Instant runoff is the winner


By Robin Chesnut-Tangerman
Published March 28th 2006 in Rutland Herald
Sandy Baird's recent letter condemning instant runoff voting (IRV) as diminishing democracy doesn't make sense to me. Baird admits that IRV worked smoothly in Burlington, that it resolves the "spoiler" issues of third party candidates, that with IRV people can vote for their favorite candidate instead of voting against their least favorite, and that Burlington mayoral winner, Bob Kiss, would have won with or without IRV. This is failure? I wish all our elections could fail this well.

No, Bob Kiss' victory aside, I think the clear winner in Burlington was IRV, which I hope paves the way for the rest of the state to follow.

ROBIN CHESNUT-TANGERMAN
Middletown Springs

IRV Soars in Twin Cities, FairVote Corrects the Pundits on Meaning of Election Night '09
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.

And as pundits try to make hay out of the national implications of Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections, Rob Richie in the Huffington Post concludes that the gubernatorial elections have little bearing on federal elections.

Links