It's not just the USA Today and the mainstream media that are beginning to call for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Many in the alternative media, and almost a unanimous number of progressives and political independents, are also raising the IRV banner. Suprisingly, even the two major parties are looking at it...
Spurred by the memory of Ralph Nader spoiling Al Gore's election, by other third party threats to major party incumbents and by expensive runoff contests, instant runoff voting (IRV) has moved to the top of major parties' reform agenda in several states. At the same time, a growing number of social change activists are supporting IRV as a means to bring new ideas and energy into electoral politics resulting in its adoption in cities like San Francisco and on campuses like the Universities of Maryland and Illinois.
Before discounting this out of hand, I challenge you to analyze the arguments for and against this less costly, more efficient, more inclusive form of voting. You'll actually be surprised to find trouble finding reasoned opposition to IRV, due to the fact that there is no enlightened opposition to IRV, only reactionary arguments from entrenched interests opposing change and/or the ideal of greater representation itself.
Why does this movement matter? The very fact of the acrimonious debate in 2000 over Ralph Nader's campaign between Green Party voters and Democrats reveals a serious flaw in our antiquated 18th century electoral rules. Unfortunately, with our current method, voting for your favorite candidate can lead to the election of your least favorite candidate. Providing the means to express one's real views and ensuring majority rule are basic requirements of democracy, but our current system badly fails these tests...
IRV simulates a series of runoff elections, but in a single round of voting that corrects the flaws of runoffs and plurality voting. At the polls, people vote for their favorite candidate, but they also indicate their "runoff" choices. They do this by ranking candidates on their ballot. If a candidate receives a majority of first choices, she or he wins. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and a runoff round of counting occurs. In this round your ballot counts for your top-ranked candidate still in the runoff. The eliminated candidate is no longer a "spoiler" because the votes of that candidate's supporters go to their runoff choice. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority winner...
Alternet, in this article, provides a fair and through examination of what IRV is all about. I encourage you to check it out, and then evaluate and make a decision. Do not stand idly by and let others make it for you, or browbeat you into voting "against" candidates rather than "for" candidates.
To achieve truly fair representation, full (or "proportional") representation remains the Holy Grail for electing legislators. But IRV is the quickest way to eliminate the spoiler dynamic that suppresses candidacies – and the debate and participation they could generate. If progressives learn one lesson from Election 2000, let it be that all of our elections should be conducted under fairer rules. Real democracy needs a rainbow of choices, not the dull gray that results in one of the lowest voter turnouts in the democratic world.
