Has the time come for Instant Runoff Voting?

By Brendan Huffman

Consultant specializing in Public Policy and Regulatory Issues

Thu, May 29th, 2008

Here in Los Angeles, an effort is underway to place an "instant runoff initiative" on the city's Nov. 4 ballot.

As in San Francisco, L.A.'s instant runoff election would allow voters to vote by ranking their choices in numerical order. If no candidate earns a majority of the first choices, the last-place candidate is eliminated and votes are re-tallied based on voters' preferences. The process is repeated until a candidate has received a majority of the votes for candidates who have not been eliminated.

Sound confusing? Yes, but it's a system worth considering.

The backers of instant run-off voting say that it will increase voter turnout and reduce negative campaigning. I don't buy that argument at all, but I do buy this argument: it will save the city money by only having one election!

In Los Angeles, the city spends approximately $5 million to hold an election. Incumbents almost always get re-elected, so there is not much voter or media interest in city elections unless there is an open seat. Last year, the voter turnout was 6 percent in the May runoff, and 10 percent in the primary. There was turnover on the LAUSD board, but all of the incumbent city councilmembers were easily re-elected, and not one of them was forced into a runoff.

Will instant runoff voting result in increased turnout and more positive campaigns? Based on my experiences working on campaigns and familiarity with polling, I don't think so, but don't take my word for it.

The theory behind more positive campaigns is that since voters can rank their preferences, there is more of an incentive for candidates to be positive so that voters rank them in their top two.

Perhaps, but that still does not take away the incentive for candidates to beat up their opponents, nor does it address the source of most campaign attacks-independent expenditures.

Nonetheless, the City of L.A. is struggling to make spending cuts as are most cities these days. If instant runoff voting can save the city $5 million next year, it's an idea worth considering. And for junkies like me, it will make the political seaon more fun!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Another way IRV reduces negative campaigning

Submitted by Bob Richard (not verified) on Sat, 05/31/2008 - 14:49.

... nor does it address the source of most campaign attacks-independent expenditures. I think IRV may address exactly this problem -- not every election but in quite a few. In my area (Marin County) most independently-financed attack ads are directed at the opponent (A) of two fairly like-minded candidates (B and C) both of whom are about to lose because they are splitting the vote of what would otherwise be a solid majority. In this situation, it's not enough for B's supporters to say, "Vote for B". They also have to persuade people to vote against A. The dynamic here is different from the usual argument about IRV and negative campaigning -- that candidates need second-choice support from the supporters of somewhat like-minded candidates. Experience in San Francisco has already proven that this does work in some (again not in all) elections.

Please note, statements and opinions expressed on the Fox&Hounds Blog are solely those of their respective authors and may not represent the views of Fox&Hounds Daily or its employees thereof. Fox&Hounds Daily is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the site's bloggers.