By Matthew J. Ahearn
Published March 22nd 2004 in New Jersey Law Journal
Ralph Nader's announcement of his independent candidacy brings back memories. In 1980, John Anderson ran for president as an independent after abandoning the Republican primaries. He was promptly labeled a spoiler.
Anderson then became interested in how we can structure our electoral system to accommodate an increase in choices and the better dialogue and greater voter participation coming with those choices without risking election of a candidate that most voters do not want. He came up with a simple, reasonable solution: instant runoffs.
Unlike most democracies, our states have set up presidential elections so that the candidate with the most votes wins all electoral votes, even if opposed by a majority of voters. That makes third-party or independent candidates "spoilers" if they split a major party candidate's vote.
Instant runoffs are already used for top offices in London, Ireland and Australia, and in Utah and California for key elections. Any state could adopt this simple reform immediately for all federal elections, including the presidential race. Legislation backing instant runoff voting has been introduced in nearly two dozen states, and former presidential candidates Howard Dean and John McCain endorse the system.
In instant runoff voting, people vote for their favorite candidate, but also can, if they wish to do so, indicate alternate choices by ranking their preferences as 1, 2, 3. If any candidate receives a majority, that candidate wins. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and a second round of counting occurs automatically on the computer. In this round, your ballot is counted for your top-ranked candidate still in the race. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority winner.
With instant runoff voting, we would determine a true majority winner in one election and banish the spoiler concept. Voters would not have to calculate possible perverse consequences of voting for their favorite candidate. They could vote their hopes, not their fears.
Under this system, progressives who like Nader but worry about President George W. Bush could rank Nader first and John Kerry second. Similarly, libertarian-minded conservatives upset with the Republican party's positions on government spending could rank the Libertarian nominee first and Bush second. Rather than contributing to a major party candidates' defeat, these candidates instead could stimulate debate and mobilize new voters.
Our primitive voting system is this year's biggest spoiler. Instant runoff voting would give us a more participatory, vital democracy, where candidates could be judged on their merits and the will of the majority would more certainly prevail. We believe our New Jersey Legislature should give serious consideration to John Anderson's proposal for instant runoffs for all elections in New Jersey.
Without Instant Runoff Voting, Third Parties Will Keep on Spoiling
March 29, 2004
Dear Editor:
Thank you for urging the State Legislature to give serious consideration to instant runoff voting [Editorial, "Banishing the Spoiler Concept," 175 N.J.L.J. 1150, March 22].
The leadership of the General Assembly had no desire to have a caucus member sponsor such legislation, so I introduced two bills regarding instant runoff voting only after I left the majority caucus in 2003. To them, I became a "spoiler" myself. "Don't let Florida happen in Bergen County ... Just like Ralph Nader in the 2000 Florida race," they said in mass mailings and phone blitzes to voters last fall. "A vote for Ahearn could cost the Democrats control of the New Jersey Legislature."
Imagine that, little old me, a Green Party freshman assembly member having that much potential power.
Several months before, I had introduced the concept of instant runoff voting to the Legislature. To get the debate going I focused on local and county elections in my introduced versions [note the taxpayer savings on the costs of actual "runoff elections" that most often occur at the local level] and on getting an IRV-compliant voting machine infrastructure in place statewide. The measures predictably went no place, and IRV remains off the radar of legislative leaders thus far this session. Too bad.
I hope the leadership of the state's Democratic party that now controls Trenton reacts to your call to give instant runoff voting "serious consideration." IRV is a major plank of the Green Party Platform thanks to the early works on the subject by John Anderson, Ralph Nader and others. Until state and federal legislators do "get it" and the people of the United States get IRV, third parties will just have to keep on "spoiling for a fight" to drive home the point you make in your editorial.
I sincerely hope my old friends listen to your sage advice, and soon. While I wait to see if they do, I'll be campaigning for Ralph Nader for the first time. Why? Because as you stated: "Our primitive voting system is this year's biggest spoiler."
Matthew J. Ahearn
Anderson then became interested in how we can structure our electoral system to accommodate an increase in choices and the better dialogue and greater voter participation coming with those choices without risking election of a candidate that most voters do not want. He came up with a simple, reasonable solution: instant runoffs.
Unlike most democracies, our states have set up presidential elections so that the candidate with the most votes wins all electoral votes, even if opposed by a majority of voters. That makes third-party or independent candidates "spoilers" if they split a major party candidate's vote.
Instant runoffs are already used for top offices in London, Ireland and Australia, and in Utah and California for key elections. Any state could adopt this simple reform immediately for all federal elections, including the presidential race. Legislation backing instant runoff voting has been introduced in nearly two dozen states, and former presidential candidates Howard Dean and John McCain endorse the system.
In instant runoff voting, people vote for their favorite candidate, but also can, if they wish to do so, indicate alternate choices by ranking their preferences as 1, 2, 3. If any candidate receives a majority, that candidate wins. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and a second round of counting occurs automatically on the computer. In this round, your ballot is counted for your top-ranked candidate still in the race. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority winner.
With instant runoff voting, we would determine a true majority winner in one election and banish the spoiler concept. Voters would not have to calculate possible perverse consequences of voting for their favorite candidate. They could vote their hopes, not their fears.
Under this system, progressives who like Nader but worry about President George W. Bush could rank Nader first and John Kerry second. Similarly, libertarian-minded conservatives upset with the Republican party's positions on government spending could rank the Libertarian nominee first and Bush second. Rather than contributing to a major party candidates' defeat, these candidates instead could stimulate debate and mobilize new voters.
Our primitive voting system is this year's biggest spoiler. Instant runoff voting would give us a more participatory, vital democracy, where candidates could be judged on their merits and the will of the majority would more certainly prevail. We believe our New Jersey Legislature should give serious consideration to John Anderson's proposal for instant runoffs for all elections in New Jersey.
Without Instant Runoff Voting, Third Parties Will Keep on Spoiling
March 29, 2004
Dear Editor:
Thank you for urging the State Legislature to give serious consideration to instant runoff voting [Editorial, "Banishing the Spoiler Concept," 175 N.J.L.J. 1150, March 22].
The leadership of the General Assembly had no desire to have a caucus member sponsor such legislation, so I introduced two bills regarding instant runoff voting only after I left the majority caucus in 2003. To them, I became a "spoiler" myself. "Don't let Florida happen in Bergen County ... Just like Ralph Nader in the 2000 Florida race," they said in mass mailings and phone blitzes to voters last fall. "A vote for Ahearn could cost the Democrats control of the New Jersey Legislature."
Imagine that, little old me, a Green Party freshman assembly member having that much potential power.
Several months before, I had introduced the concept of instant runoff voting to the Legislature. To get the debate going I focused on local and county elections in my introduced versions [note the taxpayer savings on the costs of actual "runoff elections" that most often occur at the local level] and on getting an IRV-compliant voting machine infrastructure in place statewide. The measures predictably went no place, and IRV remains off the radar of legislative leaders thus far this session. Too bad.
I hope the leadership of the state's Democratic party that now controls Trenton reacts to your call to give instant runoff voting "serious consideration." IRV is a major plank of the Green Party Platform thanks to the early works on the subject by John Anderson, Ralph Nader and others. Until state and federal legislators do "get it" and the people of the United States get IRV, third parties will just have to keep on "spoiling for a fight" to drive home the point you make in your editorial.
I sincerely hope my old friends listen to your sage advice, and soon. While I wait to see if they do, I'll be campaigning for Ralph Nader for the first time. Why? Because as you stated: "Our primitive voting system is this year's biggest spoiler."
Matthew J. Ahearn
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.