Now is the
Time for
Instant Runoff
Voting!
 |
For anyone running for an election to be considered a "spoiler" in an alleged democracy is absolutely ludicrous. Genuine democracy is messy with many diverse viewpoints struggling for their fair share of exposure and media attention. However, it amuses me that we seem to talk about democracy only when it comes time to vote. For us to truly understand democracy we need to see it in practice. We don’t practice it in our schools, our military, our corporations or our homes so what is this thing we imagine exists here that is so great that we seek to shove it down peoples throats throughout the world. After seeing the debacle of the US elections from abroad, many foreign analysts and journalists agree that the US ought to get it together before telling the world what it ought to do.
In a country that allows a candidate to win a campaign after having actually fewer votes than their opponent is ridiculous. It is high time that we begin dialoguing about elections, as well as democracy itself and the purpose of the Supreme Court.
One example of a more democratic method for elections is the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). The following is a simple explanation of its process with a list of other material for more research.
The Center for Voting and Democracy and many others have long been espousing "Instant Runoff Voting" (IRV) as a way to cure the problem of position-splitting that seems to plague our elections with increasing frequency. Voting for your favorite candidate should not help elect your least favorite candidate. Instant Runoff Voting eliminates the "spoiler" problem. A problem is that many explanations of how it works tend to be hard to follow for most people. Below is a way to explain it that is relatively easy to grasp and remember; I’ve found it works particularly well in front of groups:
Instant Runoff Voting:
The 40-30-20-10 Example
In Instant Runoff Voting each voter ranks his or her preferences; that is, if there are four candidates, instead of just voting for your favorite, you give your favorite a "1", your next favorite a "2", etc. The computer takes it from there.
Suppose there are 4 candidates for president (use familiar examples): Bush, Gore, Nader, and you (I’ll assume your name is Josie Smith), and that there are 100 voters.
Suppose also that the 100 voters have each have ranked their choices 1 thru 4, and that the first choices on the 100 ballots break down as follows:
Bush has 40 (1st choice) votes
Gore has 30 (1st choice) votes
Nader has 20 (1st choice) votes
You (Josie Smith) have 10 (1st choice) votes
The computer then eliminates the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes and redistributes those ballots to the next-highest-ranked candidate.
Since you (Josie Smith) had the fewest first-choice votes, you are first to be eliminated. Let’s assume that of the ten ballots that had you ranked number 1, five had Gore ranked second and five had Nader ranked second.
The computer retabulates the vote tally with 5 more for Gore and 5 more for Nader.
Now the count is:
Bush still has 40 votes
Gore now has 35 votes
Nader now has 25 votes
Now the computer eliminates the bottom candidate again, which this time is Nader, and redistributes those 25 ballots that have him now ranked highest, to the candidate that is the next highest choice on each of those 25 ballots.
Let’s assume that on the 25 ballots now belonging to Nader, the next highest choice on 20 of them is Gore, and on 5 of them is Bush. Now a retabulation shows:
Bush now has 45 votes
Gore now has 55 votes
Since Gore has a majority he is declared the winner.
Under both the Electoral College and the Popular Vote systems, the will of the majority can be defeated because there are candidates with similar positions running against each other, effectively splitting the support for their positions and allowing a candidate with a minority of support to win. Unscrupulous politicians and their backers undoubtedly favor systems with such flaws, but even without evil intent, these systems both are capable of giving us disastrously undemocratic results. Why must we settle for the lesser of evils?
Jefferson had faith in an educated electorate. How about a process that gives the result that is most consistent with their will?
Best wishes,
Ralph Cole, videographer
JusticeVision
www.JusticeVision.org
www.freevideos.org
There are undoubtedly many other examples you can come up with. I recommend that you remember the numbers I have used because it is easy to mess up the example when you pull numbers out of the air.
Some notes:
1. "Instant runoff voting to appear on 2002 ballot in Alaska unless the legislature passes it first. San Leandro (CA) and Oakland (CA) both passed city charter amendments to allow instant runoff voting in local elections."
2. Center for Voting and Democracy, www.fairvote.org and www.igc.org/cvd
3. To join a listserv discussing IRV, mail to InstantRunoffCA@egroups.com to get on. Or write to Dan Johnson-Weinberger at the Center for Voting and Democracy at djw@instantrunoff.com for details. Local Green Party member Orval Osborne is initiating discussions of the IRV; he can be reached at oosborne@fix.net. The web site for the IRV is www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html. For a one-page IRV flyer, go to: www.fairvote.org/irv/a_fairer_way.htm.