The Center for Voting and Democracy and many others have long been espousing "Instant Runoff Voting" as a way to cure the problem of position-splitting that seems to plague our elections with increasing frequency. 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 that 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 PS: When using the 40-30-20-10 example of Instant Runoff Voting for republicans, you might want to use Clinton-Bush-Perot-[the listener's name] in the example. Recall that in 1992 that Clinton won without a majority, possibly because of Perot's presence in the race. If you live in L.A., you may also want to discuss IRV in the context of Mayor Riordan's first election, where Republican Riordan won in a 67% Democratic city because there were up to 20 Democrats on the ballot, and even though there was a runoff, the support for the Democratic frontrunner (Mike Woo) was too geographically concentrated for him to win the runoff. 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. Below is an Op-Ed piece on the subject that was forwarded to me by Steve Hill of the San Francisco office of the Center for Voting and Democracy, who introduced me to IRV a number of years ago. The CVD provides speakers and advice on IRV, Proportional Representation, and a wide variety of other voting topics and issues. -RC Subj: commentary: "Let's Scrap the Electoral College" Date: 11/13/2000 10:28:33 PM Pacific Standard Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Hill) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (shill) Dear Green Party members and progressive activists, Below is an oped about the Electoral College that plugs Instant Runoff Voting as a solution to what has happened in our presidential election and to what is happening in Florida right now. Please email this around, feel free to use it in your newsletters, and try to get your local newspaper to publish it as an oped. Also, you might use parts of it for your own letters to the editor. It's *crucial* that we get the word out right now about IRV. All best, Steven Hill ************* Let's Scrap the Electoral College By John B. Anderson and Steven Hill The presidential election roller coaster ride has taken one of its oddest turns. Imagine if, after the conclusion of the Super Bowl or the World Series, it was announced that the "winner" didn't really win. That instead the championship would be given to, well -- the loser. We have a long tradition of the person or team with the most points, runs or votes winning -- except when it comes to electing our president, the highest office in the land. How do we explain that to young people, already so disengaged from politics? It's like two elections taking place, side by side, one open and the other hidden. And suddenly the nation is realizing that the one that counts is the hidden one. Nothing less than the legitimacy of the presidency is hanging in the balance. The blame for this democratic anomaly rests with that 18th-century anachronism, the Electoral College. Created in less democratic times by our Founders, the Electoral College is a clumsy device that has been the subject of more proposed amendments than any other part of our constitution. It harkens back to a time when the U.S. Senate also was devised to be elected by our state legislatures, instead of a direct vote of the people. We changed the Senate to a direct vote in 1913 with the 17th amendment. But 200 years later we are still left with the ponderous Electoral College. Here's how it works. Each of the 50 states' presidential races are conducted as individual contests, with its votes weighted to its population.. The presidential winner does not need to win a majority of the national popular vote -- just more votes than other candidates in any piecemeal combination of states to win a majority of electoral votes. A popular majority can be fractured easily by the presence of a third party candidate, as Ralph Nader and Ross Perot have demonstrated. The perverse incentives created by the Electoral College are painfully obvious from this year's campaign. States like New York that are locked up early are effectively ignored by the candidates. Consequently, voter turnout increased sharply by 10-15% in the "battleground" states, but was down in the rest of the nation. Nearly all campaign energy -- and increasingly, even the candidates' messages for how they plan to govern -- are pitched to swing voters in a few key battleground states. So what can be done? Over the years, leading national political figures like Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, Ted Kennedy and John McCain have supported approaches to amend, reform or scrap the Electoral College. The time has come to scrap the Electoral College and institute a national direct election. There are important questions to resolve, however. What if the highest vote-getter only received 35 percent of the vote in a multi-candidate race? That possibility also presents problems of legitimacy. Consequently, some reformers call for a second "runoff" election between the top two finishers if no candidate receives at least 40 percent of the vote. But 40 percent is too low for winning our highest office. To avoid minority rule, the president should be required to command majority support. Two-round runoffs also pose problems. Candidates would have to scramble for extra cash to run a second campaign, and the cumulative additional costs to local election officials would be more than a hundred million dollars. Weary voters would have to trudge out to the polls one more time. Instant runoff voting is an efficient and inexpensive alternative. This method simulates a traditional runoff in one election by allowing voters to rank on the same ballot their top choice as well as their second and third "runoff" choices. If no candidate wins a majority of first choices, the weakest candidates are eliminated and their voters' ballots counted for their runoff choices. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority winner. The instant runoff corrects the defects of traditional runoffs, and improves on their benefits. The system is used in Great Britain, Australia and Ireland and likely will be the subject of a statewide ballot measure in Alaska in 2002 for its federal and state elections, including the president. Win or lose, the challenge for both George Bush and Al Gore will be to bring the nation together. What better message to the American people than providing for direct popular election of the president --preferably using instant runoff voting -- to ensure that the nation's chief executive commands support from a majority of voters. Let's join together and abolishes this 18th-century dinosaur. John B. Anderson is a former presidential candidate and Congressman, and currently the president of the Center for Voting and Democracy. Steven Hill is the Center's western regional director. For more information, see www.fairvote.org or write to: PO Box 60037, Washington, DC 20039. ******************************************************************** For information about the Democracy University Video Series, a series of 6- and 8- hour videotapes of significant events on a wide range of Social Justice issues for as little as $5 each, please email Ralph and Eric Cole at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks!
