INSTANT-RUNOFF voting, which by law should be in place for San
Francisco's November election, is not only a crucial change in local
politics. It's an important national precedent, a chance for this city
to demonstrate to the rest of the country that an alternative (and much
better) way of running elections actually works. But the election
officials are dragging their feet on implementing procedures to ensure
IRV not only happens but also runs smoothly this fall.
The
stakes are immense: if Elections Department director John Arntz can't
make IRV work, it will do more than screw up the mayoral election. The
reform will be dismissed nationwide as an ineffective process, and
years of important organizing work will go down the drain.
The
advantages of IRV are obvious: Instead of requiring millions of dollars
for a second, low-turnout runoff election that favors the candidate
with the most last-minute money, the contest is concluded in one day.
Candidates have an incentive to run positive campaigns, not negative
ones fueled by soft money. There's no longer a reason for two
progressive candidates to worry about splitting the vote and electing a
pro-downtown mayor. And the "spoiler" role for third-party candidates
vanishes: with IRV, Al Gore would have won Florida and the presidency.
But
city officials have been unable to reach agreement on a contract with
the software vendor that would write the computer code to make this all
happen with the city's current voting machines. That leaves the
prospect of a multimillion-dollar, weeks-long hand count. The contract
negotiations are taking place in secret, and IRV activists can't figure
out why the process is so gummed up.
The supervisors
need to make this an immediate top priority. They should hold emergency
hearings and demand a public progress report on the talks. This isn't
rocket science, and San Francisco (of all cities) should be able to
find someone who can program the software quickly. Time is running out.
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.