Tired of Recounts? Try Irish Approach to VotingBy David Wessel and James R. Hagerty
Published November 14th 2000 in The Wall Street Journal
In the three-way contest for the presidency of Ireland in 1990, Brian
Lenihan got about 44% of the vote, surpassing Mary Robinson with 39%
and Austin Currie with 17%. The winner: Mary Robinson.
Since no candidate had a majority, Mr. Currie was eliminated, and the votes of those for whom he was the first choice were distributed among their second choices. Because most of Mr. Currie's backers had listed Ms. Robinson as their second choice, she won the second round with 53%, and became Ireland's first female president.
Enthusiasm in the U.S. for this 130-year old alternative to conventional pick-one voting is limited to a small band of zealots, third-party candidates and an occasional newspaper editorial. But with the U.S. president election a virtual tie, and the outcome still in doubt a week after Election Day, alternatives are bound to get a harder look.
"Instant-Runoff Voting"
"With all this talk, you can't avoid talk about reforming or eliminating the Electoral College, and that gives us a huge opening to make it even fairer," say Eric Olson, deputy director of Center for Voting and Democracy, a Takoma Park, Md., group that campaigns for the Irish approach, which is know, among other terms, as "instant runoff voting."
Variants of the Irish approach have been used in parliamentary elections in Australia since 1918, in Malta since 1921 and [in a proportional representation version of a ranked ballot system] in municipal elections in Cambridge, Mass., since 1940. London used it to pick its new mayor. While those places may put the system to use for less potent jobs than the U.S. presidency, the Irish approach might have produced a different result in the very close U.S. presidential race in which George W. Bush and Al Gore each apparently drew 48% of the popular vote, and others shared 4%.
Here's how instant runoff voting, also called "preferential voting" or "single transferable vote," works. In a race with more than two candidates, voters mark not only their first choice, but their second, third, fourth choice and so on. If no candidate gets a majority, the losing candidates' votes are reallocated until one candidate has a majority. If the U.S. used such a system, votes for Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan (or Ross Perot in the 1992 and 1996 elections) would have been reallocated to whomever their supporters listed as a second choice.
Alaska Referendum in '02
Advocates of instant runoffs in the U.S. are pushing-with little success, so far-to use it more widely. Last month in Alaska, instant-runoff backers submitted 35,000 signatures in an effort to force a referendum on the issue in 2002. Across the country, backers hope the historic 2000 presidential elections will give them traction that has been sorely lacking. "I think our campaign opened the door for a national discussion" of alternative voting systems, Ralph Nader said last week.
Instant-runoff voting is more complicated than the U.S. system, dubbed "first past the post." It tends to strengthen the hand of smaller parties, which advocates see as a strength and detractors see as a weakness.
But a Vermont state commission in January 1999 concluded that instant-runoff voting is "as easy as 1-2-3," and recommended that it be used for all state-wide voting. "Voters do not need to learn any of the intricacies of the transfer-tabulation methodology, just as hardly any citizens understand how the Electoral College works," the commission said. The proposal has substantial support, but hasn't been adopted.
Instant runoff voting has its roots in schemes developed in the 1850s, but in its modern form was invented by W.R. Ware, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, around 1870, and was first used in Australia. Progressive Movement reforms in the U.S. in the early 20th century persuaded about two dozen U.S. cities to adopt [the proportional representation version of a ranked-ballot system called choice voting]. The high-water mark came in 1936, when New York City voters embraces [choice voting] in a referendum, but it was abandoned in the 1940s amid fears that it was helping Communists win legislative seats [because choice voting elects political minorities, unlike instant runoff voting]. By 1962, only Cambridge was still using [choice voting].
"With our voting system you don't have the capacity to have a spoiler," said Joe Kaplan, assistant director of Cambridge's election commission.
Ann Arbor, Mich., adopted instant runoff voting in 1975. The first time it proved decisive, a Democrat was elected by second-choice votes. Republicans were infuriated, and the system was quickly dropped. "It was way too complicated to implement. Nobody was sure at the end whether the one who got the most votes was the one who won. It was not a success," says Yvonne Clark, interim city clerk.
Since no candidate had a majority, Mr. Currie was eliminated, and the votes of those for whom he was the first choice were distributed among their second choices. Because most of Mr. Currie's backers had listed Ms. Robinson as their second choice, she won the second round with 53%, and became Ireland's first female president.
Enthusiasm in the U.S. for this 130-year old alternative to conventional pick-one voting is limited to a small band of zealots, third-party candidates and an occasional newspaper editorial. But with the U.S. president election a virtual tie, and the outcome still in doubt a week after Election Day, alternatives are bound to get a harder look.
"Instant-Runoff Voting"
"With all this talk, you can't avoid talk about reforming or eliminating the Electoral College, and that gives us a huge opening to make it even fairer," say Eric Olson, deputy director of Center for Voting and Democracy, a Takoma Park, Md., group that campaigns for the Irish approach, which is know, among other terms, as "instant runoff voting."
Variants of the Irish approach have been used in parliamentary elections in Australia since 1918, in Malta since 1921 and [in a proportional representation version of a ranked ballot system] in municipal elections in Cambridge, Mass., since 1940. London used it to pick its new mayor. While those places may put the system to use for less potent jobs than the U.S. presidency, the Irish approach might have produced a different result in the very close U.S. presidential race in which George W. Bush and Al Gore each apparently drew 48% of the popular vote, and others shared 4%.
Here's how instant runoff voting, also called "preferential voting" or "single transferable vote," works. In a race with more than two candidates, voters mark not only their first choice, but their second, third, fourth choice and so on. If no candidate gets a majority, the losing candidates' votes are reallocated until one candidate has a majority. If the U.S. used such a system, votes for Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan (or Ross Perot in the 1992 and 1996 elections) would have been reallocated to whomever their supporters listed as a second choice.
Alaska Referendum in '02
Advocates of instant runoffs in the U.S. are pushing-with little success, so far-to use it more widely. Last month in Alaska, instant-runoff backers submitted 35,000 signatures in an effort to force a referendum on the issue in 2002. Across the country, backers hope the historic 2000 presidential elections will give them traction that has been sorely lacking. "I think our campaign opened the door for a national discussion" of alternative voting systems, Ralph Nader said last week.
Instant-runoff voting is more complicated than the U.S. system, dubbed "first past the post." It tends to strengthen the hand of smaller parties, which advocates see as a strength and detractors see as a weakness.
But a Vermont state commission in January 1999 concluded that instant-runoff voting is "as easy as 1-2-3," and recommended that it be used for all state-wide voting. "Voters do not need to learn any of the intricacies of the transfer-tabulation methodology, just as hardly any citizens understand how the Electoral College works," the commission said. The proposal has substantial support, but hasn't been adopted.
Instant runoff voting has its roots in schemes developed in the 1850s, but in its modern form was invented by W.R. Ware, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, around 1870, and was first used in Australia. Progressive Movement reforms in the U.S. in the early 20th century persuaded about two dozen U.S. cities to adopt [the proportional representation version of a ranked-ballot system called choice voting]. The high-water mark came in 1936, when New York City voters embraces [choice voting] in a referendum, but it was abandoned in the 1940s amid fears that it was helping Communists win legislative seats [because choice voting elects political minorities, unlike instant runoff voting]. By 1962, only Cambridge was still using [choice voting].
"With our voting system you don't have the capacity to have a spoiler," said Joe Kaplan, assistant director of Cambridge's election commission.
Ann Arbor, Mich., adopted instant runoff voting in 1975. The first time it proved decisive, a Democrat was elected by second-choice votes. Republicans were infuriated, and the system was quickly dropped. "It was way too complicated to implement. Nobody was sure at the end whether the one who got the most votes was the one who won. It was not a success," says Yvonne Clark, interim city clerk.