The state House of Representatives has endorsed a plan by Rep. Jim Moeller that could make Vancouver a testing ground for a new voting method.

In a 63-34 vote Tuesday, lawmakers passed House Bill 1447, which gives Vancouver the possibility of launching an instant-runoff voting pilot-project in city elections from 2008 to 2013.

Instead of voting for one candidate, instant-runoff voting lets voters rank candidates in order of preference.

"I happen to think it's a pretty good idea that deserves some further exploration," said Moeller, D-Vancouver, in a debate on the House floor. "And you can't really explore a question unless you have the option of implementing it once you're done debating it."

The bill now goes to the Senate, where the idea has had its problems. Recent years have seen similar bills float around the Legislature. Two times, legislation by Moeller passed the House but failed in the Senate.

A Republican lawmaker from Vancouver argued against the bill.

"(I) lived in the part of the country that at one time had this type of instant runoff voting in its system, which they looked at very seriously when we had a couple of people that received zero first-place votes get
elected into office," Rep. Jim Dunn said Tuesday. "I think we should put this down and study it a little bit more."

If the bill passes the Senate and gets signed into law, it must pass the Vancouver City Council and the Clark County auditor.

In 1999, Vancouver voters approved an amendment that gave the City Council the option, though not a mandate, to establish instant-runoff voting. Tacoma and Spokane would also be able to run the pilot project if they pass voter-approved amendments to their city charters.

The secretary of state has shown hesitant support for Moeller's efforts.

"Basically we support a study of instant-runoff voting as a starting point to a thorough discussion as whether it's right for Washington," said Shane Hamlin, legislative liaison for the Office of the Secretary of State. "We are skeptical of the method, but we understand to have a thorough discussion we need to know some things. We don't think it will be right for statewide elections. It may prove that it works for local elections, but that's the point of a broad-based policy discussion."