By J. Robert Latham
Published October 5th 2003 in Salt Lake Tribune
SALT LAKE CITY
When Utah voters trek to the polls on Tuesday, they know that it won't be the end of this election season.
After
Oct. 7, candidates, citizens and local elections officials around the
state will be asked to do it all again before Nov. 4. That means
printing new ballots, staffing polling places, campaigning for votes,
studying the remaining candidates, voting and counting the votes.
Conducting
both primary and general municipal elections throughout Utah costs
candidates, voters, and taxpayers millions of dollars.
Political
consultants and those who print campaign materials may appreciate the
additional work primary elections generate. But in this era of
shrinking budgets, it makes less sense to conduct two elections when
one election will do.
Under an electoral system called
ranked-choice voting (also known as "instant runoff voting"), voters
are asked to list candidates in their order of preference -- first
choice, second choice, and so on -- instead of choosing just one.
If
no candidate receives a majority of votes, the candidate with the
fewest first choice votes is declared defeated. The ballots are then
recounted and allocated to the remaining candidates according to the
highest ranked choice that remains. The process continues until one
candidate has a majority.
By replacing primary and general elections with ranked-choice voting, all participants save both time and money.
Ranked-choice
voting offers other benefits as well. Because it mimics a series of
runoff elections, courts have held that the process complies with the
"one person, one vote" rule.
Among the many reasons offered by the Center for Voting and Democracy (http://www.fairvote.org)
in support of ranked-choice voting is its elimination of the "spoiler
effect," which occurs when more than two candidates seek one office. By
ranking candidates in their order of preference, citizens can vote for
their favorite candidate without worrying about electing their least
favorite candidate.
Voters in California face the prospect
of recalling Gov. Gray Davis by a majority and electing his replacement
-- from among 135 candidates -- with a plurality, an arguably
undemocratic result. Ranked-choice voting ensures a majority
winner.
In addition, experience shows that ranked-choice
voting civilizes the dialogue among political candidates. The simple
reason: Candidates have an incentive to find common ground with their
opponents' supporters to court their second-choice votes. Mud-slinging
is not a winning strategy under ranked-choice voting.
Is
it too complex for voters? Countries around the world that have used
ranked-choice voting for decades, and have higher rates of voter
turnout than does the United States, report ballot spoilage rates no
higher than occurs in most other democracies.
The Utah
Republican Party has successfully used ranked-choice voting at its past
two conventions to elect party officers and nominate county, state, and
federal candidates. Students across the United States, from Stanford
University to the University of Maryland, are adopting ranked-choice
voting for their student body elections.
It is
understandable that some elected officials may not be sympathetic to
tinkering with the rules that put them in office. Fortunately, Utah law
allows us to modify our local election rules and implement
ranked-choice voting by initiative if necessary.
In the
meantime, it can't hurt to ask candidates how the campaign season can
be shortened and the way we conduct local elections improved. Many of
the winners and losers will be asking themselves those questions after
Tuesday.
J. Robert Latham ([email protected]) is a Salt Lake Valley lawyer