"Instant runoff" elections would be more democraticLetter to the Editor
By J. F. Haley
Published April 13th 2004 in The Denver Post
Recent letters to The Denver Post have advocated not voting this fall because big money controls both majority parties. While that is true, not voting will only make a bad situation worse. And voting for minor-party candidates or independents essentially wastes your vote.
There is a sensible and effective way to avoid this by adopting "instant runoff" elections. This procedure, currently used in many places, allows the voter to pick a first, second and third choice. If a candidate receives a plurality of the first-choice votes, they win. If not, then the second-choice votes are counted, and possibly the third, until someone receives a majority in the instant runoff.
This very democratic method allows one to vote for a minority-party candidate who has an appealing platform, but still vote for the Republican or Democrat candidate. This system encourages people to go to the polls, to promote their viewpoints, and still vote for the major candidate whose political philosophy is closest to their own. It has no significant disadvantages and can also save money by avoiding expensive and unnecessary conventional runoff elections. Let's take back our democracy. Go vote this fall - three times.
There is a sensible and effective way to avoid this by adopting "instant runoff" elections. This procedure, currently used in many places, allows the voter to pick a first, second and third choice. If a candidate receives a plurality of the first-choice votes, they win. If not, then the second-choice votes are counted, and possibly the third, until someone receives a majority in the instant runoff.
This very democratic method allows one to vote for a minority-party candidate who has an appealing platform, but still vote for the Republican or Democrat candidate. This system encourages people to go to the polls, to promote their viewpoints, and still vote for the major candidate whose political philosophy is closest to their own. It has no significant disadvantages and can also save money by avoiding expensive and unnecessary conventional runoff elections. Let's take back our democracy. Go vote this fall - three times.
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.