By Jon Hinck
Published January 26th 2007 in Portland (ME) Phoenix
Under instant run-off voting, elections run a little differently. The ballot gives voters the opportunity to rank all of the candidates instead of just singling out one choice. If, after counting voters� first choices, no candidate has a majority (as happened again in the 2006), the candidate receiving the fewest first-place choices is eliminated and votes are recounted. If need be, there are a series of such run-offs using the next ranked preferences of voters whose top choices are eliminated. This process continues until one candidate gets a majority of votes. This gives voters a better opportunity to express their preferences and especially works for those of us who may favor someone not viewed as �a major candidate.� Even when your top candidate falls short, you can still have a role in deciding the ultimate winner. I support this as one way to open up the election process. Other supporters are encouraged to help get the bill passed.
Jon Hinck
State Representative, D-Portland
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.