(Long Past) Time For Instant Run-Off Voting!

Dayton - Emmer Recount

Twice in two years, Minnesota is mired in what could be a messy, protracted statewide election recount.

It didn't have to be this way.

"Instant run-off voting" -- also known as "ranked-choice voting" -- would have resolved the gubernatorial race by Wednesday morning.

No expensive legal challenges. No cross-allegations of balloting screw-ups (or worse). No delay and uncertainty.

No More Spoilers

Already on the books for Minneapolis City Council elections (and in dozens of other jurisdictions nationwide), "ranked choice voting" merely applies 1970's-era computing power to modern balloting.

How?

Voters simply rank-order their choice for each office "#1," "#2," "#3" and so on.

If no candidate reaches 50.1%, the last-place candidate in each race is eliminated, and that candidates' votes are reallocated to the voters' second choice.

The process continues until one candidate reaches a majority.

Ranked Choice in Practice

Going back to the Dayton - Emmer race, the 12%, or 251,000 votes, amassed by Independence candidate Tom Horner would have shifted to Dayton and Emmer based on Horner supporters' second choice.

As long as Horner voters weren't split 50%-50% between Dayton and Emmer, they effectively would have decided the race.

In fact, voters who support third-party candidates almost always break decisively for one of the two major-party candidates.

That's because, practically by definition, third-party candidates arise from the political fringes, when the "establishment" candidates are perceived to be insufficiently pure or ideological.

Revisiting Gore - Bush 2000

That certainly characterizes the Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan candidacies, respectively, in the 2000 Presidential race.

Had Florida used ranked choice voting then, it's likely that something like 90% of Nader's supporters would have selected Gore #2 on their ballots, delivering him the Presidency.

Lest Republicans see third-party candidates as more likely to arise on the left -- and therefore continue to oppose ranked choice voting -- they may want to consider the risk of insurgent Tea Party candidacies in 2012.

To pick just one example, the U.S. Senate race in Delaware this year, in a three-way contest between (Tea Partier) Christine O'Donnell, Chris Coons (the Democrat), and Mike Castle (the Republican Congressman who lost in the primary), a majority of Delaware voters would likely have voted for either O'Donnell or Castle.

Instead, "the spoiler factor" effectively delivered the seat -- and continued control of the U.S. Senate -- to Coons and the Democrats.

Friedman Endorses "Ranked Choice" Voting

Taking Away the "Spoiler Factor"

"Ranked Choice" voting, which I strongly support ("Ranked Choice Voice: Cure for What Ails Us?"), picked up a big endorsement today: from NYT columnist Thomas Friedman.

Here's Friedman's case for what he calls "alternative voting" (also referred to as "instant run-off voting"):

One reason independent, third-party, centrist candidates can’t get elected is because if, in a three-person race, a Democrat votes for an independent, and the independent loses, the Democrat fears his vote will have actually helped the Republican win, or vice versa. Alternative voting allows you to rank the independent candidate your No. 1 choice, and the Democrat or Republican No. 2. Therefore, if the independent does not win, your vote is immediately transferred to your second choice.

--Thomas Friedman, "A Tea Party Without Nuts"; The New York Times (3/24/10)

In other words, ranked choice voting takes away the "spoiler factor" that has always dogged third-party candidates.

As such, it has tremendous potential to open up our sclerotic, dysfunctional two-party political system.

Why is that important?

Friedman again, quoting Stanford University's Larry Diamond: 'If you don’t get governance right, it is very hard to get anything else right that government needs to deal with.'

Lots of things have changed in the several (?) centuries since the paper ballot was introduced.

Maybe it's time that we use modern technology to start to fix our broken political system.

Election Day 2009

Ranked Choice Voting: Cure For What Ails Us?

There, that wasn't so hard.

I just left my neighborhood polling station, having completed my first-ever "ranked choice" ballot.

Also called "instant run-off voting" ("IRV"), ranked choice allows voters to prioritize their preferences for each office to be filled.

The math can be daunting, especially for races where there are multiple, open seats (like Minneapolis Park Board).

However, the process itself couldn't be simpler: you pick your first, second, and third choice, one per column, moving from left to right.

Game-Changer?

No big deal, right?

Hardly.

If Florida had ranked choice voting in 2000, Al Gore would have been elected President. That's because the vast majority of Florida voters who supported Ralph Nader would likely have selected Al Gore as their second choice.

When no candidate emerged with 50.1% of the vote, most of Nader's votes would have automatically been reallocated to Gore, assuring victory.

In fact, taking away the "spoiler factor" is just one of ranked choice's many benefits:

Low turnout, negative campaigning, minority winners, defensive voting, premature narrowing of candidate options -- voters are right to wonder if there isn't a better way to express their preferences and make their vote count. IRV is that better way.

--George Latimer and Donald Fraser, "The Case for Instant Run-Off Voting is Clear"; Star Tribune (10/30/09)

What makes that endorsement particularly compelling are Latimer's and Fraser's "party elder" staus (Latimer is a former St. Paul mayor, Fraser a former Minneapolis mayor and long-time Congressman).

Needed: A More Open System

It's one thing for people currently frozen out of the system to argue for change; it's entirely another for the reigning incumbents to acknowledge that (structural) change is long overdue.

I'm a huge fan of ranked choice voting.

Anyone who's tired of today's dysfunctional, political duopoly -- each supported by and captive to their own special interests -- should be, too.