Instant-runoff voting went four-for-four on local ballots, winning in Oakland, Davis, Calif., Minneapolis and Pierce County, Wash. That makes eight wins and no losses for such proposals beginning with the concept�s March 2002 victory in San Francisco, said Rob Richie, executive director of the pro-IRV group FairVote.

Under IRV, voters rank their favorite candidates in order of preference. The first-choice votes for losing candidates are reassigned to the voter�s next-highest choice until one candidate secures 50 percent.

By contrast, fusion voting failed its first big statewide initiative test in Massachusetts by a 2-1 margin. Under a fusion voting system, candidates are allowed to secure a ballot line from one or more parties. Votes for a candidate on any party line count toward their total in the election, but votes cast on a smaller party�s line allow voters to send a message about issues they care about. Such votes also provide the smaller party with political leverage.

In the meantime, a measure to restore voting rights to residents on parole and probation passed narrowly in Rhode Island. According to the public policy center Demos, 16 states have moved to restore ex-felon voting rights since 1997.

Finally, a quirky idea for boosting voter turnout � awarding a randomly chosen Arizona voter a $1 million payout � failed by a 2-1 margin.