In the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election fiasco, prominent politicians everywhere trumpeted their latest scheme for restoring democracy to this country. While most of these suggestions are a step in the right direction, they fail to address the fundamental problem with our nation's voting system -- that it does not ensure majority rule. Under our present voting system, the winner is determined as much by the arbitrary political distribution of candidates as it is by the popularity of the candidate with the most votes. Candidates who represent a majority viewpoint will often split the vote, allowing someone representing a minority viewpoint to win. Fortunately, a voting method does eliminate these problems. Instant runoff voting permits voters to rank the candidates in order of preference. The votes are initially tabulated by counting only the voter's first choices. If one candidate receives a majority, then he or she is declared the winner. If no one receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and votes cast for that candidate are transferred to the voters' second choice. The process is repeated until one candidate emerges with a majority. Under this instant system, qualified individuals would no longer be afraid to run for office for fear of hurting the chances of other candidates, resulting in a more open debate where issues affecting average people could no longer be ignored by the major parties. Minor-party candidates would find it easier to qualify for public campaign funding, thus reducing the power of private cash to influence politics. Parties would need to form coalitions to reach a majority level of support, and negative campaigning would be reduced. Piecemeal reforms are not what our archaic electoral system needs. Voters should not be punished with a government that does not represent their will simply because of individuals exercising their right to run for public office. The voters have been punished enough. Instant runoff voting is an idea whose time has come.