By Eric Mendelson
Published September 27th 2005 in The Missoulian
The close results of our recent mayoral primary will leave many
frustrated voters and "if-only-I'd" voters. There is a better way:
instant runoff vote elections, a method Deborah Oberbillig proposed on
this page on Sept. 20. This method eliminates the need for primary
elections and has other advantages. How do I know? I co-led an IRV
special election in Ithaca, N.Y., a few years ago. It proved more
efficient and most of all, yielded a fairer representation of voters'
preferences. Also, voters in various locations who've rank-choice voted
(IRVs) usually want more IRV elections.
Standard American elections can offer reasonable results with two candidates. Less fair results often come with multiple candidates. Imagine an election with candidates getting similar numbers of votes: Candidate A getting 2,204 votes, B getting 2,206, C getting 2,211 votes and D 500. Let's picture an IRV feature: that voters got to cast their second choices, too, on their ballots. When no candidate receives an outright majority of first-choice votes, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated, and his voters' second choices get counted as votes for remaining candidates. If Candidate A in my hypothetical election was the second choice of 5,820 voters, an overwhelming majority, who'd better represent the will of the voters: A? Or would B and C?
If this were a standard election's primary, B and C would move on to the general election, repeating their whole campaigns (any wonder so many voters blow off primaries?) with Candidate A eliminated. Yet, I suggest that A might well turn out the clear voter preference were he or she included in the general election. A single IRV election would democratically provide a winner chosen by at least 50 percent of voters, not a pair of temporary winners from a plurality of the few primary voters. I endorse Oberbillig 's IRV idea to prevent another this-just-doesn't-seem-right election result. We voters and our next mayor deserve better.
Eric Mendelson, Missoula
Standard American elections can offer reasonable results with two candidates. Less fair results often come with multiple candidates. Imagine an election with candidates getting similar numbers of votes: Candidate A getting 2,204 votes, B getting 2,206, C getting 2,211 votes and D 500. Let's picture an IRV feature: that voters got to cast their second choices, too, on their ballots. When no candidate receives an outright majority of first-choice votes, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated, and his voters' second choices get counted as votes for remaining candidates. If Candidate A in my hypothetical election was the second choice of 5,820 voters, an overwhelming majority, who'd better represent the will of the voters: A? Or would B and C?
If this were a standard election's primary, B and C would move on to the general election, repeating their whole campaigns (any wonder so many voters blow off primaries?) with Candidate A eliminated. Yet, I suggest that A might well turn out the clear voter preference were he or she included in the general election. A single IRV election would democratically provide a winner chosen by at least 50 percent of voters, not a pair of temporary winners from a plurality of the few primary voters. I endorse Oberbillig 's IRV idea to prevent another this-just-doesn't-seem-right election result. We voters and our next mayor deserve better.
Eric Mendelson, Missoula
