By Rick Kissell
Published February 27th 2004 in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
The Feb. 24 editorial attacking Ralph Nader was misdirected. A solution to the "throwing the election" problem, usually called instant runoff voting, has been in use for decades in Ireland, Australia and some U.S. cities.
Voters simply list candidates in order of preference. The candidate with a majority of the first preferences is elected. However, if no candidate has a majority, the ballots of the candidate with the fewest first preferences are redistributed according to second preference. If that doesn't result in a majority of votes for a single candidate, the process continues with the next candidate with the fewest number of first preferences.
That transfer of ballots guarantees that whoever is elected has the support of the majority of the voters, and isn't that what elections are supposed to accomplish?
It also eliminates the need for a runoff election, thus saving taxpayer dollars. And candidates have much stronger incentives to refrain from negative campaigning, since voters may list another candidate as their second preference.
Thus, the "throwing the election" problem is political, not technical. If the Democrats and Republicans wanted, they could solve the problem quickly, but it's not in their political interests to do so, as they both depend on the balance of terror to keep their supporters in line.
Voters simply list candidates in order of preference. The candidate with a majority of the first preferences is elected. However, if no candidate has a majority, the ballots of the candidate with the fewest first preferences are redistributed according to second preference. If that doesn't result in a majority of votes for a single candidate, the process continues with the next candidate with the fewest number of first preferences.
That transfer of ballots guarantees that whoever is elected has the support of the majority of the voters, and isn't that what elections are supposed to accomplish?
It also eliminates the need for a runoff election, thus saving taxpayer dollars. And candidates have much stronger incentives to refrain from negative campaigning, since voters may list another candidate as their second preference.
Thus, the "throwing the election" problem is political, not technical. If the Democrats and Republicans wanted, they could solve the problem quickly, but it's not in their political interests to do so, as they both depend on the balance of terror to keep their supporters in line.
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.