Re: "Runoff elections would improve our democracy" (Rabble Rouser, July 2).
Runoff elections would indeed improve our electoral process. Their great virtue is that they avoid the spoiler effect of a third-party candidate.
An interesting variant is "instant runoff voting," which eliminates the physical runoff election, thereby saving money and time.
In instant runoff voting, voters rank their choices. If someone wins an outright majority based on first choices, the election is over.
If not, then the candidate receiving the least number of first-choice votes is removed, and his/her supporters have their votes switched to their second choice.
The assumption is that were an actual runoff held with one candidate removed, only voters who liked that candidate would change votes. Other voters would stay with their first preference. Through rankings, this happens automatically.
Instant runoff voting is a good idea that deserves consideration.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.