Why have multiple elections when it is possible to have with the appropriate design of the ballot one election? Such is the appeal of “instant run off voting” to the American electoral process, which from the perspective of a disinterested observer could do with some improvement.
Perhaps, not unexpectedly while the experience of voting in the presidential election is fresh, proposals for change are being suggested. I suspect that instant run offs voting does not go far enough. The problem particularly with written constitutions, and political institutions in particular is to change them. I wonder how compatible instant run off voting is with the traditional voting machines, or whether it is any least malleable, as has been alleged, when used with computer voting.
Blair Bobier, deputy director of the New America Foundation’s Political Reform Program, is on the case (via CommonDreams):
Now that our country has elected a 21st century president, we should reconsider our 18th century electoral system.
Two examples from the seemingly never-ending 2008 election showcase the system’s flaws. More than a month after election day, we still don’t know who won Minnesota’s Senate race. In Georgia’s U.S. Senate contest, it took two elections and tens of millions of dollars to produce a winner. Both races could have been resolved quickly and with less expense using instant runoff voting. Because the Constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how to elect their senators and presidential electors, instant runoff voting could be used at all levels of government.
. . .The Georgia runoff was triggered because a Libertarian candidate won 3% of the vote and the Republican finished the first round a handful of votes shy of a majority. In Minnesota, 16% of the votes went to a third-party candidate. In both cases, had voters been able to indicate their second choice on the ballot, we would have known the outcomes of the races on election night, saving a second election, a recount and lots of time and money.
Instant runoff voting is also an important innovation because it produces a winner who has demonstrated support from a majority of voters. When a candidate wins election with less than majority support, it means that a majority of voters have actually rejected that candidate. That’s not fair to the voters, and it undercuts the legitimacy of the electoral process. It is also, unfortunately, a common occurrence in California and national politics. Three of the last five presidential elections, and three of the last four gubernatorial elections in California, were won by a candidate who failed to win the support of a majority of voters.
. . . Instant runoff voting is politically neutral. It might have resulted in the election of two GOP senators in 2008 or a Democratic president in 2000. Who would have won the Minnesota Senate race using it is anybody’s guess, but a winner — regardless of party affiliation — already would have emerged, the preference of the voters would be clear, and the winner would have a legitimate mandate to govern.
Instant runoff voting is used by cities in Maryland, Vermont and North Carolina and approved for use in Tennessee and Minnesota, and it has been used for years in Ireland and Australia. With momentum growing for a national popular vote to replace the electoral college, the day may come when it is used to elect the president. We, the people, deserve no less: a simple and civilized way to ensure that the outcomes of our elections reflect the intentions of our citizens.
The replacement of the Electoral College, or its substantial reform, is probably, it seems to me, a bridge too far. Of course, it is democratic to give voice to minorities; it is not democratic to give them the casting vote, although that effectively is what most voting systems do.
Just speculation on my part, but I like to think that Australia copied the Irish in 1918 with the adoption of preferential voting as a gesture against British imperialism – but that might be just being romantic. Nevertheless, I think it a worthwhile idea to introduce romance into these matters such to give the subject some overriding appeal and interest.