Could a new system of voting be a winner for Plainfield? That's what the
Village Board is trying to figure out.

The answer could depend on how well voters are informed about their second
and third choices, because under the proposed system residents would vote
for their first, second and third favorite candidates for a position.

If the person who gets the most votes doesn't get more than 50 percent of
the total first place votes, the new system would kick in. The total number
of first, second and third place votes would then be used to help determine
a winner.

The board has been intrigued enough with the idea to give the proposal some
more thought, following a presentation by resident Tim Tacker on May 22.

Tacker said he believes a winning candidate for public office should
receive more than 50 percent of the total popular vote, not just a
plurality of votes.

According to a report by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a home
rule municipality may enact the instant runoff voting system if first
approved by referendum. The system is sometimes referred to as preferential
voting.

In a synopsis of instant runoff voting, Village Administrator Chris Minick
said the only position to which the system could currently be applied is
the village president's position.

"The obvious advantage is that whoever wins the village president's
position in the future would receive a majority of the popular vote.
However, this may not alleviate the perception that it is still not a clear
mandate from the people because the winner may not have been the "first
choice" of a majority of the voters," Minick said.

The method would determine a majority winner no matter how many candidates
are running and would do so without a runoff election being required,
Tacker said.

This would be accomplished because each voter would list a second and third
choice on his or her ballot. If no candidate is the first choice of at
least half the voters, a runoff count of the same ballots is conducted,
Tacker said.

The counting of ballots simulates a series of runoff elections, eliminating
the candidates who have the least support, he said.

In each round, every voter's ballot counts as a single vote for his or her
top-ranked candidate who is still in the running.

Candidates with the least support are eliminated until there are just two
remaining. The finalist with the highest number of votes is elected by a
majority, he said.

To simplify the count, the field can be immediately reduced to two
candidates after the initial ballot count, determining a winner in the
second round of counting.

It's all constitutional, Tacker said.

"Preferential voting is especially useful and fair ...it makes possible a
more representative result than under a rule that a plurality shall elect,"
he said.

He noted that in the last election for village president, current Mayor
James Waldorf received 22.4 percent of the vote; the other candidates won
21.85; 20.29; 20.08 and 15.29 percent of the vote.

If instant runoff voting was in place, the candidate with 15.29 (trustee
Paul Fay) would not have been counted in.

The second and third choices listed by voters play a major role in
determining a final winner, who would be determined to have more than a
majority of the votes, without having to hold a runoff election, Tacker
said.

He said the method, used in some other cities in the United States and in
some other countries, ensures a majority winner, improves voter turnout and
reduces negative campaigning. The village wouldn't have to pay for any
special counting machines, since that is the responsibility of the county
clerk, he said.

Contact Louise Brass at [email protected] or 815-439-7557
06/09/06