Home
How Instant Runoff Voting Works
Burlington
Instant Runoff Voting in the News
FAQ
Links
I'd Like to Help
Contact Us
|
IT�S MY TURN
The Burlington Free Press, April 2009
by Bill Grover
Political Science Professor at Saint Michael's College
The Preamble to the US Constitution begins with the soaring words: �We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.� Many of the details of the pursuit of perfection were left to the states and municipalities to sort out. This is particularly true with election laws.
In the wake of last week�s Burlington mayoral election the Free Press seems intent on creating the impression that Instant Runoff Voting produced a very imperfect result with the reelection of Progressive Mayor Bob Kiss. The most egregious example of this is the article of 8 March which created the impression that somehow Kurt Wright would have emerged victorious if only his supporters had continued to rank candidates beyond their first choice. The article also contends that IRV merely �cooked up� a majority. That was followed two days later by an editorial critical of the �Cirque du Soleil� contortions to arrive at a majority winner. Cooked up results, Cirque du Soleil machinations--what�s going on here?
In a sense, all elections �cook up� a result. In a healthy democracy, the cook is us, the people. The essential question is: how best to achieve a legitimate result that most closely captures the will of the people. Economist Kenneth Arrow shared the 1972 Nobel Prize in part for demonstrating that no voting system perfectly captures the preferences of voters. Note to us: there is no heaven on earth. However IRV is widely recognized by political scientists as among the very best at identifying the preference of voters. The American Political Science Association has even adopted IRV in its own constitution. The alternatives of plurality winners or traditional separate runoffs�the situation under Burlington�s old charter provisions--come up short for many reasons.
No �spoiler effect�� With traditional election systems, a vote for your preferred candidate can end up electing your least favorite candidate. We tend to think of this with regard to progressive candidates hurting Democrats (eg. Nader in 2000). But it can cut other ways. In Alaska, with many conservative third parties, in 2002 Republicans welcomed an IRV statewide referendum (ultimately unsuccessful) because they thought plurality elections hurt them by splintering their support and helping their Democratic rivals. Yet IRV doesn�t inherently �favor� any particular party or ideology; it seeks to most closely identify real voter preferences in multi-candidates races. In Burlington, for instance, a conservative voter who wanted to give political newcomer Dan Smith a try could do so while also expressing a preference for Kurt Wright if Smith didn�t make the cut.
Turnout�Studies demonstrate significant drop off in voter turnout for separate runoffs held weeks after the initial election. By combining the two rounds of a runoff election system into a single election, IRV maximizes voter turnout and participation
More money/Narrower appeal�Separate runoffs cost the city extra time and money. Runoffs also force candidates to scramble to raise more money quickly. Runoffs thus encourage candidates to play to their electoral base�the loyal supporters who are most likely to turn out for runoff elections. Appeals to a broader community of voters take a back seat.
Civility�While mayoral elections never will be love fests, IRV greatly reduces the incentive to �go negative.� While all candidates want to come in first, they also want to be the second choice of other voters. Virtually all commentators remarked on the overall civility of the mayoral race as candidates debated the issues. And negative campaigning also lowers voter turnout.
Vermont is lucky to have a vibrant multi-party political culture with a rich history of mavericks and independents. IRV allows this richness to flourish without the undemocratic �spoiler� dynamic of plurality elections. While there is no heaven on earth, and no perfect electoral structure, IRV comes closer than the alternative of plurality elections. That�s not a circus act. That�s an honest assessment of the goal of achieving a �more perfect union.�
|
