By John B. Anderson
Published April 26th 2001 in South Florida Sun-Sentinel
The Florida Legislature is in the middle of a
great debate: how best to conduct elections. I would like to offer
an innovative solution to a sticky problem bedeviling our policy
makers.
Florida has a long tradition of holding runoff
elections -- also known as second primaries -- if no candidate earns
a majority of primary election votes.
The reason for runoffs
is that similar voters can split their vote among candidates,
allowing a less popular candidate to finish first with as little as
25 to 35 percent of the vote. That weak candidate might both have a
tougher time in the general election and a tougher job as our
representative than a candidate better reflecting the majority.
Without runoffs, giants of Florida politics like Lawton Chiles, Bob
Graham, Reubin Askew and LeRoy Collins might never have won
statewide offices, as they needed runoffs to overcome primary
opponents.
Because Florida holds the primary election in
September, however, the admirable requirement that nominees prove
majority support has created quite a calendar crunch. The second
primary is in October, and with the general election in November, we
must hold three elections in nine weeks. That's a national record,
and a daunting administrative challenge.
It is also the cause
for complaints from overseas absentee voters. Imagine how difficult
it is to get results from an October runoff, print up general
election ballots, mail them to a ship in the middle of the Indian
Ocean so our servicemen and women can vote, and get them back to
Florida in time to be counted for the November election. In fact,
there often isn't enough time, which is why courts ordered the state
to extend the deadline for certifying ballots until 10 days after
the election. That requirement added to the problems of the 2000
elections.
Prompted by election administrators faced with the
task of three elections in nine weeks and the further incentive of
saving the millions of dollars necessary to conduct runoffs, the
state Legislature is now moving rapidly toward abolishing runoffs
and the majority requirement.
But runoffs give Florida voters
extra power, and abolishing them would throw the baby out with the
bathwater. That's why the governor's electoral commission earlier
this year opposed elimination of the second primary.
How then
can we solve the administrative puzzle and keep the benefits of a
runoff election?
The answer lies in Florida history. For
several elections in the early 1900s, the state used a system of
instant runoff voting -- IRV -- for major primary elections. The
system later was adopted by the Irish and the Australians, and has
been used for decades for their most important
elections.
With instant runoff voting, voters pick their
favorite candidate, but in case their favorite candidate doesn't
reach the runoff, also can indicate their runoff
choices.
They do this by ranking candidates -- 1st, 2nd, 3rd.
IRV works the way it sounds: if no candidate earns a majority of
votes, then we hold an instant runoff by eliminating the least
popular candidates and counting their supporters' ballots for their
runoff choices. In the cases where the majority has split its votes,
IRV duplicates the results that would be obtained in a traditional
runoff election.
IRV would allow us to eliminate the need for
the separate October runoff election, giving administrators the
breathing room they need to do their jobs. It also would solve the
problem of absentee voters needing extra time to return their
ballots.
Voters repeatedly have shown they can handle
ranked-choice ballots. The main problem, then, is old voting
mechanics. Florida abandoned IRV because of its extra demands when
counting ballots by hand, and the system couldn't be used on
punchcard machines that are too antiquated to maintain a full record
of voters' choices. Fortunately, the state is moving to abolish the
equipment entirely, a move adoption of IRV would help
fund.
Current optical scanners and touchscreen-style machines
can handle IRV, but need the right software. Even if not ready to
enact IRV, the state should require that all new voting equipment
have the capacity to handle ranked ballots. If the state or
individual counties decide to use IRV in the future, we won't have
to spend millions of dollars retrofitting equipment.
Why pay
for two elections when we can get the job done in one? While we
grapple with designing the nation's best election system, let's
build into our new equipment the ability to conduct instant runoff
voting. And let's not give up on rule by the majority.
John B. Anderson teaches constitutional law at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. He is a former congressman and candidate for president in 1980.