ìAnother useful reform could be readily implemented right now by the
states. It's called ëinstant runoff votingí (IRV)ÖThis simple
change in the system would allow voters to vote affirmatively for their
favorite candidate without wasting their vote outright or being a
ëspoilerí and handing the election to a candidate with whom they
disagree stronglyÖ It would ensure that whoever wins all of a state's
Electoral College votes receives at least a majority of the votes cast
in that state.î
Matthew Cossolotto, Christian Science Monitor, 12/13/00, ìTwo Easy Ways to Reform Electionsî
ìAdvocates of instant runoffs in the U.S. are pushingÖto use it more widelyÖ [A] Vermont state commission in January 1999 concluded that instant-runoff voting is ëas easy as 1-2-3,í and recommended that it be used for all statewide voting. ëVoters do not need to learn any of the intricacies of the transfer-tabulation methodology, just as hardly any citizens understand how the Electoral College works,í the commission saidÖ The proposal has substantial support, but hasn't been adopted.î
David Wessel & James R. Hagerty, The Wall Street Journal, 11/14/00, ìTired of Recounts? Try Irish Approach to Votingî
ìWhat better message than providing for direct popular election of the President -- preferably using instant runoff voting -- to ensure that our leader commands support from a majority of voters?î
John B. Anderson & Steven Hill, New York Daily News [and elsewhere], 11/12/00, ìGive Voters a Bigger Voiceî
ìIRV would guarantee us a President elected with at least the grudging support of the majority. As a bonus, it would enable people to express themselves by voting for third parties -- such as the Greens, this year -- without running the awkward risk of helping elect their most unfavorite candidate.î
Hendrik Hertzberg, Lead Commentary in New Yorkerís ìTalk of the Town,î 11/13/00
ìMajority rules? Increasingly not, says Robert Richie of the Washington-based Center for Voting and Democracy, which researches voting systems and voter participation. Richie and his staff have just completed a major study of plurality winners in federal and state elections. They found that plurality winners have become more common in the past decadeÖWhat's wrong with plurality winners? Their victories often come at the expense of the candidate who would have been the choice of voters in a two-candidate race, Richie said. Thus the winner is the candidate who was disliked by a majority of the votersÖRichie's solution is what he calls Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)Ö [H]e said, ëGiven the increasing number of plurality victories in Senate races, adopting IRV would be an important step toward building a healthier democracy.íî
Richard Morin, Washington Post, 10/29/00, ìUnconventional Wisdom: The Problem with Plurality Politicsî
ìIf Sen. Specter and others really want to advance ëmajority rule,í they can address the fact that whenever more than two candidates are in a race, one can win with less than a majority of the total vote. It probably will happen in this election; it happened in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president with 43 percent of the popular vote; and it happens frequently in local and state balloting. One way to solve the problem -- -- and still not discourage the Ralph Naders and Pat Buchanans from running, or their supporters from voting for them -- would be to adopt ëinstant runoff voting,í or IRVÖ It's a sensible system, used in Australia, Ireland and elsewhere, and it ought to work well in the United States.î
Editorial, Trenton Times (NJ), 11/10/00, ìElectoral College Virtuesî
ìRather than mandate a low 40 percent threshold and two rounds of voting, any amendment to the Constitution should allow electoral mechanisms to determine a majority winner in a single election. The most efficient and inexpensive method is instant runoff voting.î
Steven Hill & Rob Richie, The Hartford Courant [and elsewhere], 11/9/00, ìThe Case Against the Electoral Collegeî
ìAlthough common in many nations and in many states and cities, runoffs are an awkward, inefficient process. If the top two finishers in the presidential contest faced off in a second, national round of voting, the costs would be exorbitant. Candidates would have to grub for tens of millions of dollars in extra cash to run a new campaign, and the cumulative additional costs to local election administrators would be vast. And voter turnout easily could drop in the decisive runoffÖInstead, the Constitution should permit other mechanisms, such as instant-runoff voting, a more efficient and inexpensive method used in several nations.î
John B. Anderson, USA Today, 11/2/00, ìElectoral College Outlives Usefulnessî
ì[W]ith optical scanners and computers widely available to count votes today, technology is no longer an excuse for the Legislature to ignore the instant-runoff alternativeÖ[IRV] would also reduce campaign fundraising and spending, and not just by those candidates in runoffs. Florida's election law sets separate $500 contribution limits for the primary, the runoff and the general election even when a candidate won't face a runoff. And an instant runoff would save the public millions of dollars from the cost of conducting electionsÖOther countries use the instant runoff, and other American states are studying it. It deserves thoughtful consideration here.î
Editorial, St. Petersburg Times, 11/6/00, ìInstant runoff voting -- Better than Runoffsî
ìThe instant runoff would strengthen democracy and expand debate in several ways. First, it would give winners a real majority mandate. Second, it would give all voters incentive to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of electing their least favorite, since they could list a backup choice in case their first choice gets eliminated. As a result, the media would have incentive to cover third party and independent candidates and the issues they are raising. This would improve public debate and give more voters the ability to cast an informed vote that helps elect a candidate they like.î
Caleb Kleppner, www.etopics.com, ìTime to Repair American Electionsî
ìOne of the most promising ways [to mitigate the distortions of the electoral college]-and the one getting the biggest push around the country-is instant runoff voting (IRV)Ö According to five-term Vermont state representative Terry Bouricius, a Member of the Progressive Party, IRV has good chances of passing in his state, where a bill favoring it will soon be introduced with tripartisan support. ëEstablished politicians can recognize how it can benefit them, at least in the short term,í he says, ëeven as in the long term, it opens up third-party participation.í î
Alison Solomon, Village Voice, 11/22/00-11/28/00, ìFlorida Fiasco Puts Radical Reforms on the Table: Taking Back the Voteî
ìIf IRV had been in place this past election day, we would be facing a very different political landscape. The Greens would have gotten their 5 percent, and possibly more, as IRV would have freed all of us eco-minded citizens to vote our consciences without jeopardizing our interests. Gore would be heading to the White House, perhaps chastened by the knowledge that he was the second choice of a significant percentage of the polity. And (most important) I wouldn't have to spend my next four years fighting the malevolent environmental proposals that, without a doubt, will start emanating from the White House come January if Bush takes the helm.î
Clark Williams-Derry, Grist, 12/8/00, ìFormula for a Fair Countî
ìAlthough most Americans are unfamiliar with IRV, it is a recommended voting system in Robertís Rules of OrderÖInstant Runoff Voting offers a bright hope that the 2002 gubernatorial campaign and vote on election day will do the following: Produce a winner with a majority; give every citizen who votes a chance to vote for the candidate of their real choice; take away the fear of the spoiler; give third parties a chance to present their ideas to the public without the distorting filter of spoiler politics; and enable each candidate freely to appeal to all constituencies and not just special interests.î
John Rensenbrink, Times Record (ME), 12/26/00, ìA Way to Remedy Electoral Processî
"ë[IRV is] essentially like doing a two-round runoff,í said Steven Hill, western regional director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, which has pushed the idea for four years. ëExcept we're saying we don't have to bring you back to the polls. Tell us who you want.í î
Jeff Gottlieb, Los Angeles Times, 11/21/00, ìGroup Pushes Election ëInstant Runoff Ideaî
ìIRV partisans say the system erases the spoiler effect in which, for example, Nader voters agonize about their culpability in electing Bush. Under IRV, a Naderite puts his man first, and Gore second, says Eric Olson, deputy director of The Center for Voting and Democracy, a non-profit group advocating for the IRV system: ëpeople aren't throwing away their vote. Why is it in the US you can vote for your favorite person and end up helping the person you like the least?íÖAs a side benefit, candidates competing under IRV have less incentive to attack one another, because driving votes away from one opponent does not necessarily bring them to the attacker's camp. Increased civility in elections, along with the prospect of voting for one's favorite candidates instead of merely against those one detests, could increase voter turnout, strengthening the democratic system generally. And best of all, say proponents, IRV does not directly threaten either major political partyÖëIt works both ways,í notes Olson. ëIt's a neutral system.íî
Edward Ericson, Jr., Hartford Advocate, 11/23/00, ìInstant Runoff Voting- We Like It!: Australians Do It, Londoners Do It, Why Canít We?î
ìThe obvious result would be that no candidate would be elected with less than a majority of the vote. But another, far more important outcome would be the empowerment of third parties. It would be significantly easier to build third-party movements if supporters knew they werenít helping to elect their least-favorite major-party candidate. In addition, it would give third-party supporters more clout with the major parties, which would be tempted to modify their campaigns to make their candidates attractive at least as a second choice.î
William Raspberry, The Washington Post, 1/1/01, ìPost-Traumatic Suggestionsî
ì[Rob] Richie [of the Center for Voting and Democracy] said that instant runoff voting is more efficient because it simulates a runoff on Election Day and saves taxpayers the cost of holding another election on a different date.î
Kenneth Jost & Gregory L. Giroux, CQ Researcher, 12/8/00, ìElectoral Collegeî
Even if Mr. Gore had drawn an electoral majority, the 2000 election would have been the third consecutive White House contest won with less than 50% of the vote. ëPlurality outcomes arenít democratic,í complains Rob Richie, executive director of the Maryland-based Center for Voting and DemocracyÖThe Center advocates ëinstant runoffí elections, in which voters rate candidates in order of preference.î
John Harwood, The Wall Street Journal, 12/22/00, ìFixing the System: Lessons From States Hold Hope for Reformî
ì[IRV is] a system that ensures that the winner will have a majority of the votes cast, thus giving him or her a mandate. But it also ensures that the public will hear the voices of candidates who disagree with the positions of the two major parties and have different issues to raise and solutions to proposeÖIRV would be suitable for any election in which more than two candidates compete. The more candidates there are in the fieldÖthe greater the chance, under the present system, of a candidate winning with less than a majority, and, therefore, the greater the benefit of switching to IRV. The change would greatly improve the democratic process. It ought to be made.î
Editorial, Trenton Times (NJ), 10/27/00, ìNo More ëSpoilersí î
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
THE CENTER FOR VOTING AND DEMOCRACY
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610,
Takoma Park, MD 20912
(301) 270-4616 www.fairvote.org
Matthew Cossolotto, Christian Science Monitor, 12/13/00, ìTwo Easy Ways to Reform Electionsî
ìAdvocates of instant runoffs in the U.S. are pushingÖto use it more widelyÖ [A] Vermont state commission in January 1999 concluded that instant-runoff voting is ëas easy as 1-2-3,í and recommended that it be used for all statewide voting. ëVoters do not need to learn any of the intricacies of the transfer-tabulation methodology, just as hardly any citizens understand how the Electoral College works,í the commission saidÖ The proposal has substantial support, but hasn't been adopted.î
David Wessel & James R. Hagerty, The Wall Street Journal, 11/14/00, ìTired of Recounts? Try Irish Approach to Votingî
ìWhat better message than providing for direct popular election of the President -- preferably using instant runoff voting -- to ensure that our leader commands support from a majority of voters?î
John B. Anderson & Steven Hill, New York Daily News [and elsewhere], 11/12/00, ìGive Voters a Bigger Voiceî
ìIRV would guarantee us a President elected with at least the grudging support of the majority. As a bonus, it would enable people to express themselves by voting for third parties -- such as the Greens, this year -- without running the awkward risk of helping elect their most unfavorite candidate.î
Hendrik Hertzberg, Lead Commentary in New Yorkerís ìTalk of the Town,î 11/13/00
ìMajority rules? Increasingly not, says Robert Richie of the Washington-based Center for Voting and Democracy, which researches voting systems and voter participation. Richie and his staff have just completed a major study of plurality winners in federal and state elections. They found that plurality winners have become more common in the past decadeÖWhat's wrong with plurality winners? Their victories often come at the expense of the candidate who would have been the choice of voters in a two-candidate race, Richie said. Thus the winner is the candidate who was disliked by a majority of the votersÖRichie's solution is what he calls Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)Ö [H]e said, ëGiven the increasing number of plurality victories in Senate races, adopting IRV would be an important step toward building a healthier democracy.íî
Richard Morin, Washington Post, 10/29/00, ìUnconventional Wisdom: The Problem with Plurality Politicsî
ìIf Sen. Specter and others really want to advance ëmajority rule,í they can address the fact that whenever more than two candidates are in a race, one can win with less than a majority of the total vote. It probably will happen in this election; it happened in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president with 43 percent of the popular vote; and it happens frequently in local and state balloting. One way to solve the problem -- -- and still not discourage the Ralph Naders and Pat Buchanans from running, or their supporters from voting for them -- would be to adopt ëinstant runoff voting,í or IRVÖ It's a sensible system, used in Australia, Ireland and elsewhere, and it ought to work well in the United States.î
Editorial, Trenton Times (NJ), 11/10/00, ìElectoral College Virtuesî
ìRather than mandate a low 40 percent threshold and two rounds of voting, any amendment to the Constitution should allow electoral mechanisms to determine a majority winner in a single election. The most efficient and inexpensive method is instant runoff voting.î
Steven Hill & Rob Richie, The Hartford Courant [and elsewhere], 11/9/00, ìThe Case Against the Electoral Collegeî
ìAlthough common in many nations and in many states and cities, runoffs are an awkward, inefficient process. If the top two finishers in the presidential contest faced off in a second, national round of voting, the costs would be exorbitant. Candidates would have to grub for tens of millions of dollars in extra cash to run a new campaign, and the cumulative additional costs to local election administrators would be vast. And voter turnout easily could drop in the decisive runoffÖInstead, the Constitution should permit other mechanisms, such as instant-runoff voting, a more efficient and inexpensive method used in several nations.î
John B. Anderson, USA Today, 11/2/00, ìElectoral College Outlives Usefulnessî
ì[W]ith optical scanners and computers widely available to count votes today, technology is no longer an excuse for the Legislature to ignore the instant-runoff alternativeÖ[IRV] would also reduce campaign fundraising and spending, and not just by those candidates in runoffs. Florida's election law sets separate $500 contribution limits for the primary, the runoff and the general election even when a candidate won't face a runoff. And an instant runoff would save the public millions of dollars from the cost of conducting electionsÖOther countries use the instant runoff, and other American states are studying it. It deserves thoughtful consideration here.î
Editorial, St. Petersburg Times, 11/6/00, ìInstant runoff voting -- Better than Runoffsî
ìThe instant runoff would strengthen democracy and expand debate in several ways. First, it would give winners a real majority mandate. Second, it would give all voters incentive to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of electing their least favorite, since they could list a backup choice in case their first choice gets eliminated. As a result, the media would have incentive to cover third party and independent candidates and the issues they are raising. This would improve public debate and give more voters the ability to cast an informed vote that helps elect a candidate they like.î
Caleb Kleppner, www.etopics.com, ìTime to Repair American Electionsî
ìOne of the most promising ways [to mitigate the distortions of the electoral college]-and the one getting the biggest push around the country-is instant runoff voting (IRV)Ö According to five-term Vermont state representative Terry Bouricius, a Member of the Progressive Party, IRV has good chances of passing in his state, where a bill favoring it will soon be introduced with tripartisan support. ëEstablished politicians can recognize how it can benefit them, at least in the short term,í he says, ëeven as in the long term, it opens up third-party participation.í î
Alison Solomon, Village Voice, 11/22/00-11/28/00, ìFlorida Fiasco Puts Radical Reforms on the Table: Taking Back the Voteî
ìIf IRV had been in place this past election day, we would be facing a very different political landscape. The Greens would have gotten their 5 percent, and possibly more, as IRV would have freed all of us eco-minded citizens to vote our consciences without jeopardizing our interests. Gore would be heading to the White House, perhaps chastened by the knowledge that he was the second choice of a significant percentage of the polity. And (most important) I wouldn't have to spend my next four years fighting the malevolent environmental proposals that, without a doubt, will start emanating from the White House come January if Bush takes the helm.î
Clark Williams-Derry, Grist, 12/8/00, ìFormula for a Fair Countî
ìAlthough most Americans are unfamiliar with IRV, it is a recommended voting system in Robertís Rules of OrderÖInstant Runoff Voting offers a bright hope that the 2002 gubernatorial campaign and vote on election day will do the following: Produce a winner with a majority; give every citizen who votes a chance to vote for the candidate of their real choice; take away the fear of the spoiler; give third parties a chance to present their ideas to the public without the distorting filter of spoiler politics; and enable each candidate freely to appeal to all constituencies and not just special interests.î
John Rensenbrink, Times Record (ME), 12/26/00, ìA Way to Remedy Electoral Processî
"ë[IRV is] essentially like doing a two-round runoff,í said Steven Hill, western regional director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, which has pushed the idea for four years. ëExcept we're saying we don't have to bring you back to the polls. Tell us who you want.í î
Jeff Gottlieb, Los Angeles Times, 11/21/00, ìGroup Pushes Election ëInstant Runoff Ideaî
ìIRV partisans say the system erases the spoiler effect in which, for example, Nader voters agonize about their culpability in electing Bush. Under IRV, a Naderite puts his man first, and Gore second, says Eric Olson, deputy director of The Center for Voting and Democracy, a non-profit group advocating for the IRV system: ëpeople aren't throwing away their vote. Why is it in the US you can vote for your favorite person and end up helping the person you like the least?íÖAs a side benefit, candidates competing under IRV have less incentive to attack one another, because driving votes away from one opponent does not necessarily bring them to the attacker's camp. Increased civility in elections, along with the prospect of voting for one's favorite candidates instead of merely against those one detests, could increase voter turnout, strengthening the democratic system generally. And best of all, say proponents, IRV does not directly threaten either major political partyÖëIt works both ways,í notes Olson. ëIt's a neutral system.íî
Edward Ericson, Jr., Hartford Advocate, 11/23/00, ìInstant Runoff Voting- We Like It!: Australians Do It, Londoners Do It, Why Canít We?î
ìThe obvious result would be that no candidate would be elected with less than a majority of the vote. But another, far more important outcome would be the empowerment of third parties. It would be significantly easier to build third-party movements if supporters knew they werenít helping to elect their least-favorite major-party candidate. In addition, it would give third-party supporters more clout with the major parties, which would be tempted to modify their campaigns to make their candidates attractive at least as a second choice.î
William Raspberry, The Washington Post, 1/1/01, ìPost-Traumatic Suggestionsî
ì[Rob] Richie [of the Center for Voting and Democracy] said that instant runoff voting is more efficient because it simulates a runoff on Election Day and saves taxpayers the cost of holding another election on a different date.î
Kenneth Jost & Gregory L. Giroux, CQ Researcher, 12/8/00, ìElectoral Collegeî
Even if Mr. Gore had drawn an electoral majority, the 2000 election would have been the third consecutive White House contest won with less than 50% of the vote. ëPlurality outcomes arenít democratic,í complains Rob Richie, executive director of the Maryland-based Center for Voting and DemocracyÖThe Center advocates ëinstant runoffí elections, in which voters rate candidates in order of preference.î
John Harwood, The Wall Street Journal, 12/22/00, ìFixing the System: Lessons From States Hold Hope for Reformî
ì[IRV is] a system that ensures that the winner will have a majority of the votes cast, thus giving him or her a mandate. But it also ensures that the public will hear the voices of candidates who disagree with the positions of the two major parties and have different issues to raise and solutions to proposeÖIRV would be suitable for any election in which more than two candidates compete. The more candidates there are in the fieldÖthe greater the chance, under the present system, of a candidate winning with less than a majority, and, therefore, the greater the benefit of switching to IRV. The change would greatly improve the democratic process. It ought to be made.î
Editorial, Trenton Times (NJ), 10/27/00, ìNo More ëSpoilersí î
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
THE CENTER FOR VOTING AND DEMOCRACY
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610,
Takoma Park, MD 20912
(301) 270-4616 www.fairvote.org
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.