IRV directly addresses our current system�s failure to accommodate voter choice. Democracy is founded on such choice, but three is a crowd with the �plurality� election method used in most of our elections. When more than two candidates seek an office, the candidate with the most votes can win despite being opposed by a majority of voters � not because they are the most representative candidate, but only because the majority happened to split its vote. This problem of �spoilers� can discourage outsider candidacies, suppress new ideas and overturn the basic principle of majority rule. Some cities and states turn to traditional two-round runoffs to ensure majority rule, but by requiring the top two candidates to face off in a separate election, runoffs force candidates to raise more money, cost taxpayers millions and hurt voter turnout.

In contrast to runoffs, IRV elects candidates with majority support, accommodates voters having more choices and encourages candidates to reach out to more voters � all in one election. This dynamic electoral reform made its biggest advances in the modern era in 2006. Voters in Minneapolis (MN), Oakland (CA) and Pierce County (WA) -- major jurisdictions totaling more than one and a half million people -- overwhelmingly approved IRV, with an average victory percentage of more than 62%. IRV has now won in eight straight ballot measures, taking an average of 66% of the vote.

IRV also had key wins in state legislatures in 2006: Vermont legislators passed legislation to require the Secretary of State to develop a plan for running statewide IRV elections in 2008; North Carolina established IRV for certain vacancy elections and for use in up to 20 pilot elections in cities and counties in 2007-08; and South Carolina joined Arkansas and Louisiana in having overseas voters cast IRV ballots in the first round of elections with potential runoffs to ensure their ballot counts in the runoff. In San Francisco (CA) and Burlington (VT), IRV was used effectively to elect majority winners in hotly contested multi-candidate races, with exit polls showing overwhelming support among voters and high rates of valid ballots. In September, national delegates to the Latino Congreso, the most comprehensive gathering of Latino leaders, organizations and elected officials in a generation, voted unanimously to endorse an omnibus election reform resolution that included IRV.

Here in Maryland, the legislature in 2007 will debate a bill backed by Sen. Paul Pinsky to implement IRV in Maryland elections. The U.S. Senate race showcased the value of IRV: first in the primary, when Ben Cardin won a narrow victory over Kweisi Mfume with far less than 50%, and then in the general election, when the independent candidacy of Takoma Park�s Kevin Zeese created concern among some Democrats that the majority vote would be split to the benefit of Republican Michael Steele. Most of the new District 20 delegation, including Sen. Jamie Raskin and Delegates Tom Hucker and Heather Mizeur, are outspoken advocates of IRV, while county supporters included our new County Executive Ike Leggett and councilmembers Marc Elrich, George Leventhal and Duchy Trachtenberg.

The Takoma Park race may provide a good straightforward test of IRV. Using the new paper ballot system that the city put in place in 2005, voters will have a paper ballot where they can rank candidates in order of choice: first and, if they choose, second and third (with voters having every incentive to rank all candidates, as ranking a lower choice candidate will never hurt your top choice). To be used for other Maryland offices on the state�s touchscreen machines, IRV will require a one-time software change; advocates will be alert to proposed changes to the equipment requiring a paper trail or going to a new optical scan voting system, as such changes would make it all the easier and basically cost-free to enact IRV.

For candidates, IRV means two things: they will want to get as many first choices as possible, which is analogous to trying to get as many votes as they can in the current system, but they will also need to be aware of the potential need to be the second choice of supporters of other candidates. If no candidate wins a majority of first choices in the Ward Five race, for example, the last-place candidate will be eliminated, and that candidate�s voters will turn to their second choice. Those second choices will be added to the remaining candidates� first choice totals and determine the winner. The candidate with the most first choices typically is best positioned to win in the runoff round, but not if he or she has been a polarizing candidate; in 1990, for example, Mary Robinson was elected with IRV as Ireland�s first woman president after overtaking the first-round leader by being ranked second on more than three in four of the ballots cast for the third place candidate.

So let the elections begin! Takoma Park can showcase a better way to vote in Maryland and beyond.

(To learn more about Takoma Park�s IRV elections or to get involved in efforts to promote it and other reforms in Maryland, contact FairVote, a national organization based in the city, at 301-270-4616, www.fairvote.org. Rob Richie, its executive director, is a long-time resident of the city.)

How instant runoff voting works:

�First round of counting: The voters rank their choices for an office: 1, 2, 3. (Nobody has to rank more candidates than they want to.) In the first round of counting, the voters� #1 choices are tallied. Any candidate with a majority of the vote wins.
�Runoff round of counting: If no one wins a majority of first choices, the trailing candidates are eliminated. If your #1 choice loses, your vote counts for the runoff candidate you ranked best. The reallocated votes are added to the totals of the top vote-getters. A majority winner is guaranteed once the field is reduced to the top two candidates.

Summary of key benefits. Instant runoff voting:

�accommodates voters having more than two choices and generates majority winners
�saves localities, taxpayers and candidates money now used to hold two elections.
�ensures higher voter turnout when eliminating low-turnout primaries or runoffs.
�eases the administrative burden on election officials who run one election, not two.
�improves campaign tone; candidates want their opponents� voters to rank them #2.

�[IRV] would allow people to vote for candidates they really want to elect, thereby increasing both enthusiasm and turnout.� �Gov. Howard Dean, 2005

�Instant runoff voting will lead to good government because voters will elect leaders who have the support of a majority.� - Senator John McCain, 2002