Why Vote Yes?
How It Works
Contact / Volunteer
Why Support Memphis Charter Amendment 5?
Vote YES! on Charter Amendment 5
Charter Amendment 5 would bring instant runoff voting to Memphis elections.
Instant runoff voting (IRV) enhances democracy for Memphis:
- Fewer Elections: IRV allows primaries or runoffs to be held at the same time as general elections, thereby reducing the number of elections voters must turnout for
- Positive Campaigning: IRV encourages positive, more issue-based campaigns, as candidates will have incentives to reach out to their opponents supporters
- More Choices: IRV solves the "spoiler" problem in elections, thereby allowing for candidates to run without fear of electing their polar opposites
- Greater Voter Participation: IRV means higher voter turnout in elections that matter, since voters are asked to turnout for fewer elections with more choices
Exit Poll Surveys Show Voters Like Instant Runoff Voting:
Exit polls have been done in every American city where voters that used instant runoff voting (IRV) for the first time in 2004-2007. These elections were:
- San Francisco, California First used in November 2004 in elections for city council
- Burlington, Vermont: First used in March 2006 in elections for mayor
- Takoma Park, Maryland: First used in January 2007 in electing a city council vacancy
- Cary, North Carolina: First used in October 2007 in elections for city council and mayor
- Hendersonville, North Carolina: First used in November 2007 in elections for city council
The following chart provides a summary of exit surveys showing that voters both understand and like instant runoff voting by overwhelming numbers.
|Jurisdiction||Understand IRV well or fairly well||Prefer IRV to city's prior system to IRV2||Knew how to rank candidates before coming to vote|
|San Francisco1||87%||82% ||69% |
|Takoma Park||88% ||89%4 ||84% |
|Cary||95%||72% ||76% |
|Hendersonville||86% ||71%||65% |
- Subsequent surveys in San Francisco in 2005 and 2006 showed continued high levels of support
- Some voters had no opinion. Percentages of those expressing support for IRV over old system were: San Francisco (61%), Burlington (63%), Takoma Park (89%), Cary (68%) and Hendersonville (67%).
- Measures voters who did not find the ballot confusing
- 76% said would like IRV for all local and state elections; an additional 13% support it for local elections
Exit poll survey sources:San Francisco, CAhttp://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/election/Elections_Pages/SFSU-PRI_RCV_final_report_June_30.pdf
Burlington VThttp://www.betterballotcampaign.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/burlington_exit_poll_results.pdf Takoma Park, MDhttp://www.fairvote.org/reports/researchreports/takoma_2007exit_summary.pdf
Cary and Hendersonville, NChttp://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/cobb/IRV%20Results_Tables.pdf