By Instant Runoff System Best
Published October 12th 2008 in Oregon Live
An opinion piece by Douglas E. Schoen ("Close race increases the
potential for spoilers," Oct. 5) did a good job of outlining the
problem with America's system of voting. A viable third-party candidate
will always be a spoiler in our two-party-dominated winner-takes-all
system.
The solution is some variation of Instant Runoff Voting. Rather than casting a static vote, each voter ranks his or her preference (but still only gets one vote). If I choose a third-party candidate as my first choice and the final tally shows that candidate receiving less than 50 percent of the vote, that candidate would be eliminated and my vote would shift to my second choice.
In the end, the results are the same as if there were multiple runoff rounds of voting (hence the name "Instant Runoff Voting"). The result is that the candidate who wins has the support of the majority, and the will of the voters is most accurately expressed.
Now can we talk about the Electoral College? What a sham!
SATTIE CLARK
North Portland
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.