Current two-round system discourages turnout, challenges
By John Gear
Published April 1st 2005 in Lansing State Journal
As senior engineering students, we had to design a complete power plant.
We would often get stuck, unable to see how to get the required results under budget. Our professor helped by making us learn to question our assumptions. I can still hear him gently mocking us, "Uh-oh, low on money! Time to start thinking!
Lesson learned. When I heard about a better way to elect politicians, I was intrigued.
It comes up because Lansing now heads toward another round of mayoral and City Council elections using our expensive two-round runoff system.
If three candidates file for any seat, we will run an entire expensive primary election to eliminate the "extras" - even though few voters pay attention in summertime.
What's the better way? It's instant runoff voting.
It works just like our current two-round runoff system - only faster, cheaper, and better, because we only have to vote once, using the preference ballot that Michigan law already allows.
(Preference voting is the technical name for the IRV method - it's just ranking your choices 1, 2, 3, the way you would rank your favorite Big 10 basketball teams or movies.)
Why faster?
Because it doesn't use two rounds to elect one candidate. We vote once, in November, when turnout is highest.
Why cheaper?
Because instead of paying for a primary election that doesn't even produce a winner, we pay for just one round of voting.
Why better?
Because IRV treats all candidates equally.
Today, if an incumbent draws just one opponent, neither must survive a primary. But if, in the next race over, more than two candidates file, they all must raise money twice and run in the primary.
Worse, two-round runoffs favor incumbents by hurting grass-roots candidates who need time to build support. Without IRV, that support must build in summertime, when vacations and outdoor activities make elections the last thing people care about.
So we all lose under the current system, because we drop good candidates before most of us know anything about them.
Incumbents prefer it this way. They have name recognition and fundraising advantages, so they usually survive primaries, but only one opponent will. Today incumbents pray for multiple opponents, because that splits up the anti-incumbent vote and bleeds the weaker candidates dry.
IRV also encourages positive campaigns. We have already seen in San Francisco - which just used IRV to elect its city council - that IRV produces positive, issue-oriented campaigns.
With IRV, candidates seek each voter's second and third rankings, too. So instead of "going negative" - and irritating the voters - candidates make joint appearances to woo voters. They say "Even if you will vote for her first, please consider me as your next choice."
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.