This Week: Instant Runoff Voting

Quote of the Week

"Off The Front Page" Jubilee (Well, More Than One, Anyway...)

Instant Runoff Voting: How and Why

Heads Up, Minneapolis Voters! IRV is Coming!
Learn More About Instant Runoff Voting

Greetings,

Alert reader Al contacted me to point out a typo from last week. I commented, in speaking of Iraqi deaths in July, that if the same proportion of deaths were taking place in this country "it would mean that 41,400 United Statesians were being killed each month, or about 50,000 each year." Of course, that should have been 500,000 each year. That's a little different. Thanks, Al!

I'm excited about a ballot initiative in Minneapolis this year that I think will give us the chance to use a voting system called "Instant Runoff Voting." Lots of people don't understand what it is, so this issue is devoted to explaining it, and explaining why I think it's a good thing. It's a small reform, really, but it could help to open the door to some bigger reforms down the road. Maybe there is a group working on it in YOUR state. Eh?

OK, that's all for now. I have to get ready to go to the Minnesota State Fair!

Fairly yours,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

The New York Times on July 25th ran an article on "a widening gap between the Iraqis and the Americans on crucial issues." In that context, the following paragraph appeared:

"Sectarian violence has soared despite the presence of the Americans, and recent cases where American troops have been accused of killing civilians or raping Iraqi women have infuriated the public."

What the evidence seems to indicate is that sectarian—and other—violence has "soared" in Iraq BECAUSE of the presence of Americans, at least in their present role of occupiers. There is much evidence, as well, to indicate that it is the occupation itself that has "infuriated the public," with the recent stories of killing and raping being a sort of "last straw." Those are the unthinkable thoughts here, and both of them are revealed as unthinkable by the casual use of the single word "despite."

"Off The Front Page" Jubilee (Well, More Than One, Anyway...)

Here are a series of key sentences from little-reported news items of note from the past month or so, along with a hint on how to learn more about them.

#1: Neo-Nazis Joining the Army to Train for Race War

"Ten years after Pentagon leaders toughened policies on extremist activities by active-duty personnel—a move that came in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing by decorated Gulf War combat veteran Timothy McVeigh and the murder of a black couple by members of a skinhead gang in the elite 82nd Airborne Division—large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists continue to infiltrate the ranks of the world's best-trained, best-equipped fighting force. Military recruiters and base commanders, under intense pressure from the war in Iraq to fill the ranks, often look the other way."

That's from a report called "A Few Bad Men," found in the most recent edition of "Intelligence Report," put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This news of organized racists actively learning skills for the purpose of fomenting a "race war" of ethnic cleansing in the U.S. was mentioned in a few newspapers, but never on the front pages. Go to http://www.splcenter.org/ and click on "Intelligence Report."

#2: They're Taking Our Jobs! Not.

"High levels of immigration in the past 15 years do not appear to have hurt employment opportunities for American workers, according to a new report." That's the Wall Street Journal of August 11th, commenting on a new report from the Pew Hispanic Center. Economist Jared Bernstein at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, sounds a cautionary note, however, saying, "There certainly are places in this country where native-born workers are hurt by immigrant competition. The fact that it doesn't hurt in a national sense should not lead us to dismiss local problems."

As usual, it's a complex issue, despite the shouts heard about the need to "protect our borders" and other xenophobic hysteria. If the facts interest you, check out the report at http://pewhispanic.org/

#3: Frankenstein Has Gotten Out of the Lab

As every environmentalist I know predicted would happen, genetically-modified plants are beginning to escape from the controlled environments where they were supposed to be safely kept, and are cropping up (pun!) out in the wild, with no telling what will happen next. Two articles in the New York Times, both buried on the deep inside pages, told similar stories:

Story #1, August 16th, page 13: "An unapproved type of genetically engineered grass has been found growing in the wild in what scientists say could be the first instance in the United States in which a biotechnology plant has established itself outside a farm."

Story #2, August 19th, Business Section page 4: "Small amounts of an unapproved type of genetically-engineered rice have been found in samples of supplies destined for human consumption, a development that could potentially disrupt rice exports, federal officials said yesterday."

The Times quoted Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, as saying that the latest incident was "another example of how this biotechnology industry continues to act irresponsibly." Which corporations are (ir)responsible? In the first case, it's Monsanto; in the second case, Bayer.

(Note: No further information on this last story is available as I write this.)

Instant Runoff Voting: How and Why

Election processes in the United States are deeply flawed, on many levels. Every year that major federal elections are held I publish an article called "Seven Steps to Better Elections." I'll probably publish it again this year somewhere around November 7th. In that article I briefly recommend a specific election reform known as Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. Among the many reforms that we should talk about, IRV is perhaps the easiest to enact, and right now it's the one that seems the closest to catching on in a big way around the country. For one thing, unless I miss my guess, Minneapolis is poised to adopt IRV in this fall's election.

The one, perhaps the biggest, obstacle to building mass support for this easy-to-carry-out-but-hard-to-pass reform is that it has a reputation of being complicated and hard to understand. I don't think it really is that complicated and, if I'm right, I should be able to explain it quite thoroughly in a short article in Nygaard Notes. So, here we go!

What is "Runoff Voting?"

Runoff voting is sometimes called "two-round" voting, because the elections in this system happen in two rounds. The first round is like the regular elections that U.S. voters know. The difference is, if nobody in that first round wins enough votes (usually 50 percent of the total), then there is no winner in that round. Then, at a later date, you have a second round that weeds out the lowest vote-getters, and has the top vote-getters go at it again. You keep doing this until some candidate gets enough votes to win. Lots of countries use this system.

INSTANT Runoff Voting does the same thing, but all in one election. Here's how: You have an election, like usual, but people vote for all of the candidates (or as many as they like) by ranking them. Like this: Here's my 1st choice, here's my second choice, etc. When the ballots are counted, if someone gets a majority of the first-choice votes, they win. However, if nobody gets a majority the first time around, the last place candidate is defeated, just as in a runoff election, and all ballots are counted again. This time each ballot cast for the defeated candidate counts for the next choice candidate listed on the ballot. The process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.

It all happens with one election instead of a second, runoff, election. That's why it's called "instant." It's a lot quicker and cheaper than going at it in two rounds, with all of the advantages of that system, some of which I will now explain.

Why IRV is Better Than the Current System

Here are some problems with our current system, and how IRV would address those problems.

Problem 1: Candidates can win with less than a majority. In a three-way race, the vote could be divided like this: 40 percent, 35 percent, and 25 percent. In the current system, the candidate with 40 percent would win, even though nobody knows if that is what the majority really wants. Under IRV, that third-place candidate would be eliminated, and we would know if Candidate "A" or Candidate "B" had more support, since all of the people who voted for the losing candidate would have said who their "second choice" was. That's not so complicated, is it?

Problem 2: "Spoiler" Candidates. Right now, if you vote for a "third party" candidate in a close race who doesn't win, your vote is basically wasted. Assume for instance that there are three candidates vying for office and the Republican receives 43% of the vote, the Democrat receives 40% and the Green candidate 17%. Under plurality rules, the Republican wins—even though the majority of voters opposed that candidate and actually voted specifically for non-Republicans. In an IRV system, votes for minor party candidates do not inadvertently aid in the election of candidates those voters want the least, since the "second-choice" votes will never be applied to the "last choice."

Problem 3: Negative campaigning. Currently, Candidate #1 can win without very many people actually supporting him/her. That's because, if Candidate #1 can get a lot of voters to really hate Candidate #2, AND if voters believe that there are only two choices, then a lot of them will vote for Candidate #1 simply because they can't stand Candidate #2. Candidates know that voters don't have to LIKE them; they just have to dislike them less than they dislike their opponent. However, if voters were able to rank their votes, and if candidates knew that second-choice votes might be the ones to get them elected, they might spend less time trashing their opponent and more time trying to convince you to see them as a good second choice, if not a first choice.

Problem 4: Third party handicap. Because of the fear of "wasting" their vote, an unknown number of people in every election vote for someone they don't really want to win. This is known as the "lesser of two evils" approach. This means that most elections don't register the true support for any "non-major" or "third" party. If people felt free to really "vote their hopes," as in an IRV system, we might see a much faster growth of new parties.

Problem 5: Low voter turnout. Since 1945, the USA has ranked 139th (out of 172 countries surveyed) in terms of voter turnout, with only 48 percent of eligible voters bothering to vote in national elections. It's likely that, given the chance to record their true preferences, and thus assuring that no vote is "wasted," more people would be motivated to go out and cast their vote under an IRV system.

Heads Up, Minneapolis Voters! IRV is Coming!

I explained above how "Instant Runoff Voting" works. On November 7th, there will be a question on the ballot in Minneapolis asking if we want to run our elections this way. Here's how it will read:

"A Proposal to use Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis Elections

"Should the City of Minneapolis adopt Single Transferable Vote, sometimes known as Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting, as the method for electing the Mayor, City Council, and members of the Park and Recreation Board, Library Board, and Board of Estimate and Taxation without a separate primary election and with ballot format and rules for counting votes adopted by ordinance? YES NO"

If enough voters vote "Yes," then Minneapolis can join San Francisco, Burlington Vermont, North Carolina, London, Australia, and many other cities, states, and countries around the world in using this more-democratic method to increase participation and legitimacy. There's even a special group set up to help get this passed. It's called the "Minneapolis Better Ballot Campaign," and you may well wish to volunteer to do some work with them, send them money, or otherwise support them. If you do, go to their website at http://betterballotcampaign.org/

Even if you don't want to actively support their efforts, their website has news and a more in-depth explanation of how and why this is a good deal for the city I happen to live in, including a very impressive list of people who endorse the idea. Go and look for yourself.

Learn More About Instant Runoff Voting

If you have a computer that can play little animated cartoon things (not really a movie, just sort of a moving slide show) then I think you should go watch a little animated cartoon thing done by some guy named Chris Gates in Portland, Oregon. I don't know anything about him, but this little show is the most clear and easy-to-understand explanation I've seen. It takes about 2 minutes to watch. Really! It's on the web at http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/

If, instead, you would rather read some more about this, (or if the special Nygaard Notes explanation of IRV didn't do it for you), then here are a few other options:

The Center for Voting and Democracy has a page on their website called "IRV America," with news and stuff. But they also have a "Teaching Materials" page that has a bunch of things that explain IRV, like brochures, PowerPoint presentations with the Muppets, songs(!), and more. I recommend the Fact Sheets. Find it all at: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=658

A group called "Instant Runoff Voting.com" has a good page of "Frequently Asked Questions." Plain language, short. Find it at http://www.instantrunoff.com/faq.asp

Wikipedia has some interesting stuff on IRV in other countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_use_of_instant-runoff_voting

If you just want to know more about electoral systems in general, I recommend The Electoral Knowledge Network. It's an international group, with resources from South Africa, Mexico, Canada, the UN, and others. There's really far more here than anyone would ever want to know, but it's easy to figure out how to find what you want. It has a news section, an encyclopedia, comparative data on electoral systems around the world, and who-knows-what else. They are found at: http://www.aceproject.org/ (I have no idea why it is called the "Ace Project.")