Understanding the instant runoffBy Martin Dyckman
Published June 8th 2003
More bad news from Tallahassee: They're going to go without runoff
primaries yet again next year. If Bob Graham, who's running for
president, doesn't seek re-election to his U.S. Senate seat, a dozen or
more people may make the race. A runoff is the only insurance against
the extreme wings of the major parties controlling the nominations,
which would leave more than 6-million voters with utterly dismal
choices in November.
The excuse this time is the same as in 2002: Florida's costly new voting systems may count votes more accurately, but they take longer to prepare.
The supervisors of elections do make a compelling case that they can't do it right with only four-week intervals between a primary, a runoff and a general election. That problem could be overcome, however, by holding the first primary before Labor Day rather than after, but the Legislature is not exactly wild about voting in August.
Why not try an instant runoff? It ought to be easy to manage with all those new computers and optical scanners, and would cost far less than a conventional runoff without imposing any significant extra demands on the supervisors.
Some legislators are interested in this option, but the leaders who could make it happen say it's too arcane for the public.
That's a dodge. Instant runoff voting is no more complex than saying what flavor of ice cream you want if they happen to be out of chocolate. Instant runoffs are used to elect the Australian House of Representatives, the mayor of London, the president of Ireland, and in hundreds of other public and corporate situations. The voter simply marks a second choice at the same time as the first. What is there about it that's so hard for Florida legislators to understand?
The excuse this time is the same as in 2002: Florida's costly new voting systems may count votes more accurately, but they take longer to prepare.
The supervisors of elections do make a compelling case that they can't do it right with only four-week intervals between a primary, a runoff and a general election. That problem could be overcome, however, by holding the first primary before Labor Day rather than after, but the Legislature is not exactly wild about voting in August.
Why not try an instant runoff? It ought to be easy to manage with all those new computers and optical scanners, and would cost far less than a conventional runoff without imposing any significant extra demands on the supervisors.
Some legislators are interested in this option, but the leaders who could make it happen say it's too arcane for the public.
That's a dodge. Instant runoff voting is no more complex than saying what flavor of ice cream you want if they happen to be out of chocolate. Instant runoffs are used to elect the Australian House of Representatives, the mayor of London, the president of Ireland, and in hundreds of other public and corporate situations. The voter simply marks a second choice at the same time as the first. What is there about it that's so hard for Florida legislators to understand?
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.