Instant Runoff Voting Ensures Candidates Receive Broad Support

By Jim Paprocki

Most U.S. elections are held under plurality voting rules. The candidate with the most votes wins. If three or more candidates run in the election, the winner can have less than a majority of the vote. This raises the question of whether the winning candidate is really preferred by most voters. The recent Waterloo Mayoral election is a case in point. John Rooff was re-elected Mayor but he was not the preferred candidate of two out of three voters.

A recent Courier editorial (November 9, 2001) advocates a runoff in the Mayoral election. We need to take election reform one-step further by introducing Instant Runoff Voting. This is a winner-take-all system that ensures a winning candidate will receive a majority of votes in only one election. A runoff election often results in a change in voter turnout between the first round and the second round. The Black Hawk County Election Office estimates a Mayoral runoff election would cost taxpayers an additional $16,000.00.

How Instant Runoff Voting Works

Each voter has one-vote and ranks candidates in order of preference. (i.e. first choice, second choice, third choice, etc.) The counting of ballots simulates a series of runoff elections. The first preference of each voter is counted. If no candidate wins a majority, then the candidate with the least first-choice votes is eliminated. The ballots of the voters who ranked that candidate as their first-choice are redistributed to their second-choice candidate. Each candidate who finishes last is eliminated and votes are redistributed to other candidates. This process continues until one candidate receives a majority. Instant Runoff Voting may appear more complicated than our current plurality voting system. It is really no different than stating a preference for A, B, and C in the voting booth.

There are a number of benefits to be gained by adopting Instant Runoff Voting:

· It ensures the winning candidate has a majority vote.

· It is more cost effective than two-round runoff elections which often have low voter turnout.

· It increases voter turnout by giving voters better choices.

· it promotes positive, issue-based campaigns.

· A winning candidate has a clear mandate, giving better direction for policy-making.

· To the fullest extent possible, your vote will contribute to electing a candidate you like.

Instant Runoff Voting Has Broad Support

Allan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Banks use a variation on Instant Runoff Voting to elect their Board of Directors. It is used to elect the city council of Cambridge, Massachusetts and the President of the American Political Science Association. Groups as diverse as Common Cause and the Alaska Republican Party support Instant Runoff Voting. There currently are major initiatives to replace plurality election laws with this more democratic alternative in Alaska, New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and California. Moreover, efforts to replace traditional two-round runoff elections are taking place at a local level in Austin (TX), Oakland (CA), San Francisco (CA) and many other cities and counties.

The Iowa Code precludes municipalities from using Instant Runoff Voting. A regular, special, primary or runoff election is the only available option under Iowa law. Our legislators would need to amend Chapter 376, and other applicable sections, of the Iowa Code. I encourage my fellow citizens to contact your legislators to ask for a change in our election laws. Democracy requires voting procedures that promote fairness, greater participation, and the clear preferences of its citizens. For more information on Instant Runoff Voting contact the Center for Responsive Voting and Democracy at http://www.fairvote.org/?page=19.

[Reprinted from the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier December 2, 2001]