Fairvote.org is currently undergoing an upgrade, and some features may not be working as usual. We apologize for any inconvenience, and expect to be back at full capacity soon.

Endorsers of Instant Runoff Voting

Elected Officials

Federal Officeholders


Statewide Officeholders

State Legislative and Local Officeholders


Organizations

League of Women Voters State and Local Groups

Political Parties & Clubs


Other Organizations

  • ACLU of Southern California
  • AFL-CIO of New Mexico
  • Alliance for Democracy
  • American Medical Student Association (AMSA)
  • American Reform Party
  • Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC)
  • Banneker Center for Economic Justice
  • Boston VOTE
  • Brookings Institution: Opportunity 08 Project
  • Center for Constitutional Rights
  • Citizens for Legitimate Government
  • Common Cause (VT & MA)
  • The Grange, Vermont Chapter
  • Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
  • Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
  • National Association of State PIRGs
  • National Latino Congreso
  • New America Foundation Political Reform Program
  • Sierra Club & Sierra Student Coalition
  • Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project
  • Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE - Los Angeles)
  • Texans for Public Justice, Austin, TX
  • U.S. PIRG
  • Voter March
  • William C. Velasquez Institute


State and Local Campaign Endorsements

Civic Leaders

  • Kathleen Barber, Professor Emerita, John Carroll University and former chair, Cuyahoga County Charter Commission
  • Harriet S. Barlow, Director, HKH Foundation
    Ted Becker, Alumni Professor of Political Science, Auburn University
  • Medea Benjamin, Founding Director, Global Exchange
  • Jim Blacksher, Civil Rights Attorney, Alabama
  • Bart Bouricius
    [Read his testimony to the Connecticut House of Representatives]
  • Ken Bresler, columnist and former Massachusetts state legislative candidate
  • John C. Brittain, Dean, Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Texas Southern University*
  • Dennis Burke, Writer and former executive director, Arizona Common Cause
  • Peter Camejo, 2004 Green Party candidate for VP, California Green Party gubernatorial candidate
    [Read Camejo's statement in support of IRV]
  • Dan Cantor, Executive Director, Working Families Party*
  • Steve Cheifetz, Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust*
  • David Cobb, 2004 Green Party Presidential nominee
    [Read about Cobb's support of IRV]
  • Steve Cobble, Former Political Director, National Rainbow Coalition
  • Jeff Cohen, Author and Media Critic
  • Richard DeLeon, Department of Political Science, San Francisco State University*
    [Read a letter from DeLeon urging IRV for Berkeley]
  • Derek Cressman, Democracy Program Director, National Association of State PIRGs
  • Ron Daniels, Executive Director, Center for Constitutional Rights
  • Lisa Disch, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
  • Ronnie Dugger, Founder and First Co-Chair, Alliance for Democracy
  • David Eliscu, Western Connecticut Green Party
  • Dave Enrich, Citizens for True Democracy
  • Ralph Estes, Center for Advancement of Public Policy
  • Al Franken, Political Commentator
  • Frances Fox-Piven, Graduate Center, City University of New York*
  • John Gibson, Common Bonds*
  • John Glasel, Past President, American Federation of Musicians� Local 802 (NYC)*
  • Ted Glick, Independent Progressive Politics Network
  • Bill Gram-Reefer, Worldview
  • Dr. William Grover, Chair, Political Science Department at St. Michael's College
  • Lani Guinier, Professor, Harvard Law School
  • Doris "Granny D" Haddock
  • Dan Hamburg, Former U.S. Congressman and Executive Director, Voice of the Environment*
  • Thom Hartmann, Host of the nationally syndicated radio show "The Thom Hartmann Program"
    [Read an excerpt about IRV from Thom Hartmann's book]
  • Howie Hawkins, Green Party, Syracuse, New York
  • Ronald Hayduk, Assistant Professor, City University of New York
  • Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor, The New Yorker
  • Jim Hoaglund, VoterMarch*
  • Gerald Horne, Attorney, Author and Activist
  • Evelyn Jerome, past president, Los Angeles County Young Democrats
  • Neal Jesse, Assistant Professor, Bowling Green State University*
  • Mark P. Jones, Associate Professor, Michigan State University
  • Sheila Jordan, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, Hayward, California
  • David Kairys, Professor of Law, Temple University*
  • David Dyssegaard Kallick, Former Social Policy editor
  • Randy Kehler, Alliance for Democracy*
  • Alex Keyssar, Professor of History, Duke University*
  • Jerry Arthur Knight, Judge Hubert L. Will Chapter, American Veterans Committee
  • David C. Korten, Author of When Corporations Rule the World
  • Saul Landau, Institute for Policy Studies*
  • Kay Lawson, Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University
  • David Lawrence, Professor of Political Science, Fordham University
  • Daniel Lazare, Journalist and Author of The Frozen Republic (1996)
  • Michael Lewyn, Professor, John Marshall Law School, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Arend Lijphart, Research Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of California, San Diego*
  • Phillip Macklin, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Miami University* / Chair, Governance Committee of Oxford, Ohio League of Women Voters*
  • Robert McKay, San Francisco
  • Kevin McKeown, City Councilmember, Santa Monica, California
  • Michael Morrill, Pennsylvania Consumer Action Network
  • Dr. Ted Mosch, University of Tennessee-Martin
  • Jon Moscow, Co-Director, Amber Charter School, New York City
  • Steven Mulroy, University of Memphis Law School & Shelby County Commission, Tennessee (Memphis)
  • Phil Tajitsu Nash, Asian American Studies Program, University of Maryland*
  • Wayne Peak, Political Scientist, Colorado State University
  • William Peltz, Capital District Labor-Religion Coalition, Albany, New York*
  • Joseph G. Peschek, Political Science, Hamline University
  • George Pillsbury, Bostonvote*
  • Lewis Pitts, Director, Advocates for Children's Services, Legal Services of North Carolina*
  • John Rapp, Professor of Political Science, Beloit College*
  • Jamin Raskin, Professor of Constitutional Law, American University*
  • Scott Rasmussen, Independent Public Opinion Analyst
  • Willie Ratcliff, Publisher, San Francisco Bay View newspaper
  • Juan C. Ros, Executive Director, Libertarian Party of California
  • John Rensenbrink, Founder Maine Green Independent Party; Author: Against All Odds: the Green Transformation of American Politics (Leopold Press, 1999)
  • Richard Rider, President, Economy Telcom*
  • Joel Rogers, University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • Mark E. Rush, Associate Professor of Politics, Washington and Lee University
  • Paul Ryder, Ohio Citizen Action*
  • Donald Shaffer, Member and Board of Directors, NYCLU*; Co-Chair, New Politics Club of Long Island*
  • Matthew Singer, Montana YMCA Youth and Government Youth Governor 2000-2001
  • James R. Simmons, Chair, Political Science Department, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh*
  • Bill Smaldone, City Councilor, Salem, Oregon
  • Sam Smith, Editor, The Progressive Review
  • Ed Snyder, Friends Committee on National Legislation Executive Secretary Emeritus
    [Read a letter about IRV by Snyder to Maine legislators (.rtf 5.29kB)]
  • Tony Solgard, Chair, FairVote Minnesota
  • Bill Spelman, Associate Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas; and former member, Austin City Council
  • Aaron Starr, Chairman, Libertarian Party of California
  • Jean Stein, editor, Grand Street Magazine*
  • David Stern, Stern Family Fund
  • Edward Still, Voting and Elections Attorney, Washington, DC
  • Rein Taagepera, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of California, Irvine
  • Nicolaus Tideman, Professor of Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University*
  • Michael Twombly, Executive Director, Northwest Democracy Institute
  • Father Benjamin J. Urmston, S.J., Director Peace and Justice Programs, Xavier University
  • Dr. Gerald R. Webster, Professor of Geography, University of Alabama*
  • Leonard Williams, Department of History and Political Science, Manchester College
  • Robert Winters, Harvard University Department of Mathematics*
  • David Zavon, political fairness activist, Cinncinnati
  • Joseph Zimmerman, Professor of Political Science, State University of New York at Albany
  • Representative David Zuckerman, Vermont State House

    * Organization listed for identification purposes only

Newspaper Editorials

Sacramento Business Journal, Editorial, November 30, 2012

"Now is the time for all California counties to embrace so-called instantrunoff voting. Also known as rankedchoice voting, this system is gaining popularity around the country, most notably in San Francisco and Alameda counties....Experience in San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley over the last two years - including smooth balloting on Nov. 6 - shows that voters catch on quickly. California counties should do the same. Let’s move to an election system that saves money and rewards better leaders."

More Editorials

Robert's Rules of Order on Instant Runoff Voting

Robert's Rules of Order (RRO), the well-known guide to fair procedures, makes the point that an election by a mere plurality may produce an unrepresentative result. It recommends voting methods that can determine a majority winner when electing single-seat offices. At conventions of private organizations, etc., where the electors can cast repeated ballots, RRO prefers a system that allows open ended repeat balloting with no runoff eliminations to finally elect a majority winner. Such a system may be time consuming but can allow a compromise candidate to emerge after a number of ballots. However, in elections where open-ended re-voting is not practical, such as in elections by mail (or governmental elections), instant runoff voting (called "preferential voting" in RRO) is the recommended procedure. In the section detailing the procedure for conducting an instant runoff election RRO states that "It makes possible a more representative result than under a rule that a plurality shall elect..... This type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality."

The full text is below. (Again, note that the term "preferential voting" is another one for instant runoff voting). It is from:

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
In Chapter XIII §45. 10th edition, 2000, pp. 411-414
(Used with permission from The Robert's Rules Association, www.robertsrules.com)

§45   VOTING PROCEDURE

Preferential Voting: The term preferential voting refers to any of a number of voting methods by which, on a single ballot when there are more than two possible choices, the second or less-preferred choices of voters can be taken into account if no candidate or proposition attains a majority. While it is more complicated than other methods of voting in common use and is not a substitute for the normal procedure of repeated balloting until a majority is obtained, preferential voting is especially useful and fair in an election by mail if it is impractical to take more than one ballot. In such cases it makes possible a more representative result than under a rule that a plurality shall elect. It can be used only if expressly authorized in the bylaws.

Preferential voting has many variations. One method is described here by way of illustration. On the preferential ballot—for each office to be filled or multiple-choice question to be decided—the voter is asked to indicate the order in which he prefers all the candidates or propositions, placing the numeral 1 beside his first preference, the numeral 2 beside his second preference, and so on for every possible choice. In counting the votes for a given office or question, the ballots are arranged in piles according to the indicated first preferences—one pile for each candidate or proposition. The number of ballots in each pile is then recorded for the tellers’ report. These piles remain identified with the names of the same candidates or propositions throughout the counting procedure until all but one are eliminated as described below. If more than half of the ballots show one candidate or proposition indicated as first choice, that choice has a majority in the ordinary sense and the candidate is elected or the proposition is decided upon. But if there is no such majority, candidates or propositions are eliminated one by one, beginning with the least popular, until one prevails, as follows: The ballots in the thinnest pile—that is, those containing the name designated as first choice by the fewest number of voters—are redistributed into the other piles according to the names marked as second choice on these ballots. The number of ballots in each remaining pile after this distribution is again recorded. If more than half of the ballots are now in one pile, that candidate or proposition is elected or decided upon. If not, the next least popular candidate or proposition is similarly eliminated, by taking the thinnest remaining pile and redistributing its ballots according to their second choices into the other piles, except that, if the name eliminated in the last distribution is indicated as second choice on a ballot, that ballot is placed according to its third choice. Again the number of ballots in each existing pile is recorded, and, if necessary, the process is repeated—by redistributing each time the ballots in the thinnest remaining pile, according to the marked second choice or most-preferred choice among those not yet eliminated—until one pile contains more than half of the ballots, the result being thereby determined. The tellers’ report consists of a table listing all candidates or propositions, with the number of ballots that were in each pile after each successive distribution.

If a ballot having one or more names not marked with any numeral comes up for placement at any stage of the counting and all of its marked names have been eliminated, it should not be placed in any pile, but should be set aside. If at any point two or more candidates or propositions are tied for the least popular position, the ballots in their piles are redistributed in a single step, all of the tied names being treated as eliminated. In the event of a tie in the winning position—which would imply that the elimination process is continued until the ballots are reduced to two or more equal piles—the election should be resolved in favor of the candidate or proposition that was strongest in terms of first choices (by referring to the record of the first distribution).

If more than one person is to be elected to the same type of office—for example, if three members of a board are to be chosen—the voters can indicate their order of preference among the names in a single fist of candidates, just as if only one was to be elected. The counting procedure is the same as described above, except that it is continued until all but the necessary number of candidates have been eliminated (that is, in the example, all but three).

When this or any other system of preferential voting is to be used, the voting and counting procedure must be precisely established in advance and should be prescribed in detail in the bylaws of the organization. The members must be thoroughly instructed as to how to mark the ballot, and should have sufficient understanding of the counting process to enable them to have confidence in the method. Sometimes, for instance, voters decline to indicate a second or other choice, mistakenly believing that such a course increases the chances of their first choice. In fact, it may prevent any candidate from receiving a majority and require the voting to be repeated. The persons selected as tellers must perform their work with particular care.

The system of preferential voting just described should not be used in cases where it is possible to follow the normal procedure of repeated balloting until one candidate or proposition attains a majority. Although this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality, it affords less freedom of choice than repeated balloting, because it denies voters the opportunity of basing their second or lesser choices on the results of earlier ballots, and because the candidate or proposition in last place is automatically eliminated and may thus be prevented from becoming a compromise choice.