On March 16th, Former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean continued his support for instant runoff voting on Vermont Radio's Mark Johnson Show. Commenting on Burlington's recent IRV election, Dean said "I think the best and most democratic way to use to elect people in multiparty elections is instant runoff voting." Dean also supported the system when it was first used in Burlington in 2006.
Citizens of Burlington, Vermont went to the polls on Tuesday, March 3rd to vote for the second time in an election using instant runoff voting. At 8:25 PM, the city declared that incumbent Mayor Bob Kiss had won reelection in the third and final round of counting, narrowly edging out challenger Kurt Wright, 51.5% to 48.5%. The race was unique in that it had four candidates that had a legitimate shot at winning: Progressive Kiss, Republican Wright, Democrat Andy Montroll, and independent Dan Smith. In most other American cities, there would be fear of "spoiler" candidates, but IRV allowed all four candidates to run without having to worry about being labeled "spoilers."
On April 4, Vermont governor Jim Douglas chose to veto legislation to re-establish majority elections for Congress in his state through instant runoff voting. Vermont would have been the first state to enact IRV for Congress; legislative leaders affirmed their commitment to the bill, and it is sure to move in the state again. FairVote has worked hard to support this legislation, which likely generated more than 600 phone calls to the governor from Vermonters.By Andrew Mack
Published April 28th 2007 in Burlington Free Press
First, the impact of a third (or more) party candidate is enhanced, not weakened. Usually, there are two candidates (one more major) who are more similar than a third major candidate. The weaker candidate will actually receive, on the first ballot, a vote total more in line with what voters actually think.
This is because "strategic voting," voting for a major candidate other than your first choice because you're worried about electing the other major candidate, is no longer needed. Voters who prefer the "third" candidate can vote for a least viable candidate as their first choice without fear of electing the candidate they want the least.
The editorial states (without explanation) that strategic voting will move down the ballot, but this is simply not so. Suppose a voter likes Ralph Nader. He puts him first, Al Gore second as the closest to his first choice, and George W. Bush last as his last choice. Nader is eliminated on the first ballot, and most of his first-place votes will go to the candidate who is closest to him, Gore. His vote has not been wasted, nor has his vote against Bush resulted in Bush's election. If he leaves the third choice blank, meaning no vote for Bush, this is still honest, not strategic, because he wouldn't vote for Bush if he were the only choice anyway.
Another statement that is at least misguided, if not simply in error, is that instant runoff voting violates the principle of one-man one-vote. In each stage of the vote counting, each voter has voted for only one candidate. Stating who you would prefer if your first choice is eliminated is still voting for one candidate. In each stage, each voter casts one vote for one candidate, as they would in non-instant runoff.
Rather, a genuine positive aspect of instant runoff voting is this: Instead of holding the second (runoff) election at a later date, it's held the same date, with the voters in the same frame of mind at the end of the campaign. It is well known that subsequent elections never attract as many voters as the first. Also, voters may change their mind between the election and the run-off, after the initial campaign is over, violating fairness criteria.
The biggest positive effect of instant runoff voting is that the lack of strategic voting informs the campaign debate. All candidates can now state their positions without worry of voter strategy. A more informed debate promises a more honest election. And even the most skeptical voter must admit that the problem of specious, strategic campaigning is, in fact, a major flaw in our present system. Presently, candidates prefer to espouse safe platitudes, and rarely have honest discussions of issues. This is where our "crisis of confidence" lies.
Lastly, instant runoff voting solves the major problem of less-than-majority results. Without instant runoff voting, a candidate who receives the most last-place votes can be elected. Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie was elected, even though 60-plus percent voted against him. With instant runoff voting, the candidate whom the voters like the least is not elected.
I refer the reader to Excursions in Modern Mathematics (Tannenbaum), where these effects are discussed at greater length and instant runoff voting is correctly referred to as Plurality with Elimination.
Andrew Mack of Burlington is a mathematics teacher at Burlington High School.
