Finding a Better Way
After a February poll of Illinois voters indicated significant interest in alternative methods of voting, the Center for Voting and Democracy has begun a follow-up survey to determine how changing the way people vote could have modified the state’s March U.S. Senate primaries.
“We were surprised to find in our first poll that almost a majority of respondents were open to improving the electoral system for the party primaries. We want to push that a little bit and find out precisely what concerns people have with the way we conduct primary elections,” said Dan Johnson-Weinberger, who directed the project from the Chicago offices of the Joyce-funded Center for Voting and Democracy.
The statewide telephone poll in February surveyed 550 Democratic and 550 Republican voters and found that 47.0 percent of respondents would like to have the option of picking a first-choice candidate and a second-choice candidate in primaries, while 46.5 percent preferred the single-choice option. Of the 1,100 people surveyed, 660 agreed to be contacted again, and the Center has begun polling those respondents with questions including whether the voters would have chosen another candidate if they perceived that that candidate had a better chance of winning, whether voters worry that similar candidates can split the vote, and if voters perceive a candidate who receives a majority of votes (as Democratic nominee Barack Obama had in the March primary) has a more legitimate mandate than a candidate chosen by a plurality (as Republican nominee Jack Ryan had).
Poll results will be given to academics and civic leaders to advance the issue of improving the way Americans vote. “It will be helpful to learn what the real and perceived problems with the plurality election systems are,” Johnson-Weinberger said. “If, in fact, a significant number of voters want to have a first- and second-choice candidate, that’s important for policymakers to know.”
The Center for Voting and Democracy advocates instant-runoff voting, a system that allows voters to rank the candidates on the ballot, with second-choice and third-choice votes counting only if no candidate earns a majority of first-choice votes. Instant runoffs mirror what happens in a traditional runoff election; supporters of eliminated candidates must choose which of the remaining candidates is their second choice, and then cast their vote accordingly. With instant runoff voting, there is no need for a second election, as every voter has already picked a second-choice candidate.
The Center has developed a Web site, www.primarypoll.com, to give information about the survey and how instant-runoff voting could change
primary elections.
“We were surprised to find in our first poll that almost a majority of respondents were open to improving the electoral system for the party primaries. We want to push that a little bit and find out precisely what concerns people have with the way we conduct primary elections,” said Dan Johnson-Weinberger, who directed the project from the Chicago offices of the Joyce-funded Center for Voting and Democracy.
The statewide telephone poll in February surveyed 550 Democratic and 550 Republican voters and found that 47.0 percent of respondents would like to have the option of picking a first-choice candidate and a second-choice candidate in primaries, while 46.5 percent preferred the single-choice option. Of the 1,100 people surveyed, 660 agreed to be contacted again, and the Center has begun polling those respondents with questions including whether the voters would have chosen another candidate if they perceived that that candidate had a better chance of winning, whether voters worry that similar candidates can split the vote, and if voters perceive a candidate who receives a majority of votes (as Democratic nominee Barack Obama had in the March primary) has a more legitimate mandate than a candidate chosen by a plurality (as Republican nominee Jack Ryan had).
Poll results will be given to academics and civic leaders to advance the issue of improving the way Americans vote. “It will be helpful to learn what the real and perceived problems with the plurality election systems are,” Johnson-Weinberger said. “If, in fact, a significant number of voters want to have a first- and second-choice candidate, that’s important for policymakers to know.”
The Center for Voting and Democracy advocates instant-runoff voting, a system that allows voters to rank the candidates on the ballot, with second-choice and third-choice votes counting only if no candidate earns a majority of first-choice votes. Instant runoffs mirror what happens in a traditional runoff election; supporters of eliminated candidates must choose which of the remaining candidates is their second choice, and then cast their vote accordingly. With instant runoff voting, there is no need for a second election, as every voter has already picked a second-choice candidate.
The Center has developed a Web site, www.primarypoll.com, to give information about the survey and how instant-runoff voting could change
primary elections.
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.