Go for instant runoffBy Hannah Garden-Monheit
Published July 2nd 2005 in Aspen Times
Dear Editor:
The dismal turnout in the June 7 runoff election emphasized the need to re-evaluate Aspen's use of a two-round election. In addition to low turnout, runoff elections are costing the city valuable tax dollars - the last runoff produced a whopping bill of $6,000. However, scrapping the runoff altogether is not the best option.
The city should consider instant runoff voting as the solution to Aspen's electoral troubles. With IRV, voters rank the candidates they support on a single ballot. The system guarantees majority support for a candidate on one simple ballot. There is no need for a costly, low-turnout second election. IRV has the added benefit of discouraging negative campaigning, since candidates will want to earn the second-choice votes of their opponents' supporters.
Aspen should look into using IRV, rather than regressing to a system that does not produce majority winners.
Hannah Garden-Monheit
Washington, D.C.
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.