By Deborah Richie
Published September 20th 2005 in Misoulian
After voting in the primary election this September, I found myself
wishing I could vote once this fall and eliminate the long and
expensive campaign season. In fact, we could eliminate the primary by
electing majority winners in a single-round "instant runoff." San
Francisco uses this system now and has sharply cut the costs of running
for office by holding one instead of two elections. Taxpayers there
will save $20 million over the coming decade.
Suppose we were using an instant runoff this year. Instead of having two elections, we'd elect a majority winner in one election in November, when more people vote. With six mayoral candidates, voters would indicate their favorite choice, but also have the option to indicate their runoff choices by ranking the candidates in order: first choice, second choice and so on.
To determine the winner, we would add up the first choices. If a candidate had a majority of at least 50 percent, plus one, we'd have a winner. If not, the top candidates would advance to a second runoff round of counting. If your first choice is one of those candidates, your ballot again would count for that candidate. If your first choice didn't earn enough votes to advance, your ballot would count for your next choice candidate in the runoff.
For voters, this is as easy as one, two, three. Ballot counting is easy as well with modern voting equipment that counts votes rapidly and efficiently. Take a look at www.fairvote.org for a wealth of information on instant runoff voting and its impressive success record.
Suppose we were using an instant runoff this year. Instead of having two elections, we'd elect a majority winner in one election in November, when more people vote. With six mayoral candidates, voters would indicate their favorite choice, but also have the option to indicate their runoff choices by ranking the candidates in order: first choice, second choice and so on.
To determine the winner, we would add up the first choices. If a candidate had a majority of at least 50 percent, plus one, we'd have a winner. If not, the top candidates would advance to a second runoff round of counting. If your first choice is one of those candidates, your ballot again would count for that candidate. If your first choice didn't earn enough votes to advance, your ballot would count for your next choice candidate in the runoff.
For voters, this is as easy as one, two, three. Ballot counting is easy as well with modern voting equipment that counts votes rapidly and efficiently. Take a look at www.fairvote.org for a wealth of information on instant runoff voting and its impressive success record.
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.