By Julian P. Sellers
Published August 28th 2004 in St. Paul Pioneer Press
If Ralph Nader wants to be more than a spoiler, he should campaign for instant runoff voting instead of for the presidency. If the major parties do not want to be victims of spoilers, they should enact IRV. If minor parties want to become major parties, IRV should be their top priority. Here we are again, facing a presidential election in which a very minor candidate could tip the election in one state or a few states, and hand victory to a candidate who is favored by a minority of voters.
This just keeps happening (and it happens to both Democrats and Republicans). Why do we accept it? We have an obligation to ourselves and to the rest of the world to get our elections right. With IRV, no one is elected with less than a majority of votes, there are no spoilers, everyone can vote his or her conscience without fear of tipping the election the wrong way, and new parties have a fair chance to grow beyond the fringe.
Inform yourself and your representatives about the elegant solution that IRV offers to the problems of plurality elections. Go to www.fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm for a clear explanation of IRV.
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.