Election expected to have low voter turnout, high cost
By Jason Hardin
Published November 6th 2003 in Charleston Post and Courier
Although only one race will be on the runoff ballot, the city still must open all polling places for its 80-plus precincts and run the election just as it did the original election, he said.
Padgett agreed with Bloodgood that turnout will be very low.
"It's going to be hard to get people to come out at all," he said. "It's really, really unfortunate that we've got to go through this again."
Although nothing will change before the runoff, Bloodgood said she will recommend that the city consider a new policy for future elections.
One option would be to declare the candidate with the most votes as the winner, even if the candidate doesn't get a majority. Another possibility is an instant runoff system, in which voters are asked to list their second choices in addition to their preferred candidate. If a runoff is necessary, the second-choice votes then determine the winner.
That system avoids the possibility of a candidate in a multi-candidate race being elected with a small percentage of the vote, although some say it can be confusing. The instant runoff also would require a change at the state level.
Some say runoffs, despite the expense, have the benefit of allowing voters to look more closely at the remaining two candidates than might have been the case before the election.
City officials expressed mixed feelings about eliminating runoffs in the future.
City Councilman Robert George said the idea should be explored but that any changes would have to be carefully weighed.
"I'm a big believer in the theory of unintended consequences," he said.
Newly re-elected Mayor Joe Riley Jr. expressed skepticism about a change. Runoffs do involve an expense, but that's part of a democratic system, he said.
As for Bryson and Rivers, both said they obviously would have preferred to have won the election Tuesday. In unofficial results, Bryson took 34 percent of the vote, while Rivers received 29 percent.
Both are open to using a different system in the future.
Bryson, who would focus on seeing that CPW continues to run efficiently and keeps rates competitive, said he favors eliminating runoffs and that he likes the idea of the instant runoff system.
"It's a huge expense," he said of the Nov. 18 runoff. "I don't like that."
Rivers, who wants to oversee CPW's impact on the environment and assure water and sewer lines are properly maintained, said a change is worth discussing.
"If that change needs to be made, that should be a future consideration," he said.
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.