Democracy USA Advisory
August 1, 2003

RECALL MADNESS AND NON-MAJORITY RULE

If Gov. Davis is Recalled, successor likely to win with fewer votes

State Spotlight: San Francisco provides "instant" solution for majority rule 

Washington, DC – August 1, 2003 – As the list of candidates vying to replace Governor Gray Davis rapidly grows in California’s October 7 recall, state voters are headed for a potentially chaotic election that exposes tremendous flaws in both our election mechanics and our voting rules. Election administrators are scrambling to find polling places and appropriate voting equipment. Many of the state’s machines cannot accommodate a large field of candidates, and many counties are still in the process of upgrading antiquated equipment that was discredited in the 2000 presidential elections.

“Our nation continues to suffer from a failure to invest in our electoral infrastructure,” commented the Center for Voting and Democracy’s executive director Rob Richie (301-270-4616, www.fairvote.org). “The right to vote is fundamental to protection of all rights, but we are not making it a high priority.”

As further indication of how the right to vote is poorly protected, the California recall will focus attention on our nation’s general reliance on plurality voting rules. Dozens of candidates may seek to replace Davis, including several major candidates. The recall requires Davis to win majority support to stay in office, but his prospective replacement will be the candidate who wins the most votes, no matter how small that total. Given the wide variety of candidates likely to run, the eventual winner could win with as few as 20%, as happened in the first round of the 2002 French presidential election.

Not since 1988 has a president won with the votes of a majority of those at the polls, and a majority of states have given all of their electoral votes to a candidate opposed by most of that state’s voters. The election of former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura with 37% of the vote received attention, but several Members of Congress won their initial primary election with less than 30% of their party’s primary vote. See www.fairvote.org/plurality for a study of non-majority election results.

“Gray Davis might lose the recall by receiving only 49% of the vote, but his replacement might win with a far lower percentage,” pointed out former presidential candidate and CVD Board Chair John Anderson. “We should elect our executive leaders with an instant runoff voting system that requires support from a majority of voters and does not punish supporters of independent candidates.”

In 2002, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to adopt instant runoff voting (IRV) for citywide elections. Under IRV, voters indicate their first choice, but also their runoff choices by ranking candidates: 1, 2 and 3. These rankings allow a simulated runoff election to determine the true majority winner. IRV is used to elect the Irish president, mayor of London and Australia parliament.

IRV has drawn particular interest because it eliminates the ‘spoiler’ problem of third party candidates. Voters are free to vote for any candidate on the ballot, secure in the knowledge that if their first choice is not elected, their subsequent choices will be considered to determine the majority winner.

Democracy USA is a new initiative designed to protect, enhance and exercise the power of the right to vote. Its November conference has backing from several leading national organizations. For more information visit www.DemocracyUSA.org.

- End -