2008 Woodie Awards
Instant Runoff Voting would strengthen democracy, St. Paul
By: Joe Rasmussen and Maren Hagman
Issue date: 2/29/08 Section: Opinion
Although elections have held the political spotlight this year, little attention has been focused how our voting system can better represent the people. The Macalester chapter of the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (more commonly known as MPRIG) has been advocating for a new voting system that would improve our elections.
This system is instant runoff voting (or IRV). In IRV voters rank candidates by preference. Once the votes are tallied, if there is no candidate who receives over 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is removed, and all the votes he or she received go to the voter's second choice. This goes, round by round, until one of the candidates has over 50% of voter support.
A referendum to use IRV passed in Minneapolis and is in the process of implementation. The democracy taskforce of MPIRG is working in coordination with the Better Ballot Campaign to encourage St. Paul to follow suit and move to a fairer elections method.
First and foremost, IRV ensures that every vote counts and that the winner has majority support. No longer would the relatively small percentage of voters who show up for primary elections have a disproportionate amount of power in deciding the outcome of the election. In an IRV system no candidate can win without majority support.
IRV encourages third party candidacy while removing the possibility of a spoiler candidate. In the upcoming election, many liberal voters may prefer Ralph Nader to whomever ultimately wins the Democratic nomination. However, many may not vote for Nader because he is not a viable candidate and voting for him would ultimately help John McCain (similarly to the way George Bush benefited from the votes Nader pulled from Al Gore in 2000). With IRV, this is not a concern. There would be no such thing as a spoiler candidate and voters are free to vote with their conscience without worrying about helping elect the worse of two evils.
IRV leads to positive campaigns, which have become altogether too rare. According to a New York Times article dated Sept. 30, 2004, when IRV was first used in San Francisco for electing the County Board of Supervisors it forced all of the candidates to "be on friendly terms so as not to alienate their opponent's supporters." It discourages candidates from attacking one another because if no one has a majority, a candidate may need the second choice votes of another candidate in order to win.
This system is instant runoff voting (or IRV). In IRV voters rank candidates by preference. Once the votes are tallied, if there is no candidate who receives over 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes is removed, and all the votes he or she received go to the voter's second choice. This goes, round by round, until one of the candidates has over 50% of voter support.
A referendum to use IRV passed in Minneapolis and is in the process of implementation. The democracy taskforce of MPIRG is working in coordination with the Better Ballot Campaign to encourage St. Paul to follow suit and move to a fairer elections method.
First and foremost, IRV ensures that every vote counts and that the winner has majority support. No longer would the relatively small percentage of voters who show up for primary elections have a disproportionate amount of power in deciding the outcome of the election. In an IRV system no candidate can win without majority support.
IRV encourages third party candidacy while removing the possibility of a spoiler candidate. In the upcoming election, many liberal voters may prefer Ralph Nader to whomever ultimately wins the Democratic nomination. However, many may not vote for Nader because he is not a viable candidate and voting for him would ultimately help John McCain (similarly to the way George Bush benefited from the votes Nader pulled from Al Gore in 2000). With IRV, this is not a concern. There would be no such thing as a spoiler candidate and voters are free to vote with their conscience without worrying about helping elect the worse of two evils.
IRV leads to positive campaigns, which have become altogether too rare. According to a New York Times article dated Sept. 30, 2004, when IRV was first used in San Francisco for electing the County Board of Supervisors it forced all of the candidates to "be on friendly terms so as not to alienate their opponent's supporters." It discourages candidates from attacking one another because if no one has a majority, a candidate may need the second choice votes of another candidate in order to win.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Warren D Smith
posted 3/10/08 @ 4:44 PM CST
This piece correctly perceives there are major problems with our voting system today. But unfortunately it repeats without examination a number of well-known myths about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). (Continued…)
Rob Richie
posted 3/13/08 @ 6:57 AM CST
Range voting folks like to attack all other reforms, but the fact is that IRV works exceptionally well and is tested in ways you can really see -- see www. (Continued…)
Post a Comment