16% of all voters — favored Garcia as their second choice.   The rest of Adams’s support — 3% of all voters — favored Smith as their second choice.  Therefore, Garcia is declared the winner in the instant runoff since 56% of the voters prefer Garcia over Smith.

1	2	3

Two Promises

Instant runoff voting is the best winner-take-all voting system available.  In every case, where only one official is elected (i.e. the President) IRV should be the voting system in use.  It is instant runoff voting’s two promises that make it the best winner-take-all voting system: majority rule and no delayed runoffs.

• Majority Rule
Every student government strives to determine the will of the their students and to act upon it.  The votes cast by the students are possibly the most important determinant.  Your government’s voting system is its tool to measure the will and intent of the students.   It is vital that your voting system provides the most accurate and realistic account of voter intent.  Instant runoff voting is that tool.  By guaranteeing majority rule, instant runoff voting guarantees that the will of the students are clearly determined and the correct person is elected because it allows voters to indicate their preferences rather than just their one choice.

• No Delayed Runoffs
Instant runoff voting does not just protect the vital democratic principle: majority rule.  It does so in just a single election, meaning no delayed runoffs.  Without delayed runoffs, your student government saves money and time.  More importantly all your elections will be determined by your best voter participation.  No more close elections determined by a miniscule percent of the student body.  No more costs of running a second election that is largely left ignored by the student body.  

Users of Instant Runoff Voting

Schools such as Harvard, Stanford, and University of Illinois have used instant runoff voting in their student government elections.  University of Maryland joined their ranks in the Spring of 2002 and United Council of University of Wisconsin Students and their 140,000 students will start using instant runoff voting in 2002-2003.

Instant runoff voting has not only been used by large schools, such as those above, but Whitman College and Carleton College as well.  Carleton also employs another alternative election method called cumulative voting (www.fairvote.org/cumulative/).

Off Campus, voters in Alaska (USA) will have the opportunity August 27 to vote for instant runoff voting.  The campaign has started already and for more information join the Alaska instant runoff listserve at instantrunoffAK-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.  

Voters in San Francisco (CA) passed a referendum in March 2002 to implement instant runoff voting in all municipal elections.  

Voters in Oakland (CA) adopted a charter amendment to use instant runoff voting in special elections to fill vacancies for city council when the county completes its purchase of new voting equipment. The equipment will likely be ready for the next special election.

Voters in Santa Clara County (CA), Vancouver (WA) and San Leandro (CA) all voted to allow the use of instant runoff voting in local elections. The city council or county board of supervisors can implement instant runoff by simple ordinance.

Internationally, the first-ever election of the Mayor of London used instant runoff voting in May 2000. After eight decades of using IRV to elect their House of Representatives, Australians are very content with IRV.  Elections for the presidency of Ireland with IRV also have been a great success.  Many local and regional elections in Australia and Ireland also use IRV, while in 2000 the president of Bosnia-Herzegovina was elected by IRV.

The list of non-government organizations that use IRV is large and varied. It includes local, state and national political parties, professional organizations such as the American Political Science Association and the American Psychological Association, faculty senates, and many other types of large and small organizations. In 2000, ICANN, the body that controls domain names on the Internet, used IRV to elect board members in a worldwide IRV election.

Responses To Arguments Against IRV

When people learn about instant runoff voting, they often say, “This makes so much sense, but what are the arguments against it?” We have compiled the usual arguments against instant runoff voting along with responses that show that none of the arguments against IRV stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
 
Q. 	I’ve listened to a description of how instant runoffs are tabulated, and it seems complicated. Is instant runoff voting too complicated?

A. 	Not for the voter. Counting the ballots is a little more involved, but there’s nothing complicated about voting in an instant runoff election. Voters can simply mark their ballots in exactly the same way as they always have in the past. However, the voter has the option of ranking alternate choices, in case there is no majority winner and the voter’s favorite candidate doesn’t make it into the final runoff count. Voters no longer need to fret about whether their favorite candidate has a good chance to win, or if they are “wasting” their vote, or even helping their least preferred candidate. For many voters this makes it actually easier to vote – there’s no strategy involved!

Two nations with the highest voter participation rates in the world, Australia and Malta, both use instant runoff voting. The intelligence and literacy levels of their populations are not superior to Americans’. Thousands of people in the U.S. have participated in real or mock IRV elections, conducted in schools, civics clubs, as well as at senior citizen centers. People have no difficulty voting. 

The only “complicated” aspect of instant runoff voting is the tabulation that occurs if there is no initial majority winner. It’s like a runoff election in which you list your runoff choice at the same time as you indicate your favorite choice, which isn’t a very complicated idea, but the voter’s role is very simple: you simply indicate your first choice and, if you wish, a second choice and a third choice.

Q. 	I would find it hard to rank a bunch of candidates, I might not know much about some of them. What if I only like one candidate?

A. 	That’s fine.  Your vote would count just as much as your vote counts in the current system. Instant runoff voting simply gives the option of expressing additional preferences if you wish. Your second choice vote would only be used if no candidate has a majority (over half the votes) and your first-choice candidate happens to be eliminated in the runoff. 

Q. 	What about voting machines? Will IRV require buying new voting machines?

A. 	No, on campuses, internet and electronic voting are the most common and they very ably handle the programming for instant runoff voting and proportional representation.  If your school uses another voting system it is more than likely still possible. Please contact the Center for more info.
Off campus, most modern voting equipment, including electronic Direct Recording Equipment (DRE) and optical scanners, is compatible with instant runoff voting. In places that use older equipment that is unable to accommodate ranked ballots, the Center recommends legislation to allow IRV when suitable technology is available. In the wake of the 2000 presidential election in Florida, most counties and states are preparing to modernize their voting equipment. 

Q. 	Our elections do not seem to have that big of a problem. “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it.” Right?

A. 	As long as there are only two candidates in a race, there is no problem – as the top vote-getter will automatically have a majority. However, on college campuses, elections often have numerous candidates on the ballot.  The problem arises when there are three or more candidates. Plurality rules allow the majority of voters to be cheated out of their rightful representation. It is unwise to wait for an electoral disaster to occur, before fixing a problem (like waiting for the rainstorm before fixing the roof.) Florida election officials probably uttered the phrase, “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it,” before the election. It is best to fix the problem before disaster strikes.

Q. 	Is it necessarily a disaster to let the candidate with a mere plurality take office?

A. 	Not necessarily, but undemocratic. The candidate with the most votes (but less than half) in a race with three or more candidates is often not the candidate preferred by the majority of voters.  When a candidate wins in such fashion, the majority of voters voted against that candidate.  In this circumstance, the democratic principle of majority rule has been disastrously dismissed.  This happened in eight states in 2000 and 49 states in 1992.
Another circumstance, where it can be disastrous to elect  a candidate with a mer plurality regards the “spoiler effect”.  The “spoiler effect” is when one or more other similar candidates steal enough votes from the candidate supported by the majority of voters hurting the performance of the majority-supported candidate.  If the similar candidate(s) “spoil” the majority-supported candidate enough, then another candidate, not at all similar, can steal the election.  In this case, the majority-supported candidate was not elected and the majority of voters who all voted for similar candidates but the same one were overruled by a plurality.  Both cases are disastrous for a legitimate democracy.  In general, small third-party candidates are called “spoilers” because they siphon votes from the major party candidates.  In 2000, Ralph Nader arguably spoiled Al Gore and, in 1992, Ross Perot arguably spoiled George Bush.
In these circumstances, with plurality rules, a candidate the majority considers unacceptable can defeat a candidate preferred by a majority of voters. The non-majority “winner” may or may not govern responsibly, but violating the principle of majority rule can weaken the winner’s governing legitimacy. Robert’s Rules of Order says that IRV “makes possible a more representative result than under a rule that a plurality shall elect” and “…this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality…”

Q. 	I’m not sure that instant runoff voting really work. Are they accepted systems?

A. 	IRV has been proven in public elections in this country and others for over 100 year. It works very well in Australia, Ireland and in London. It is a recommended voting procedure in current editions of Robert’s Rules of Order, called “preferential voting.”  The American Political Science Association, the professional association of political scientists, uses IRV to elect its national president. A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) invented the system around 1870.  Specifically on college campus, it has been very successfully, improving turnout, respect for student government and costs of elections and campaigns.  For more information on their success subscribe to instantrunoffStudents-subscribe@yahoogroups.com where students who have implemented these voting systems can answer questions.
 
Q.	But it seems like some voters are getting two votes, while others are only getting one. Am I right?

A. 	No. It’s like a runoff election – everyone gets to vote in the original election and they get the chance to vote in the runoff. Everybody gets an equal vote. In every round of counting, every ballot counts as one vote for the highest-ranked candidate still in the running. If your candidate is still viable, your vote will continue to count for your favorite candidate. If your candidate has been eliminated, rather than getting zero vote, your vote automatically counts for your next favorite candidate. After a legal challenge to the use of IRV in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the court ruled that IRV fully complied with the principle of “one person, one vote,” because the “one person, one vote” refers to a guarantee of equal voting strength among all voters not literally one person, one choice.
	However, if you describe the instant runoff as a redistribution of the votes of the eliminated candidates then it may appear as though some voters get an additional vote.  This is not accurate therefore it is better to describe the instant runoff as a round-by-round instantaneous runoff where every vote is counted in each round toward their favorite choice still available.

Q. 	Why not just use a familiar two-election runoff procedure?

A.	Regular runoffs are commonly better than plurality rules, because the delayed runoff system does guarantee a majority winner.. However, two-round runoffs have distinct disadvantages.  First, it is possible that the two most possible candidates would not make the traditional runoff.  This happened in France where the leading liberal candidate and expected challenger to the incumbent president was “spoiled” by other liberal candidates who ran as well.  This allowed a less popular far-right candidate to reach the runoff instead.  A traditional runoff extends the campaign season, which most voters object to.  Traditional runoffs are also costly, both to the taxpayer who must pay for the duplicate election and to the candidates who must double campaign fund-raising, prolonging their stress and creating more potential influence for campaign donors. IRV assures that the ultimate decision will be made at the election with the greatest level of citizen participation. Runoffs tend to have a low voter turnout. The winner of a runoff may receive far fewer votes than an opponent won in the original election, leading to doubts about the “will of the people,” hobbled legitimacy, and lack of a perceived mandate. Finally, in a big field of candidates, the strongest candidate might finish third and miss the runoff altogether.

Q. 	Aren’t IRV and PR just a means of voters avoiding hard choices?

A. 	IRV and PR simply give voters more and better choices. It is no virtue for a system to force some voters to oppose their favorite candidate just because that candidate is unlikely to win. Campaigns are about debate, dialogue and participation, not just determining winners.
Endorsers of Instant Runoff Voting

Many newspapers, organizations and individuals have endorsed instant runoff voting. This is a partial listing of endorsers. More can be found at www.fairvote.org:

Newspapers
USA Today
St. Petersburg Times (FL)
Trenton Times (NJ)
Sacramento Bee (CA)

Organizations
Alliance for Democracy
American Reform Party 
Banneker Center for Economic Justice
Boston VOTE
Center for Constitutional Rights
Citizens for Legitimate Government
Common Cause (VT)
The Grange, Vermont Chapter
League of Women Voters (VT)
National Association of State PIRGs
Pacific Green Party
Sierra Club
Texans for Public Justice, Austin, TX
Umoja Party, Washington, DC 
Voter March

Individuals
John B. Anderson, former U.S. Representative, 1980 independent candidate for president, president of the Center for Voting and Democracy
Kathleen Barber, Professor Emerita, John Carroll University and former chair, Cuyahoga County charter commission
Harriet S. Barlow, Director, HKH Foundation
Ted Becker, Alumni Professor of Political Science, Auburn University 
Medea Benjamin, Founding Director, Global Exchange
Jim Blacksher, Civil Rights Attorney, Alabama
Ken Bresler, columnist and former Massachusetts state legislative candidate 
John C. Brittain, Dean, Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Texas Southern University*
Dennis Burke, Writer and former executive director, Arizona Common Cause
Dan Cantor, Executive Director, Working Families Party*
Steve Cheifetz, Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust*
Steve Cobble, Former Political Director, National Rainbow Coalition
Jeff Cohen, Author and Media Critic
Richard DeLeon, Department of Political Science, San Francisco State University*
Derek Cressman, Democracy Program Director, National Association of State PIRGs
Ron Daniels, Executive Director, Center for Constitutional Rights
Lisa Disch, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Ronnie Dugger, Founder and First Co-Chair, Alliance for Democracy
David Eliscu, Western Connecticut Green Party 
Dave Enrich, Citizens for True Democracy
Ralph Estes, Center for Advancement of Public Policy
Frances Fox-Piven, Graduate Center, City University of New York*
John Gibson, Common Bonds*
John Glasel, Past President, American Federation of Musicians’ Local 802 (NYC)*
Ted Glick, Independent Progressive Politics Network
Bill Gram-Reefer, Worldview
Dr. William Grover, Chair, Political Science Department at St. Michael's College 
Lani Guinier, Professor, Harvard Law School
Doris “Granny D” Haddock
Dan Hamburg, Former U.S. Congressman and Executive Director, Voice of the Environment*
Howie Hawkins, Green Party, Syracuse, New York
Ronald Hayduk, Assistant Professor, City University of New York
Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor, The New Yorker
Jim Hoaglund, VoterMarch*
Gerald Horne, Attorney, Author and Activist
Evelyn Jerome, past president, Los Angeles County Young Democrats
Neal Jesse, Assistant Professor, Bowling Green State University*
Mark P. Jones, Associate Professor, Michigan State University
Sheila Jordan, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, Hayward, California
David Kairys, Professor of Law, Temple University* 
David Dyssegaard Kallick, Former Social Policy editor
Randy Kehler, Alliance for Democracy*
Alex Keyssar, Professor of History, Duke University*
Jerry Arthur Knight, Judge Hubert L. Will Chapter, American Veterans Committee
David C. Korten, Author of When Corporations Rule the World
Saul Landau, Institute for Policy Studies*
Kay Lawson, Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University
David Lawrence, Professor of Political Science, Fordham University
Daniel Lazare, Journalist and Author of The Frozen Republic (1996)
Michael Lewyn, Professor, John Marshall Law School, Atlanta, Georgia
Arend Lijphart, Research Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of California, San Diego*
Phillip Macklin, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Miami University* / Chair, Governance Committee of Oxford, Ohio League of Women Voters*
Robert McKay, San Francisco
Kevin McKeown, City Councilmember, Santa Monica, California
Michael Morrill, Pennsylvania Consumer Action Network
Dr. Ted Mosch, University of Tennessee-Martin
Jon Moscow, Co-Director, Amber Charter School, New York City
Steven Mulroy, University of Memphis Law School
Phil Tajitsu Nash, Asian American Studies Program, University of Maryland*
Krist Novoselic, President, JAMPAC, Washington state
Wayne Peak, Political Scientist, Colorado State University
William Peltz, Capital District Labor-Religion Coalition, Albany, New York*
Joseph G. Peschek, Political Science, Hamline University
George Pillsbury, Bostonvote*
Lewis Pitts, Director, Advocates for Children's Services, Legal Services of North Carolina*
John Rapp, Professor of Political Science, Beloit College*
Jamin Raskin, Professor of Constitutional Law, American University*
Scott Rasmussen, Independent Public Opinion Analyst
Willie Ratcliff, Publisher, San Francisco Bay View newspaper 
Juan C. Ros, Executive Director, Libertarian Party of California
John Rensenbrink, Founder Maine Green Independent Party; Author: Against All Odds: the Green Transformation of American Politics (Leopold Press, 1999)
Richard Rider, President, Economy Telcom*
Joel Rogers, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Mark E. Rush, Associate Professor of Politics, Washington and Lee University
Paul Ryder, Ohio Citizen Action*
Donald Shaffer, Member and Board of Directors, NYCLU*; Co-Chair, New Politics Club of Long Island*
Matthew Singer, Montana YMCA Youth and Government Youth Governor 2000-2001
James R. Simmons, Chair, Political Science Department, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh*
Bill Smaldone, City Councilor, Salem, Oregon 
Sam Smith, Editor, The Progressive Review
Tony Solgard, Chair, FairVote Minnesota
Bill Spelman, Associate Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas; and former member, Austin City Council
Aaron Starr, Chairman, Libertarian Party of California
Jean Stein, editor, Grand Street Magazine*
David Stern, Stern Family Fund
Edward Still, Voting and Elections Attorney, Washington, DC
Rein Taagepera, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of California, Irvine
Nicolaus Tideman, Professor of Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University*
Michael Twombly, Executive Director, Northwest Democracy Institute
Father Benjamin J. Urmston, S.J., Director Peace and Justice Programs, Xavier University
Dr. Gerald R. Webster, Professor of Geography, University of Alabama*
Leonard Williams, Department of History and Political Science, Manchester College
Robert Winters, Harvard University Department of Mathematics*
David Zavon, political fairness activist, Cinncinnati
Joseph Zimmerman, Professor of Political Science, State University of New York at Albany
Representative David Zuckerman, Vermont State House

* Organization listed for identification purposes only

To publicly endorse instant runoff voting, please send your name, along with contact information and information on how you would like to be identified, to endorse@fairvote.org

Student Government Questionnaire  

1.  Does your student government elect its officers through a “winner-take-all” system (a system where there is only one winner in each race)?
If so, then we must strive to make your winner-take-all system as fair and fully representative as possible.  Consider the following questions to analyze the shortcomings of some winner-take-all systems.  

2.  Do your elections sometimes experience more than two candidates running for any one position (i.e. a three- or four-way race)?
If so, how do you guarantee that the winning candidate is the candidate supported by the most students.  The only way to guarantee that the candidate is supported by the most students is if s/he receives more than 50% of the votes.  In a race with more than two candidates it is very difficult for one candidate to garner that many votes. 

3.  Have candidates ever been declared the winner without receiving a majority of the votes in the election (a majority is considered more than 50%)?
If so, then your student government is vulnerable to spoiled elections where a candidate can win with no minimum amount of votes.  On some campuses candidates have been declared the winner with as little as 27% of the votes.  This is not the best winner-take-all system as that leaves 73% of the students disenfranchised who opposed the winning candidate.  

4.  Does your government require a second delayed election, also known as a runoff election, for races where no candidate receives the minimum threshold (the minimum number or percentage of votes that a candidate must receive in order to be declared the winner)?
If so, your government must accept the fact your closest elections will be determined by elections where far fewer students turnout to vote.  Delayed runoff elections on campuses around the country are plagued by remarkably low student participation.

5.  Do your elections cost the student government any money?  Are they difficult or time consuming to administrate?
If so,  then a second delayed runoff election is not the answer for your campus.  Although delayed runoffs guarantee that the winning candidate is the most broadly accepted candidate, there is another alternative that achieves the same goal without the costs. Keep in mind that candidates also have campaigning costs which will double when they have to run again in a second election.
Step-by-Step Guide to Implementation

This guide provides a good beginning to any student electoral reform activist.  Let us know if you find and additional steps that would be useful to add.

1.	Research your constitution and by-laws to understand your school’s particular process to implement IRV.  It may be by amending you constitution or your by-laws.  On some campuses, election coordinators even have the authority to institute instant runoff voting.

2.	Introduce the idea to elected officials in the legislature and the executive cabinet or any additional relevant person.  Present pertinent materials and seek their feedback.  Their feedback is important to gain their interest and involvement in the proposal’s success.

3.	Host a forum with a CVD speaker explaining the voting systems and seeking input from audience.  Convince elected officials to attend and also invite the general student body.  Take notes of opposing arguments and concerns in order to refute them.

4.	Follow up with those who are concerned and present well-phrased refutation to their concerns.  You can collect e-mails at the forum and send responses en masse or write a letter to the editor to the school newspaper.  This will also present your supporters with the same information so that they will not be persuaded by other’s concerns.  Education is important.  The largest obstacle a reformer must overcome is ignorance.

5.	Meet with Elections Chair(s), election coordinator and/or relevant officials.  The election coordinator and relevant officials may be different on every campus so you must research your voting system to determine the appropriate people.  Discuss practicality and implementation.  Again solicit their support.

6.	Draft a resolution or amendment to implement IRV.  Circulate drafts to all the relevant officials and legislators.  Seek their feedback on the language so that the resolution will meet their approval.

7.	Introduce the resolution to the legislature or relevant subcommittee; utilize CVD materials in this packet and on the website in a presentation (Newspaper articles, sample ballots, Student Government brochure, etc.)  

8.	Lobby the government as the resolution is up for vote.  Do not let down.  You should also be educating the student body so that general support for IRV on campus rises as well.

9.	Meet with Elections Chair(s) again, once the resolution is passed, to follow up and ensure that IRV can be implemented as soon as possible.  This may mean writing necessary computer programming and/or running a practice election.

Finally, remember that the CVD staff can guide you throughout the entire process.  Most of the problems that you may run into have already been met and solved.  Use the studentgov@fairvote.org and instantrunoffStudents@yahoogroups.com as valuable resources.  Many students have already passed IRV in their legislature and have experience in defending its merit. 
In The Meantime…

While in the midst of the step-by-step process there are a number of other projects that you can undertake to further your efforts to implement instant runoff voting.  You can choose which one best suits your campus.  The Center is available to assist you with all of these projects and it has more information on each of them.  E-mail studentgov@fairvote.org for our additional information on each project.

•	Distribute more copies of this brochure.  The Center can provide you with more copies.  It is especially beneficial to provide elected officials a copy of this brochure.  There may be nominal costs to producing more copies, which we hope you would be able to share with us.

•	Hold a mock election in your campus center to demonstrate how instant runoff voting works.  The Center has sample ballots, tally sheets and instructions which will help administer the mock election.

•	Write a letter to the editor for your school newspaper that explains the benefits of instant runoff voting to your campus.  The Center has both sample letters and a letter template that can help you write your letter to the editor.

•	Start a student organization to lobby your government on behalf of implementing instant runoff voting.  The Electoral Reform Committee of Vassar College is one such example.  You may review their website at groups.yahoo.com/group/VC-ElectoralReform.

•	Host a CVD speaker for a workshop on instant runoff voting and invite the campus to learn of its benefits.  The Center can help you schedule and plan the workshop from its experience of doing the same.  E-mail studentgov@fairvote.org – we would love to come

•	Collect endorsements from organizations, departments and individuals.  The political science department is a good place to start.  

•	Talk to your representative(s) or any other elected official about the benefits of instant runoff voting.  Try to gain allies in your government one at a time that can also fight for instant runoff voting.

•	Lastly, talk to your friends about instant runoff voting.  If you can convince one person on the merits of instant runoff voting then you’ve advanced the cause.  That person may become someone of authority when they leave school.  Or, even still, your friend may join your student group and/or convince additional people on campus which could make an immediate impact.

Demonstration Elections

Instant runoff voting is a new idea to most people. Many people find it easier to comprehend new ideas by seeing or doing rather than reading or hearing. Perhaps the easiest way to explain instant runoff voting is to conduct a demonstration in which people either fill out paper ballots and watch and listen to someone count them or actually become the ballot and vote with their bodies.
 
Be the ballot – a live IRV demonstration

To conduct a simple demonstration with an audience willing to stand up and move around the room, choose a topic and either pick four nominees or solicit nominations (please see “potential problems” on next page for why four is a good number). Innocuous topics such as favorite ice cream flavor or favorite pizza topping tend to work well. With more politically charged topics, participants may focus on who is voting for whom rather than how the system works. Also, the demonstration works best if all the nominees have a reasonable level of support and none is the overwhelming favorite of most of the group.  You can also have participants fill out paper ballots (see below) and carry the ballots with them to bolster the demonstration. 

Then designate the 4 corners of the room as the gathering places for each of the candidates. Voters are instructed to join the group representing their favorite flavor.

Have each group count its vote total, and inquire if any group has a majority. If so, that group wins the election. If not, thank the members of the smallest group for raising important issues (such as “mushroom” or “rocky road”), and direct them to join their next favorite flavor. Have the groups call out their vote totals and determine if any group has won. If not, eliminate one more group, allow the losing voters to join their next favorite candidate, and now one of the candidates is assured of having a majority (please see “potential problems” on what some may claim after this demonstration).

Demonstrations with paper ballots

Official Ballot

INSTRUCTIONS: Write the name of your first choice, second choice, third choice and so on. You may vote for as many or as few choices as you like.

1st Choice:	______________
2nd Choice:	______________
3rd Choice:	______________
4th Choice:	______________

It is extremely easy to conduct a demonstration using paper ballots – at schools, organizations, county fairs, conferences and so on.

Print up paper ballots that look like this. Then choose four candidates, distribute the ballots and tell voters to follow the instructions.

Collect the ballots and point out how easy it was for people to fill out the ballots. This is the easiest way to refute the silly notion that this it is too hard for voters.

Explain that instant runoff voting produces a majority winner in a single election. Say that ballots are counted in rounds, winning requires a majority of votes in a round, in each round, your ballot counts as one vote for your favorite candidate still in the race, and if no one receives a majority of votes in a round, you eliminate the weakest candidate and conduct another round.

Depending on the number of ballots you are counting, you might want to solicit an assistant who can sort the ballots into piles based on the first choices. Then count the ballots in each pile, write the totals on a chalkboard if possible so everyone can see the totals, and determine if there’s a winner. If not, pick up all the ballots in the smallest pile, and place each one in the pile corresponding to the voter’s second choices. Repeat the process until a winner emerges.

Potential problems and questions that can crop up

Ties are extremely rare in elections, but with small demonstrations, it seems like they happen every time. If this happens to you, ask the group how ties are handled under the current voting systems, and inform them that ties in IRV are handled the same way. Ties are generally broken by drawing lots, 

Some people may not wish to support a second choice candidate after their first choice is eliminated. This is fine. Voters are free to list a first choice candidate but not a second choice candidate. That is much like voting in a first round election and then deciding that you don’t like either candidate in the runoff and choosing not to vote.

Demonstrations can drag on beyond the attention span of your audience if you use more than 4 candidates. With 4 candidates, you are guaranteed to achieve a winner after no more than 2 eliminations, so it goes quite quickly.

What about write-in candidates? Write-in votes are handled just as they are in a non-IRV election. We don’t encourage write-in votes in a demonstration, since it makes the demonstration take longer, but the system accommodates write-ins just as easily as the current system.

Some may claim that the supporters of the weakest candidates, the “fringe” candidates, get 2 votes and everyone else only got one. In fact, in each round, each voter has exactly one vote, and each voter gets to support her favorite candidate who is still in the race. If your favorite candidate advances in the instant runoff, you continue to support that candidate. If your favorite candidate gets eliminated, you have to support your next choice candidate. It’s much like a two-round runoff in this regard.
Gaining Endorsements from Organizations and Individuals

Unfortunately, electoral reformers tend not to have the resources necessary to conduct a media campaign to educate the public about the problems of the current system and the advantages of instant runoff voting and proportional representation.

We therefore need to focus resources on opinion leaders, the respected people and organizations that are most likely to influence public opinion. These may include newspapers, elected officials, other civic and business leaders, celebrities, political parties, neighborhood groups, election officials and so one.

An important part of any campaign is to identify the important organizations and individuals from whom to solicit endorsements as well as the messenger or contact most likely to succeed with the target person or group. You may wish to make a list of all the people and organizations whose endorsements you want and then prioritize the order in which to approach them. 

As you decide on your approach to a group, remember to frame the issue as a problem perceived by the group, find the right messenger and put forward the arguments for change that are most likely to appeal to the group.  It may not be practicable to solicit endorsements of both IRV and PR from the same organization or individual.  In that case, decide which has a greater chance of success and pursue just the one.

Winning an endorsement from a group requires persuasive responses to several questions:

1.	What’s the problem? “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?” What is broke?
2.	Why are IRV and PR good ideas?
3.	Why should my organization take a position on this issue?
4.	Why are IRV and PR good for my organization?
5.	How do IRV  and PR work? What about unintended consequences?
6.	Who supports and who opposes IRV and PR?

When making a presentation to an organization that you are seeking an endorsement from, you’ve got to focus on the problem of their current system.  If you can’t convince a group about the seriousness of the problem you’ve identified, the group is unlikely to take a stand in favor of changing something as fundamental as the voting system.

In a half hour presentation to an organization, you might want to spend 10 or 15 minutes discussing the problem and asking the members of the group about how well the current system is working and what problems do they see. After you generate some agreement about the problem, you should talk about the benefits of IRV for the voter and for the group.

Only after the group has expressed concern about the current system and interest in the benefits of instant runoff voting should you discuss or demonstrate specifically how IRV/PR work. In our experience, if people don’t believe in a problem with a current system and don’t appreciate the benefits of electoral reform, they will probably not make much of an effort to understand the new system. This could lead to a dismissive claim that the system is too complicated or difficult.
Services and Resources for Student ER Advocates

The Center assists student electoral reform activists who advocate for instant runoff voting and proportional representation. Our services and resources include the following:

Website

We strive to make all of our resources available on our website, www.fairvote.org.  This includes an extensive library of articles, as well as educational materials, original research, election data and analysis, and organizing materials.  For more schools employing alternative election methods visit www.fairvote.org/irv/studentgov.htm. 

Listserves

We support many listserves that offer resources and discussion groups for the electoral reform activist.  
		instantrunoffStudents@yahoogroups.com 
	  	instantrunoff@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe, insert “-subscribe” before the “@” and send an e-mail to that address.

Additional Materials

The Center also has many additional materials including the Student Activist Starter Kit and a number of articles that are valuable to the student and citizen activist.  E-mail studentgov@fairvote.org or call us for these materials.

Speakers, training, and conferences

Using our nationwide network of staff, board, allies and members, we provide speakers, conduct trainings and hold regional and national conferences for citizens, students, elected official and election administrators.  The Center can host any of these forums on national election reform efforts as well as for election reform in student governments.

Please contact us for assistance:
Center for Voting and Democracy
6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 901
Takoma Park MD 20912
301-270-4616
www.fairvote.org
studentgov@fairvote.org
info@fairvote.org