USA TODAY EDITORIAL - Every year, in scores of state and local
elections, no candidate wins a majority. That results in either costly
runoffs or "winners" who in fact have been rejected by as many as
two-thirds of the voters in a multi-candidate field. . . There is,
however, a worthwhile solution that can guarantee the majority really
does rule. It's called instant-runoff voting, and over the past five
years it has been adopted by communities as large as Minneapolis and San
Francisco and as small as Ferndale, Mich., and Takoma Park, Md. Now,
several more states and cities are experimenting with the idea or
considering it. Sarasota, Fla., will vote on it in November. North
Carolina has a pilot program for 20 municipalities to try instant-runoff
voting in local elections and to use it for certain statewide elections.
In an instant-runoff election, instead of just placing an "X" beside the
name of one candidate, voters have the option of ranking the candidates
in order of preference: 1, 2, 3, etc. If no one gets 50% of the
first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated
from the count and the second-choice votes on those ballots are
distributed among the remaining names. The process continues until one
candidate with true majority support emerges.
Among the advantages of this system:
- Costly runoffs, in which voter turnout is often anemic, are avoided.
- Third-party or "spoiler" candidates finishing toward the bottom of the
field are less likely to destroy a mainstream candidate's chances.
- Winners can claim a greater mandate from the voters.
- Campaigns can be more civil because candidates looking for
second-choice as well as first-choice votes don't want to alienate a
rival's supporters.
In most places, once the idea has been seriously advanced and explained,
it has gained wide support. Some wary public officials warn of the cost
- $1 million or more in big jurisdictions - of reprogramming voting
machines or buying new ones to accept preferential votes. But San
Francisco, for example, quickly recovered what it spent for that purpose
by not having to hold a separate runoff election in 2004. If the nation
really believes in "majority rule," instant-runoff voting is one way to
get closer to it.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/04/post_60.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
elections, no candidate wins a majority. That results in either costly
runoffs or "winners" who in fact have been rejected by as many as
two-thirds of the voters in a multi-candidate field. . . There is,
however, a worthwhile solution that can guarantee the majority really
does rule. It's called instant-runoff voting, and over the past five
years it has been adopted by communities as large as Minneapolis and San
Francisco and as small as Ferndale, Mich., and Takoma Park, Md. Now,
several more states and cities are experimenting with the idea or
considering it. Sarasota, Fla., will vote on it in November. North
Carolina has a pilot program for 20 municipalities to try instant-runoff
voting in local elections and to use it for certain statewide elections.
In an instant-runoff election, instead of just placing an "X" beside the
name of one candidate, voters have the option of ranking the candidates
in order of preference: 1, 2, 3, etc. If no one gets 50% of the
first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated
from the count and the second-choice votes on those ballots are
distributed among the remaining names. The process continues until one
candidate with true majority support emerges.
Among the advantages of this system:
- Costly runoffs, in which voter turnout is often anemic, are avoided.
- Third-party or "spoiler" candidates finishing toward the bottom of the
field are less likely to destroy a mainstream candidate's chances.
- Winners can claim a greater mandate from the voters.
- Campaigns can be more civil because candidates looking for
second-choice as well as first-choice votes don't want to alienate a
rival's supporters.
In most places, once the idea has been seriously advanced and explained,
it has gained wide support. Some wary public officials warn of the cost
- $1 million or more in big jurisdictions - of reprogramming voting
machines or buying new ones to accept preferential votes. But San
Francisco, for example, quickly recovered what it spent for that purpose
by not having to hold a separate runoff election in 2004. If the nation
really believes in "majority rule," instant-runoff voting is one way to
get closer to it.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/04/post_60.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 comment:
Great pick-up of a strong editorial. This is an idea who's time has come -- check out www.instantrunoff.com and fairvote.org/irv
Post a Comment