By Eric Kurhi
Published February 27th 2004 in Berkeley Voice
So, Who Wants To Talk about instant runoff voting?
Eyelids get lazy. Minds wander and wonder: "Maybe I should see what’s with all the hype over that Jesus flick. ... I wonder who’s going to be the next American Idol. ... How ’bout that upcoming presidential election; I voted for Ralph Nader last time and, gosh, that messed things up -- maybe I should just go with the party that stands a chance in the first place ...."
Skip the visions of idols -- religious, American or otherwise -- and stop on that last idle thought.
After all, it’s the case in point being driven home by those who want Berkeley residents to pass Measure I, which allows the city to adopt an instant runoff voting system. With IRV in place on a federal level, they say, Al Gore would have won the last presidential election.
Briefly, here’s how it works: Voters rank their picks, first, second, third, etc., as many candidates as there are, or as many as the voter wants to rank. If a majority is not reached, the candidate with the least No. 1’s is booted, but the ballots are not -- those who picked the most unpopular choice then have their second selection counted.
And it moves up the ladder -- next, fans of the second-to-last-place candidate have their alternate counted, then the third-rung loser’s proponents, and so on, until someone has a majority.
There’s a bit of a random element -- what if the bottom-of-the-barrel candidates are more right than left? Then the Republicans benefit. What if the "spoiler" is someone like Nader who reaps a considerable tally from the lefties? The obvious beneficiary is the Democrat candidate.
So how would have the 2000 election been affected by such a system? Ignoring possible changes in states that don’t count as much as Florida, we can observe that the 562 voters in that state for James Harris of the Socialist Worker’s Party would have likely skewed the vote away from Bush.
While many in Berkeley might feel otherwise, it’s a bit unnerving that a tiny faction of Socialists could have such an impact in choosing our nation’s leader.
But we can find something positive in this: With such a system, candidates would be encouraged to find broad-based support, rather than focusing only on people subscribing to their party line and smearing the rest. It makes third-party candidates a bit more viable, because it’s not a wasted vote if the dark horse’s alternate will be counted should it fall off the track.
We also like the possibility of a change in the voting system -- keep in mind, this measure only allows for such a system should the state make it financially feasible. While the current butterfly ballot is beautiful in its simplicity, the IRV appears to be an improved model. It would save the city money by avoiding the cost of a runoff, and might even garner greater turnout if voters are encouraged by the fact that the field is a bit more open.
We also disagree with the argument that such a ballot would be confusing; it’s a dismal day when we regard our fellow concerned citizens as being too stupid to judge what’s "good, better, best" or "bad, worse, worst."
It’s not one of those crazy Berkeley ideas. San Francisco passed a similar ordinance, as did San Leandro and Santa Clara County. It’s in use in London, Ireland and Australia. As more cities and counties look for ways to cut costs, it will likely gain popularity. It’s conducive to Berkeley ideals of peace (less negative campaigning) and free speech (third-party voices get a bit more powerful), so we’d like to see the city’s voters pass Measure I and allow for a change to the instant runoff system.
Eyelids get lazy. Minds wander and wonder: "Maybe I should see what’s with all the hype over that Jesus flick. ... I wonder who’s going to be the next American Idol. ... How ’bout that upcoming presidential election; I voted for Ralph Nader last time and, gosh, that messed things up -- maybe I should just go with the party that stands a chance in the first place ...."
Skip the visions of idols -- religious, American or otherwise -- and stop on that last idle thought.
After all, it’s the case in point being driven home by those who want Berkeley residents to pass Measure I, which allows the city to adopt an instant runoff voting system. With IRV in place on a federal level, they say, Al Gore would have won the last presidential election.
Briefly, here’s how it works: Voters rank their picks, first, second, third, etc., as many candidates as there are, or as many as the voter wants to rank. If a majority is not reached, the candidate with the least No. 1’s is booted, but the ballots are not -- those who picked the most unpopular choice then have their second selection counted.
And it moves up the ladder -- next, fans of the second-to-last-place candidate have their alternate counted, then the third-rung loser’s proponents, and so on, until someone has a majority.
There’s a bit of a random element -- what if the bottom-of-the-barrel candidates are more right than left? Then the Republicans benefit. What if the "spoiler" is someone like Nader who reaps a considerable tally from the lefties? The obvious beneficiary is the Democrat candidate.
So how would have the 2000 election been affected by such a system? Ignoring possible changes in states that don’t count as much as Florida, we can observe that the 562 voters in that state for James Harris of the Socialist Worker’s Party would have likely skewed the vote away from Bush.
While many in Berkeley might feel otherwise, it’s a bit unnerving that a tiny faction of Socialists could have such an impact in choosing our nation’s leader.
But we can find something positive in this: With such a system, candidates would be encouraged to find broad-based support, rather than focusing only on people subscribing to their party line and smearing the rest. It makes third-party candidates a bit more viable, because it’s not a wasted vote if the dark horse’s alternate will be counted should it fall off the track.
We also like the possibility of a change in the voting system -- keep in mind, this measure only allows for such a system should the state make it financially feasible. While the current butterfly ballot is beautiful in its simplicity, the IRV appears to be an improved model. It would save the city money by avoiding the cost of a runoff, and might even garner greater turnout if voters are encouraged by the fact that the field is a bit more open.
We also disagree with the argument that such a ballot would be confusing; it’s a dismal day when we regard our fellow concerned citizens as being too stupid to judge what’s "good, better, best" or "bad, worse, worst."
It’s not one of those crazy Berkeley ideas. San Francisco passed a similar ordinance, as did San Leandro and Santa Clara County. It’s in use in London, Ireland and Australia. As more cities and counties look for ways to cut costs, it will likely gain popularity. It’s conducive to Berkeley ideals of peace (less negative campaigning) and free speech (third-party voices get a bit more powerful), so we’d like to see the city’s voters pass Measure I and allow for a change to the instant runoff system.
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.