Loading...
Article from View May-June 03View Making Every Vote Count Instant runoff voting would give us a broader range of political choices BY LEIF UTNE IMAGINE AN electoral system that lets you vote your hopes rather than your fears, yet guarantees that the winning candidate always has the sup- port of a majority of voters. A system that encourages third parties but ensures that no minor candidate will ever spoil an election for a popular major party candidate. Sound too good to be true? Not only is such a sys- tem possible, it's already in use in many places around the world, including a number of cities and towns across the United States. It's called instant runoff voting (IRV), and it's rapidly becom- ing a part of American elections from Massachusetts to California. Here's how IRV works: In any race where three or more candidates are competing for the same office, voters rank the candidates in order of pref- erence. When the ballots are tabulat- ed, if one candidate doesn't win an outright majority, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Then the second-choice votes of that candi- date's supporters are added to the remaining candidates' totals, and the ballots are tabulated again. The process repeats until one candidate wins a majority. Australia has used a form of IRV called "preference voting" in state and federal elections for more than a cen- tury. In this country, Cambridge, Massachusetts, has used a variant of IRV in city council races since the 1950s. And many college campuses have used the system in student elec- tions for decades. During the past three years, IRV has been adopted for local elections in Vancouver, Wash- ington, Santa Clara County, Califor- nia, and the cities of Oakland and San Francisco. The Utah Republican Party used IRV for the first time last year to nominate its congressional candidates. According to the Center for Voting and Democracy (www. fairvote, org)--a nonpartisan advocacy group that pro- motes reforms like IRV, proportional representation, and other innovatibns to make elections more fair and demo- cratic--several factors have propelled recent interest in IRV. The first is the growing incidence of multiple-candi- Utne {30 { MAY-JUNE 2003 date elections, where third-party "spoil- ers" split the vote of the majority, poten- tially handing victory to a candidate disliked by as much as 60 percent or' vot- ers. Democrats in New Mexico, who blame the Greens for handing a con- gressional seat in a heavily Democratic district to the Republicans, have made IRV a priority. And so have Alaska Republicans, sore that former Democ- ratic governor Tony Knowles was elect- ed with only 41 percent of the vote after an independent candidate split the con- servative electorate in that solidly Republican state. The last three presi- dential elections have all been influ- enced by third;party candidacies: Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996; Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in 2000. In fact, if the 0.4 percent of Florida voters who picked Nader had been able to rank Gore as their second choice under an IRV system, Gore would have won with 50.5 percent of the vote. The other watershed for IRV advo- cates was a 1999 report commissioned by the Vermont legislature that strong- ly endorsed IRV for statewide and leg- islative races The report points out that, ironically, the public campaign financ- ing laws that many states have adopted recently have drawn more candidates into the field, increasing the likelihood of split votes with nonmajofity winners. While f~xing that problem is the primary reason for the commission's endorse- ment of IRV, the report lists numerous other IRV benefits, including a decline in "tactical" (as opposed to "sincere") voting, fewer "wasted" votes, and less negative campaigning. Vermont is expected to adopt IRV by the end of its 2003-04 legislative session. Meanwhile, IRV advocates in Massachusetts are gearing up for a ballot initiative campaign, and San ranmsco s upcoming mumcxpal elec- tion will be the first big-city election in decades to use IRV. If it goes well, lRV soon may be coming to a polling place near you. U CAFI~ UTNE: Discuss IRV and other election reforms in the Election 2000 Aftermath forum at www. utne.com/cafe. To learn more about IRV, visit ww~foiryote, org/irv. sesslon->Bills: tlsenate.gov flsenate, gov Bills Calendars Select Year: 12oo3 3ournats Citator Search Appropr at ohs Redistricting ~ :Select. Chamber: ISenate 0 A Guide to the Format of This Page , Jump To: Bill Text(Il ~ Staff Analysis(O) Vote History(Z) _Ci_t;_a_tjons Senate 1544: Relatin~ to Primary Elections Primary Elections; elim/nate~ second p:imary election;, repeals provision re holding of special elections in conjur%ction with second primary election, to conform; adjusts date to designate Lieutenant Governor running mate, to conform; grants Elections Div. rulemaking authority to develop primary ballot form; requires previously certified voting systems to mee~ new certification requirements by date certain, etc. Amends Cbs. 97, 01/02/2004. 02/21/03 SENATE 03/04/03 SENATE 03/17/03 SENATE 05/02/03 SENATE 98, 99, 100t 101, 102, 103, 105, 106. EFFECTIVE DATE: Prefiled Introduced, referred to Ethics and Elections; Governmental Oversight and Productivity; Rules and Calendar -SJ 00082 On Committee agenda-- Ethics and Elections, 03/20/03, 3:30 pm, 412-K --Discussed/Workshop Died in ComnUttee on Ethics and Elections Bill Text: (Top) Bill Name Date Posted S 1544 02/22/2003 Vote History - Floor (T_qp) No Vote History Available Available Formats ~,Web Paqe ;~:PDF http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm 5/14/03 SENATE SUMMARY Eliminates the second primary election and revises provisions to conform to the elimination of the second ~rimary election. Provides for a ranked choice or ' instant" runoff voting process for the primary election. Provides certification requirements for voting systems. The AdantaJournal-Constitution Save time, money with instant runoffs By ROB RICHIE and ROBERT PASTOR Congress has been debating ways to improve elections in the country, but our citiek and states do not have to wait. They can implement an important reform -- instant runoffs -- that could save taxpayers money and time. San Francisco has pointed the way, and Atlanta and Georgia should follow. On March 5, San Francisco voted to replace traditional "de- layed'' runoff elections for its major offices with instant runoff voting. Instant runoff voting is new to many in the Un/ted States, but it was invented by an American in 1870. Voters indicate both their favorite and their runoff choices by ranking candidates: ~st choice, second and so on. If no candidate wins a majority, the weak candidates are eliminated. The second choice of those who voted for the elLminated candi- dates is added, and this process continues until someone gets a majority. Used for major elections in Ausrrakia. Ireland and Great Brit- ain, IRV permits candidates to win with majori~' support in one election. We especially need it in Geomia because we rely on detav~d runoffs in local and primary etec- tion~ and in general elections for statewide office if no candidate receives 45 percent. Instant runoff voting not only will. save San Francisco approximately $2 million a year, but it will also weaken the influence of special-interest contributors, pr?mote higher voter turnout and remove incen- tives for negative campaigning. IRV would have numerous benefits in Georgia: · Taxpayers would save time and money. Traditional runoffs are costly. Reducing the number of election days will allow administrators to spend their resources Rob Rlchie is executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. Robert Pastor ;s professor of political science at Emory University and president of Common Cause Geor~tia. more efficiently. · Candidates are less likely to be indebted to special-interest contributors. Right now, candi- dates often fight to make the runoff and then find their cam- paigns strapped for cash. One only has to recall the 1997 Atlanta mayoral election, when candidates were desperate to raise money. This scamble for cash all too easily leads to ethi- ' cai abuses. · All votes w/ll count, and the winner gets a majority. By com- bining the t~vo rounds of the runoff, IRV ensures maximum turnout in one decisive election. In traditional runoffs, voter turnout typically drops in the second election. In the U.S. Senate runoff in 1992 between Wyche Fowler and Paul Coverdetl, voter turnout dropped by nearly a million vot- ers from the November election to the December runoff. · The campaign debate would improve. Because candidates know they may need second or third preferences, they ~dll be less inclined to attack oppo- nents unfairly. · . In general elections, instant runoff permits people to vote for third-party candidates with- out fear of wasting their vote. This will allow candidates to promote.particular issues such as campaign reform that main- stream candidates might be less interested in promoting. Georgia's new electronic voting machines can make it even easier for vot- ers to rank candidates. Instant runoff vot- ing sa*es taxpayer money, helps clean up campaigns and ensures majority rule with maximum participation. Let's not walt for Congress to pass election reform. Let's hope the Georgia Legislature and governor will take the lead in adopting instant run- of~ voting in state elections and make it an option for local elections. boutO $lori a un- entme! Majority Would Really Rule Editorial Board March 25, 2002 An offbeat but common-sense and beneficial election reform idea is spreading across the country: "Instant Runoff Voting" or IRV. Voters no longer would be limited to voting for only one candidate for each office. Instead, they would be pemfitted, but not required, to rank two candidates in order of preference. Any candidate getting more than half the No. 1 votes becomes the party nominee in a primary election or wins a general election. If none of three or more candidates gets more than half the votes cast for No. 1, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated. Then the preference voting comes into play. For example: With 100 voters, 46 vote for Smith as No. 1, 44 vote for Clark and 10 for Jones. Nobody gets more than half the votes cast for No. 1, so Jones is eliminated as a candidate. But the 10 people who voted for Jones see their No. 2 candidate choices counted in the "instant runoff." They give Smith three No. 2 votes and Clark seven No. 2 votes. That makes Clark the ultimate winner, 51-49. Critics say IRV could confuse some voters, especially older people or those not fluent in English, and invite lawsuits challenging election results. Supporters, like the Center for Voting and Democracy, the League of Women Voters and Common Cause, make a more persuasive case: IRV upholds the concept that an election winner should have majority voter support. No longer could someone win with a tiny fraction of votes cast. IRV increases voter turnout over the usual puny showing in regular primary runoffs by attracting voters who regard the election as decisive. IRV saves taxpayer money by eliminating the need for separate, expensive runoffs. (Florida had runoff primary elections in the past, but lawmakers agreed to a one-time experiment to ban runoffs this year.) IRV reduces campaign spending by candidates, and strain on voters, eliminating one election. And IRV deters negative mud- slinging. "Candidates know that winning may require second-choice votes from opponents' supporters," says law professor John Anderson of Fort Lauderdale, who chairs the Center for Voting and Democracy. On March 5, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to adopt instant runoffs for nearly all its municipal races. That same day, voters at 51 of 54 Vermont town hall meetings favored IRV. Cambridge, Mass., City Council elections have used IRV since 1941. Florida experimented with instant runoffs for several elections in the early 1900s. State lawmakers now have plenty of reasons to launch a careful study of IRV's pros and cons, with an eye toward asking state voters to approve it for all future city, county and state elections. "Instant runoff voting" means "the majority really rules" and "every vote counts." Let voters express will through instant runoffs December 14, 2002 A 15-member task force will suggest election changes to Gov. Bush this month, as Florida continues its two-year struggle to understand voting issues residents once took for granted. Secretary of State Jim Smith, whose tenure and elected office expire Jan. 7, wants to leave his successors more power to enforce election laws. As task force co-chaim,an, he favors giving the appointed secretary of state authority to demand reports from county elections supervisors and order corrective action if problems arise. Predictably, the proposal horrified supervisors, who fear loss of control to Tallahassee. But dismal performances by county officials in the Sept. 10 primary and the infamous 2000 general election underscore the need to have oversight from somewhere. Mr. Smith's intervention after embarrassing problems in the Broward and Miami-Dade primaries played an important role in making the November election run smoothly. Of course, if the governor appoints an incompetent secretary of state -- someone like Katherine Harris -- the potential for disaster remains. The task force also recommends eliminating partisan runoff elections in 2004, then perhaps permanently. Until this year, when no candidate got a majority in the primary, the top two finishers went to a runoff. The legislature eliminated runoffs on a trial basis last spring, but they serve an important purpose in allowing voters to express their will and preventing fringe candidates and groups from influencing outcomes disproportionately. Supervisors oppose runoffs because they mean more work. Legislators dislike them because they cost more money. The state could satisfy both concerns by adopting so-called instant runoffs, in which voters make second choices in races with three or more candidates. If no candidate claims a majority, the second choices come into play and decide the winner. The statewide upgrade of technology to touchscreens and scanners makes instant runoffs feasible and inexpensive. Florida is due to receive about $170 billion from the federal government over the next three years for election reforms. Spending it on voter education, poll worker training and more new equipment will improve the system further. But Floridians have seen enough the past two years to know that the performance of the supervisors is the greatest and most precarious variable in how well elections run. St. Petersburg Times Instant runoff is still possible A Times Editorial September 17, 2001 Having worried a year ago whether anyone would hoist their banner against Gov. Jeb Bush next year, Florida Democrats now have almost too many volunteers on hand. Five well-qualified candidates have declared. That wouldn't be a problem if there xvere to be the traditional runoff primary next year. But without one -- thanks to some cunning moves by the Republicans who rule the Legislature -- the Democrats may nominate a candidate who commands only a third or even less of the vote, and who is scarred by desperation attacks in the final days of the ~vinner-take-all primary. Bush, of course, will have been renominated by acclamation. It bears noting that the Republicans set themselves that favorable stage under cover of a voting reform bill that simply had to pass. Even Huey Long would have blushed at the cynicism of it. It is too late to try to return a separate runoff to next year's election schedule, but not too late for an instant runoff. With scarcely any additional time or expense, voters would have the opportunity to express their second choices at the same time they cast their first votes. The touch- screen voting machines that some counties are acquiring easily lend themselves to this process. With proper preparation, so can the optically scanned ballot systems that other counties ~vill use. This isn't rocket science. It's as simple as asking what other flavor you want if the ice cream shop is out of pistachio. The Legislature convenes early next year, in January. That allows plenty of time to do it. One of the Democratic contenders, House Minority Leader Lois Frankel, has endorsed the instant runoff concept and has promised to have a bill introduced. The other candidates, particularly Janet Reno, need to support it as well. The party's nominee needs to be a consensus nominee; otherwise, the nomination will probably not be worth having. Faced with a united request from the candidates who would be most affected, the Republicans would have trouble finding a credible premise to refuse. The instant runoff would also be a clear disincentive to negative campaigning. Saying bad things about another candidate is hardly the way to persuade his or her supporters to make you their second choice. Utah Republicans did a large if unwitting favor for Florida Democrats last month. They used an instant runoffto elect new party officials at their state convention. The process differed only in scope from what Florida needs to nominate candidates next year. Voters in San Francisco will vote next year on a plan to replace their separate Scheduled runoff with an instant version, and Alaska, which has no runoff, will vote on adopting the instant version for most general elections as well as primaries. The truth is that the Florida Republicans need a runoff, instant or otherwise, nearly as much as the Democrats do. Three Republicans of greatly differing abilities are running for attorney general. A winner-take-all primary is to the advantage of the best-known but not necessarily the best-qualified. An instant runoff is the party's best insurance against embarrassment. A technically successful instant runoff next year would also obviate the ensuing dispute about what to do with the election process in 2004 and beyond, when the new la~v presumes the return of the traditional second primary. There is no good reason -- only spiteful ones -- for not trying the instant runoff in 2002. The Nation. 3*Iay 27, 2002 Let's Go IRV! n the late 1950s, as the somnolent Eisenhower years were drawing to a close, a new presidential campaign sprang forth and millions of Americans glee- flatly rallied under its exultant slogan, I GO POGO! Pogo the possum was the lead character in Walt Kelly's, witty, wily and widely read satirical comic strip. A modest and level-headed sort, Pogo was always trying to make sense of the non- sensical doings of PT Bridgeport, Tammananny, the prattling cowbirds and other out- landish critters he lived among in Kelly's Alice-in-Wonderlandish Okefenokee Swamp. We could use Pogo to help us make sense of today's political swamp, in which the people's will has been drowned in the mire of big money and most folks feel that their votes don't count. But wait! While we don't have Pogo, there is a new common-sense choice available to us, offering a modest yet powerful opportunity to democratize our system. The exultant slogan of this campaign is, l GO [RV! Sally, Bob and Harry · IRV is not a person or a possum--it's an electoral process with the wonkish full name of Instant RunoffVoting. Its biggest appeal is that IRV literally makes every vote count. Voters indicate both their favorite candidate and their runoffchoices, in order of preference, all on one ballot. If four peo- ple are in a race, instead of marking only one of the four boxes (as now) you put a "I" by your first choice, a "2" by your second... and so on. When the votes are counted, if no candidate is the first choice ora ma- jority of voters, an "instant runoff" takes place. Here's how it works: The vote tabula- tors drop the candidate who came in fourth. But--and a beautiful "but" it is--they add the second choice votes of that candidate's supporters to the tallies of the top three. If this still doesn't produce a majority winner, they drop the third-place finisher and the next choices of these voters are allocated to the top two...until one candidate accumu- lates enough votes to add up to a majority. This liberates us to be both principled and pragmatic! Let's say your choices are Sally Sensational, Bob Bor/ng and Harry Horrible. Unlike today's winner-take-all system, [RV makes it easy for you to go with your heart and choose Sally. If she doesn't make it, you have not wasted your vote and allowed Mr. Horrible to win. In- stead, your second choice is then allocated to Bob's tally, helping him defeat Harry. [RV does several other big things for democracy. One. it encourages more Sally Sensationals to run, greatly adding to the debate, because now they can appeal to voters on the basis of their ideas, not on a prejudgment by the cognoscenti that they are spoilers who "can't win." Two, Bob Boring can't ignore or trash Ms. Sensation- al, because Bob will want to be the second choice of her voters--indeed, Bob will have to adopt more of Sally's positions, rather than tilting toward Mr. Horrible, as he now does. Three, voter turnout will increase, be- cause an ordinary person's participation and vote matters in the final tally. Four, formal campaign debates will be opened to more than two candidates, because now the "third" and "fourth" candidates are real factors without "spoiling" the party. Five, if Mr. Boring does win, he knows he got there thanks to Sally's supporters. Six, by open- ing up the process, more Sensationals will be heard and get elected--and that's the bottom line, for politics ultimately is about winning and governing. [RV Rules · Such a far-reaching reform will never pass, you say. Already has. On March 5, [RV won two huge victories. Led by the Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD), a San Francisco grassroots coalition (in- cluding PIRG, Common Cause, NOW, the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, the League of Conservation Voters, the Democratic Party and the Green Party) came together to win a local tnmanve for instant runoffs. This victory was long in building. CVD and the coalition had gone group to group and door to door during the past few years to educate activists, officeholders, the media and just plain folks about our friend IRV. In addition to a volunteer operation that walked 400 precincts and phoned and mailed to thousands of homes, this deter- mined citizens' brigade put up an innova- tive website (www. improvetherunoff, com) with an interactive "ay. if' feature, allowing folks to mst-drive the IRV process. However, the downtown business crowd turned ugly, mailing such hit pieces as a flier sent to Chinatown voters depicting the tanks at Tiananmen Square, warning that a yes vote would usurp their voting rights. But good organizing and the inherent beauty oflRV prevailed in a 55--*5 victo- ry-and America will now have a big-city example of this reform in action. Meanwhile, in Vermont, CVD had been working with the League of Women Voters since 1998 to educate and organize for [RV. By March 5, they had put an advisory question on the agendas of town meetings throughout the state, calling on lawmakers to adopt the instant runoff process. They built g-rassroots support ranging from mem- bers of Common Cause to the Grange and including top leaders of the Democratic, Republican, Progressive and Green parries. When the question was posed, fifty-two of the fifty-five towns voted "yea." Lest you think San Francisco and Ver- mont are atypical tests of [RV's appeal. Louisiana has for years been asking its overseas voters to use it when voting ab- sentee. Also, there's a growing movement to use it on campuses for student-body elec- tions (the University of Illinois and the Uni- versity of Maryland have already adopted it), and it is the established form of voting in such nations as Australia and [reland. Next up is Utah, where Republicans will use [RV this month to choose their Congressional nominees; in August Alaskans will vote on a referendum to use it for state elections. Nationally, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. has introduced HR 3232 to provide funds for states wanting to adapt voting equip- ment to allow instant runoffvoting in pres- idential elections. IRV is no silver bullet to solve our myr- iad political woes, but it's a big procedural advance toward a functioning democracy, and CVD can help you bring it home to where you live (www. fairvote.org~. Election Day replay poses avoidable problems November 29, 2002 Election Day is long gone for most Americans, but in Louisiana, campaigning is reaching a fever pitch as voters prepare to trudge back to the polls Dec. 7 for a runoff election. Incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, denied a majority of the vote in a field of nine on Nov. 5, faces the No. 2 vote- getter, Republican Suzanne Haik Terrell, in a new election that's costing millions of dollars more and luring President Bush back for a campaign visit Tuesday. Australia have used the system in national elections, and it has been adopted in parts of Great Britain. Now, the idea is starting to catch on in the USA. Louisiana residents who vote from overseas by absentee' baIlot already have that option~ San Francisco will start using instant runoffs next year and several other municipalities, largely in the West, are preparing to go the same route. - Unknown in much of the country, runoffs are used by Louisiana, eight other states -- from Texas to North Carolina and scores of cities. The idea is to make sure winners garner more than half the vote for public offices, an im~prtag, t goaJ that prevents fringe candidates from winning · with a small minority of ballots in a crowded field. But the system is needlessly costly -- a $3 million tab for taxpayers in Alabama's runoff primaries alone this year. It'sends candidates and their backers'into a renewed f¥enzy of fundraising. And turnout frequently plummets from the earlier election. There is a better way: instant runoffs. · Instead of voting for just one candidate, voters rank their preferences for candidates from first to last. If no one receives a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and the second choices from those ballots are added to the totals for the remaining candidates. The process continues until one candidate emerges with a majority. Ireland and In Vermont and New Mexico. support for the idea is growing in response to significant third-party movements that raise the prospect of candidates regularly winning State offices with less than majority support. Several local non-binding vote5 in Massachusetts this year also showed support for the idea because of growing concern about candidates Winning primaries and general elections with slim percentages. Critics say ranking candidates violates the principle of "one man, one vote," an argument that spurred voters in Alaska to reject the system this year. But the courts disagree. Though the goal of ensuring that the "least objectionable" candidate wins might not alw.ays be achieved, that's less a worry than the risks of highly undemocratic minority representation under the current system. Candidates aren't the only immediate winners from instant runoffs. The idea also saves money, spares voters the need to return to the polls, and improves the chances that the wishes of a majority are truly heard.