FairVote Feed: Press

FairVote Reformer January 2012

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:18:13 -0800

FairVote 20^th Anniversary - and a Salute to John B. Anderson

This year marks FairVote’s 20^th anniversary of our founding meeting in Cincinnati (OH) in June 1992. Keep an eye out for special events and campaigns!

Speaking of anniversaries, one of our founders is John B. Anderson, the former Congressman and presidential candidate. Still an active FairVote board member, Congressman Anderson turns 90 on February 15^th. For election junkies, don’t miss the wonderful new account of John’s 1980 bid for the presidency, No Holding Back. And please join us in wishing John well and celebrating his independence and creativity.

Your Primary Resource: 2012 Election Marathon Underway

FairVote has assembled key resources to understand this year's nomination contests, with regular analysis on its blog and in published commentary. Don't miss these new reports and commentaries.

Report: Delegate allocation rules in 2012 GOP race: What different states are using, and the impact of proportional representation compared to winner-take-all. See our election results, state by state.

Report: Open, closed and mixed primaries, state-by-state: This report details who is allowed to vote in every state holding a presidential or congressional primary this year.

Policy Ideas: FixThePrimaries.com: Our review of different ideas for reforming the schedule and rules of the presidential nomination process.

See more at our blog and our latest news.

FairVote will continue to bring our unique point of view and insight to analysis both on our website and in the media throughout the primary season. We also are regularly cited in the media, including recently in analysis in The Nation and Christian Science Monitor.

We also of course keep an eye on the general election. See our “presidential tracker”, updated daily, and the latest advocacy news at NationalPopularVote.com - -a special shout-out to former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson for deftly explaining National Popular Vote and answering the hyperbolic inaccuracies of John Sununu in South Carolina last week.

Fair Voting Plans for Congress: There is a Better Way

Redistricting continues to be controversial in many states this year, with Texas yet again playing a starring role. FairVote will soon complete plans for all 50 states showcasing fair voting methods of proportional voting. See how it is for fair voting systems to make every voter relevant in every election while increasing representation of racial minorities, women, and diverse political opinions. See the plans for states we have so far here.

We’re regularly publishing commentaries about these proposals, including recently in the daily newspaper of the state capital of Texas, the Austin American Statesman about how fair voting districts would get rid of the type of controversy the state is facing right now.

84^th Academy Awards showcase Ranked Choice Voting

It’s Oscar time again! Check out www.OscarVotes123.com and cast your ranked choice voting ballot for Best Picture. That’s what Hollywood’s greatest stars are doing right now, as the Academy of Motion Pictures uses RCV (as do hundreds of major associations in their elections) in the awarding of Best Picture. The fair voting form of choice voting also is used by the Academy in nominations for most categories, ensuring that nearly all Academy voters help nominate someone and/or some film and giving them a real stake in the outcome on Oscar night on February 26th.

Ranked choice voting makes sense for any election with one winner and more than two candidates. It’s looking more and more likely that our defective plurality voting rule will once again be a big story in this fall’s general election if and when more than two candidates seek the presidency.

Question of the month:

So just why do we lack a citizenship right to vote in the Constitution? Let us know by connecting with us on Facebook or Twitter. Learn more at FairVote.org– and stay tuned for ideas on how you can work for change in your community.

Thanks for reading, and please send us your thoughts and questions at info@fairvote.org

Connect with us

Click here to unsubscribe

FairVote Reformer December 16, 2011

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:21:40 -0800

December 16, 2011
Newsletter Features

Three cities hold first-ever Ranked Choice Voting ("IRV") elections

National Popular Vote plan earns two more wins -- and FairVote research explains why it matters

Fair Voting plans to replaced gerrymanders

Highlighted writings from FairVote

Internal News: Krist Novoselic on the road, Our new team of Democracy Fellows, Applying for an internship

What 2011 says about the 2012 elections

As we come to the end of 2011, it's a time to reflect on what we've learned about democracy this year -- and what it means for the 2012 elections and beyond.

What we've learned is that Americans are upset with their government.

Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. -- nine in ten Americans disapprove.

When candidates are on the ballot, eligible voters abstain in record numbers -- voter turnout in Louisiana dropped in half from 2008 in its race for governor, and dropped even more in West Virginia's gubernatorial race.

Rather than create new electoral opportunities, redistricting shuts down competition in even more districts -- fully 72% of seats were uncontested in Virginia's "elections" for the House of Delegates.

Americans hunger for more choices, but have fewer meaningful ones on Election Day than ever. They worry about special interest money pouring into politics, but it only keeps rising. They care about the right to vote, but face new restrictions in many states that are likely to dampen participation.

That's the downside. The positive news is that change is coming. Consider these highlights:

Six cities had ranked choice voting ("IRV") elections this November, with voters being able to rank candidates in order of choice without fear of "spoiling" elections. Every election went well. As one example, the mayoral election in Portland (ME) drew 50% more voters than expected. In a 15-candidate race where no candidate earned more than 30% of first choices, we saw a consensus winner, civil campaigning and applause for the new ideas and participation generated by the election.

Two more states approved the National Popular Vote plan for president: our biggest (California) and one of our smallest (Vermont). States in the NPV compact now have half the electoral votes necessary to activate the agreement and guarantee that the winner of the most votes in all 50 states and D.C. becomes our next president, with every vote equal.

Proportional voting had a big year internationally, including being adopted by most Arab nations moving toward democracy. In the USA, FairVote introduced the idea with a series of high-profile commentaries and sample plans as an alternative to the latest round of gerrymandered districts. American forms of proportional voting are being used in American cities -- and directly address the polarizing realities of winner-take-all politics.

Legislation to establish a constitutional right to vote has 48 sponsors. FairVote leads the nonprofit community in backing this legislation and in promoting big ideas on voting in its spirit like a voter registration system that establishes full and accurate voter rolls, a "public option" for voting equipment and performance standards that guarantee all Americans can trust their electoral process.

Please read on for a summary of the latest news and FairVote research. My best to you for the holidays -- and a new year to remember.

Rob Richie,

Executive Director

To FairVote Supporters: FairVote depends on charitable donations to fulfill our mission to reform elections in order to respect every vote and every voice. Earlier this week, we mailed our current donors a letter asking for renewed support. You can read the letter, 2011 quotes, and bookmark online. If you like what we do, please consider an online donation. Thank you!

Three cities hold first-ever Ranked Choice Voting ("IRV") elections

This November marked the first-ever use of ranked choice voting (RCV, or "instant runoff voting") in Portland (ME), St. Paul (MN) and Telluride (CO). RCV was also used for the elections for mayor in San Francisco (CA) and Takoma Park (MD), with Cambridge (MA) using the proportional voting version of RCV for city council and school board elections.

Voters and election officials handled the system well, and more than two candidates were able to run in all these cities without any talk of "spoilers."

Here are links on these elections.

Portland: TV news (Ranked Choice Voting a Success) & Press-Herald:(Ranked Choice Voting a Winner)
Portland Spotlight & Dorothy Does Democracy
San Francisco: SFBetterElections.com & Round-by-Round Breakdown
St. Paul: Ranked Choice Voting a Winner and Voter education site
Telluride: News article RCV works
Choice Voting Elections in Cambridge
Coverage in Freakonomics, Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio, Economist and Bloomberg News
Rob Richie blogs on Irish presidential election with RCV

National Popular Vote plan earns two more wins--and FairVote research explains why it matters

California and Vermont adopted the National Popular Vote plan for president this year. Five years after FairVote joined with other reformers to launch the effort, it is halfway to enactment and law in states representing 49% of the electoral votes necessary to govern the next presidential election. FairVote remains a key player in the NPV reform coalition and regularly produces new research and analysis about the failure of the status quo.

FairVote also took a strong stand against an effort in Pennsylvania to try to game the Electoral College. We were invited to submit testimony to the Pennsylvania legislature, and Rob Richie had an article in the Nation magazine.

Rob Richie's Politico commentary on NPV win in California
FairVote's testimony against Pennsylvania proposal & related Fuzzy Math report
Rob Richie in The Nation on National Popular Vote plan
FairVote blogs on turnout in presidential elections & bipartisan focus on swing states
New FairVote resources on problems with status quo
Write your state legislators to support NPV

Fair Voting plans to replace gerrymanders

FairVote is drawing fair voting plans of American forms of proportional representation for all states in the nation. They could be established for congressional elections by repealing a 1967 law requiring winner-take-all districts and in state elections by action of the legislature. As one example this year, Maryland state senator Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor, made a well-received floor speech arguing that the best way to address the problem in the future was to put voters in charge over their representation. He shared FairVote's plan for fair voting in super-districts with three and five members that would lead to nearly every voter being able to elect a favorite candidate.

FairVote board members John Anderson (co-founder and former chair) and Krist Novoselic (current chair) both published high-profile articles about proportional voting this year. Expect to see much more in 2012 as the election season gets underway, with FairVote making good use of its new plans and its Dubious Democracy report on problems with the status quo, such as gerrymandering.

Fair Voting Plan for Maryland and Baltimore Sun on Sen. Raskin's speech

Widely-published commentary on proportional voting from Richie and Novoselic

FairVote op-eds on state plans in Baltimore Sun and Virginian-Pilot

Fair Voting plans for Ohio, Illinois and North Carolina

Dubious Democracy: How does your state rank in fair House elections?

FairVote redistricting resources: Glossary, analysis of Litigation and Reform Legislation, news and more

John Anderson's op-eds on voter choice and proportional voting from Roll Call & Christian Science Monitor

Highlighted writings from FairVote

FairVote staffers and Board members had commentaries in Politico, Roll Call, Christian Science Monitor, Newsday, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sacramento Bee and Charlotte Observer. We were featured as quoted experts in publications like the Economist, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and National Public Radio. We also regularly add compelling and timely commentary on the blog and tweet the latest news.You can read featured excerpts, with links to the full articles, at this page. Here are a few examples of our blogposts from the past month:

Learning a Lesson from Egypt’s Universal Voter Registration by Elise Helgesen // December 7, 2011
America's Young Voters: Who They Are and Why They Matter by Christina Grier // December 2, 2011 /
Presidential Tracker: Looking at the Structure by Katie P. Kelly // December 1, 2011 //
Response to “A rogue convention? How GOP party rules may surprise in 2012” by Rob Richie, Elise Helgesen // December 1, 2011
“Mr. Normal” Francois Hollande to Face French President Sarkozy by Hüseyin Koyuncu // November 23, 2011
Portland’s Biggest Winner: Democracy with Ranked Choice Voting by Dorothy Scheeline, Rob Richie // November 16, 2011
The Ongoing Problem of Low Voter Turnout: Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia by Christina Grier // November 10, 2011

Internal News: Krist Novoselic on the road, our 2011-2012 Democracy Fellows, Applying for an internship

FairVote has been blessed this year with a remarkable group of more than twenty young people working in our office as democracy fellows and volunteer interns. Here are photos and bios of our fall intern team and this year's four democracy fellows. We are accepting intern applications for the spring and summer. Summer internships are particularly competitive, but rewarding. This past summer, we had six terrific law students joined by several undergrads, helping us produce a range of new research and publications and having meetings with the likes of Howard Dean, Tom Perez, Jamie Raskin and Sean Parnell. Our internship page has more about our internships and sees a photo of our summer 2011 crew on a visit to meet with officials of the Department of Justice.

FairVote also is fortunate in its board members, led by chair Krist Novoselic. Krist had a busy fall, as it was the 20th anniversary of the release of Nirvana's album Nevermind. This coming year, he'll be on the road for the 20th anniversary of FairVote, speaking to groups and college campuses and appearing on media. To find out more about the potential availability of Krist, executive director Rob Richie and other FairVote leaders, be in touch with Cynthia Terrell at ct[at]fairvote.org. Cynthia also is eager to talk about making donations to FairVote.

Portland Mayoral Election: One-Day Survey Results

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 07:52:51 -0800

For Immediate Release:
November 7, 2011
Contact:
Rob Richie (301-270-4616)

PORTLAND MAYORAL ELECTION: ONE-DAY SURVEY RESULTS

Voters Overwhelmingly Rank More than One Candidate and Find it Easy

FairVote, a non-profit, non-partisan election reform and research organization based in Takoma Park (MD), conducted a one-day survey of 122 early voters on Thursday, November 3 participating in Portland's first mayoral election in nearly a century.

The survey reveals that Portland voters find their new ranked choice ballot easy to use and have experienced a mayoral campaign that has promoted civic engagement.

Highlights of the survey include:

"Were the voting instructions &/or the ballot design easy or difficult to understand?
o 94.2%: I understood them fully
o 5.0%: I only partially understood them
o 0.8%: I was confused about them

"How difficult or easy did you find the concept of ranking candidates?"
o 39.7%: Very easy
o 26.4%: Easy
o 22.3%: Neither difficult nor easy
o 7.4%: Difficult
o 4.1%: Very difficult

"In the mayor's race, did you:"
o 35.0%: Rank more than 5 candidates
o 52.5%: Rank 2, 3, 4 or 5 candidates
o 12.5%: Rank only 1 candidate

In addition to these results, 40.5% of respondents felt there was less negative campaigning, as opposed to only 8.6% percent who found it more negative.

45% of respondents felt more inclined to vote for their preferred candidate than in past elections, as opposed to only 0.8% percent who said they were less inclined.

39.2% of respondents said they gathered more information about candidates than in past elections as opposed to 9.2% who said they gathered less information.

"These results show that voters not only understand the ranked choice system, but are using their rankings in the way that benefits them, by ranking as many candidates as they prefer. The majority of voters are choosing to rank multiple candidates, and not a single respondent choosing to vote for only one said they did so because they didn't understand RCV " said FairVote Executive Director Rob Richie.

"Portland is traditionally a very civicly engaged community and voters have continued that tradition in this election by researching more candidates than just their top choice. This means that they have back-up choices if their first choice is dropped from the race during the counting process."

FairVote applauds the City Clerk and the Elections Department and Portland's civic organizations for their work preparing for Portland's first ranked choice voting elections. For more information, please visit PortlandVotes123.com.

##########

Everything You Wanted to Know about Election Recounts

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:35:58 -0700

TAKOMA PARK, MD: FairVote -The Center for Voting and Democracy today released its new report on statewide recounts as the state of Wisconsin launches a statewide recount in a hotly contested election for a seat on its state supreme court. A Survey and Analysis of Statewide Election Recounts, 2000-2009 is available online, along with detailed data compiled for the report.

Rob Richie, FairVote's longtime executive director, co-authored the report with FairVote democracy fellow Emily Hellman. "The ability to handle a recount of votes to ensure fair, accurate and genuinely democratic outcomes is widely recognized as a critical component of election administration," commented Richie. "Trust in elections requires trust in the recount process."

FairVote's report examines statewide election recount outcomes and practices in the United States, using data from the decade of elections taking place in the years 2000 to 2009 to determine how often they occur, how often they change outcomes, how much vote totals change and how these figures vary with the size of the electorate. Key findings include:

Statewide recounts are rare: Out of the 2,884 statewide general elections in the 2000 to 2009 decade, there were 18 statewide recounts, 11 of which were deemed "consequential"(with an original victory margin of no more than 0.15 percent). In other words, there was one recount for every 160 statewide elections and one consequential recount for every 262 statewide elections. This pattern was true of most subcategories of statewide elections as well, including only two consequential recounts out of the 422 elections in this period for the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general and treasurer.

Outcome reversals are even rarer: Recounts resulted in three reversals out of 11 consequential recounts, or one out of every 961 statewide elections in 2000-2009. These reversals took place in the races for U.S. Senate in 2008 in Minnesota, auditor in 2006 in Vermont and governor in 2004 in Washington.

Margin shifts in recounts are small: Statewide recounts resulted in an average shift in the victory margin of 296 votes, representing 0.027% of the statewide vote in those elections. The median shift in margin was 229 votes, with 15 of the 18 recounts changing the victory margin by fewer than 500 votes.

Margin shifts are smaller and recounts rarer in larger electorates: Recounts in elections with more voters altered the vote margin by lower percentages than in elections with fewer voters. In the five cases in which the total votes cast were above two million, the margin shift was on average 0.016% of the vote (less than one for every 6,400 votes cast). In the eight cases in which the total votes cast were fewer than one million, the margin shift was on average 0.039% (less than one for every 2,500 votes cast). No recount took place in our three largest states.

Most states should revise their laws governing statewide recounts: Model state laws should establish clear post-election audit procedures and define a reasonable victory margin percentage for automatic, taxpayer-financed recounts.

Established in 1992, FairVote is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that educates and enlivens discourse on how best to achieve a democracy that respects every voice and every vote. We pursue innovative research, strategic outreach and civic education in order to promote fair access to political participation, fair elections, and fair representation. For more information, contact Toby Rowe at trowe(at)fairvote.org or (301) 270-4616.

North Carolina uses Instant Runoff Voting

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:08:13 -0700

From FairVote's Innovative Analysis series

By Rob Richie

This fall North Carolina held the first statewide general election with instant runoff voting (IRV) in the nation’s history to fill federal judge Jim Wynn’s vacancy in on the Court of Appeals. Three Superior Court vacancies were also filled with instant runoff voting. The statewide vacancy election drew 13 candidates; the three Superior Court races each drew three candidates.

Before 2006, such judicial vacancies created between the primary and Labor Day of an election year were filled with a single election by plurality voting. With that system, voters cast one vote, and the candidate with the most votes won, no matter how low his or her percentage of the total vote. In 2004, a statewide vacancy to the North Carolina Supreme Court was won with 23%. IRV requires winners to demonstrate more support if they do no win a majority of first choice rankings. (See www.ncvotes123.com)

From what we know of these IRV elections, voters seemed to have handled instant runoff voting well, which is a credit to state and local elections officials. Anecdotal reports from election officials have been positive. For instance, Carteret County Board of Elections director Lindy Lewis said yesterday toward the end of Election Day: “"We haven't had a phone call from a precinct official or voter (regarding the instant runoff) which makes me feel good about that.” (See: http://www.enctoday.com/news/voting-84349-jdn-voters-holly.html)

Hard numbers from the elections seem to confirm that voters handled IRV and that will play an important role in ensuring winners are representative of voter intent. For example:

Votes in the Court of Appeals vacancy election: There are more valid votes in the Court of Appeals vacancy race, with IRV, than in three of four other Court of Appeals races (and only slightly fewer votes than the fourth race). This would suggest that voters were not intimidated by the number of candidates or ballot design and that they did not make an unusual number of mistakes in marking their IRV ballots.

Without IRV, the statewide race would have been won with 20%: The top vote-getters in the Court of Appeals race were Cressie Thigpen (with 20%) and Doug McCullough (with 15%). Under the previous system for vacancy elections, Judge Thigpen would have won outright, although fully 80% of voters did not select him as their first choice. Now we will find out whether more voters preferred Thigpen to McCullough or vice versa. Even though the final winner is unlikely to get 50% of the overall vote, he will need to get substantially more votes than under the previous system -- and far more votes than would have been cast in a December runoff.

One of three Superior Court races will require an instant runoff: Of three Superior Court races with IRV, two (in Rowan and Buncombe counties) were won with a majority of the first round vote. The third race (in Cumberland County) has the first-choice leader with 36% and two candidates close behind. IRV will allow us to see which of the two frontrunners was favored by more voters.

It is important to note that the instant runoff tallies are not expected to take place until after the State Canvass on November 23rd. But the voters’ work is done; all that is needed is for election officials to have the time to add ballots from the defeated candidates to the totals of the runoff candidates based on whichever candidate is ranked as a second or third choice on each ballot.

Previous editions of Innovative Analysis can be found here.

Non-Majority Winners and "Spoilers" in Election 2010

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:46:59 -0700

From FairVote's Innovative Analysis series

By Chris Marchsteiner & Rob Richie

Election Day brought big changes this year. Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives decisively, while the Democratic Party narrowly held onto the U.S. Senate. With a majority of the nation’s governors being elected, Republicans made key gains. While the media’s narrative will undoubtedly focus on the winners and losers, our Non-Majority Rule desk will zero in on how plurality voting rules skewed and distorted several elections – and led to some underhanded campaign tactics.

Third party and independent candidates across the nation played a decisive role in many extremely close races. A pattern has emerged of majority victories becoming less prevalent and candidates winning through spoilers splitting the vote. Overall, 8 governor races and 4 U.S. Senate races appear to have been won with less than 50%, including at least two races with less than 40% (plus a third, depending on how many write-in votes ultimately count for Lisa Murkowksi in Alaska). In addition, several U.S. House races were affected by third party and independent candidates.

Here’s a review of races, starting with statewide races.

In Rhode Island’s gubernatorial election, independent Lincoln Chafee beat out Democratic and Republican candidates in a three-way race. Chafee won just 36.1% of the vote over Republican Robitaille’s 33.6% and Democrat Caprio’s 23%. 7.3% of the vote went to 4 other candidates. We don’t know what the result of this election would have been under a majority rule system, but it certainly would have confirmed the fairness of the result.

The governor’s race in Maine went to a candidate who more likely would have lost in a majority system. With 92% of districts reporting, Republican Paul LePage appears to have won with 38.1%. As in Rhode Island, no candidate reached even the 40% threshold; Independent Eliot Cutler had a remarkable surge in popularity in the last two weeks and led for much of the evening. As of now, however, he is 6,779 votes behind LePage with 36.7% of the vote. In a runoff system, the more centrist Cutler almost certainly would have picked up the bulk of votes for Democratic candidate Libby Mitchell (19.2%) and two other independent candidates (6%).

The governor’s race in Minnesota may go to an automatic recount, although Democrat Mark Dayton seems likely to hold onto his narrow lead. With 99% of precincts counted, he leads with 918,351 votes. Independence Party candidate Horner captured 251,300 votes, far greater than the winning margin.

The high-profile governor’s race in Colorado was predicted to be a state without a majority victory due to the dispute over the troubled candidacy of Republican Dan Maes and American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo. The Republican Party turned on Maes as Tancredo surpassed the Republican nominee in the polls, leaving Maes with as low as 5% in some polls. These fears of Maes acting as a spoiler were unfounded in the end: Democrat John Hickenlooper apparently has won a majority victory with 50.5% of the vote. Tancredo followed with 36.9% and Maes did better than many expected with 11.2%. Their combined votes did not overtake Hickenlooper – but Maes did get into the double digits, keeping Republicans from the ignominy of losing major party status.

Turning to the U.S. Senate, Republican Mark Kirk captured Illinois’ U.S. Senate seat by a slim margin of 82,414 votes over Democrat Alexi Giannoulias with 99% of precincts reporting. This vote total is smaller than the 85,492 votes won by Libertarian Mike Labno, and far smaller than the 115,561 votes won by Green candidate LeAlan Jones. These two third party candidates may have played a decisive role in the election’s outcome.

Although a victory for independent write-in candidate Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska is uncertain, she seems likely to have earned a remarkable victory as the first write-in candidate to win a U.S. Senate seat since Strom Thurmond in 1954. The total write-in votes are nearly 7% more than the votes cast for Republican Joe Miller, although only 41% of the overall vote. The New York Times reports that it could take weeks for those votes to be counted, but Murkowski is celebrating a likely victory – albeit one that may well leave her with less than 40% of the final vote.

One of the closest Senate elections was in Colorado, where Democrat Michael Bennet won over Republican Ken Buck 47.7% to 46.8%. A number of third party candidates garnered 5.5% of the vote, and their participation easily could have tipped the election either way. These include: Green Party candidate Bob Kinsey with 2.2%, Libertarian candidate Maclyn Stringer with 1.3%, Independent Reform Party candidate Jason Napolitano with 1.1%, independent Charley Miller with 0.6%, and independent J. Moromisato with 0.3%.

In Florida, Republican Marco Rubio won with a non-majority total of 48.8%. Still, Rubio’s percentage is far higher than many expected, and he likely would have been favored in a runoff against Crist despite polls showing Crist as the overwhelming second choice of Kendrick Meek’s supporters.

The big news from Nevada is that Sen. Harry Reid retained his seat and his status as Senate Majority Leader, but his victory comes in an election with a significant third party and independent presence, most notably from the popular “None of these candidates” option. The Non-Majority Rule desk previously covered voter discontent with Reid and Republican Sharron Angle in the state, but Reid’s majority victory was substantial, apparently winning 50.2% of the vote over Angle’s 44.6%. If his percentage holds, it will only be Reid’s second statewide race won with a majority of the vote.

On the U.S. House side, the Indiana 2nd District race between Democrat Joe Donnelly and Republican Jackie Walorski provides a particularly stark example of the effect of third party candidates. The Democrat eked out a slim victory of 2,452 votes. However, Libertarian candidate Mark Vogel captured 9,445 votes that may well have gone mostly to Walorski in a runoff choice solely between the Democratic and Republican candidates. The Democratic victory was all the more problematic because Democrats, in the final days of the campaign, spent upwards of $15,000 on a mailer to targeted households identifying Mark Vogel as the true conservative candidate in the race.

Looking to similar tactics, although Republicans had fielded faux Green Party candidates to siphon votes from Democrats in Arizona, the plan did not seem to have an effect. In the New Jersey House races the similar ploy by Democrats to steal votes from Republicans appears ineffective. However, Republican Jon Runyan won the 3rd District by only 6,106 votes. In comparison, the three independent and third party candidates in the race won 5,660 votes.

Other U.S. House races results included:

With 100% reporting in the South Dakota at-large race, Independent Thomas Marking may have played the role of a spoiler in the race between Republican Kristi Noem and incumbent Democrat Stephanie Sandlin. The seat went to the Republican with 48.1% to the Democrat’s 45.9%; Marking captured 6% of the vote.
Minnesota’s 8th District went for Republicans over Democrats by 48.2% to 46.6%. Two other candidates won 4.3% and 0.9%, providing yet another example of a toss-up election in a voting system that adheres to majority rule.
New Hampshire’s 2nd District similarly went to Republicans by a 2.8% margin over Democrats with a Libertarian candidate winning 2.7% and an Independent winning 2.2%.
A close race in Massachusetts' 10th District yielded a victory for Democrat Bill Keating. Beating Republican Jeff Perry 46.9% to 42.4%, Keating’s margin of victory is smaller than independent Maryanne Lewis' share of the vote at 5.9%. Two other independent candidates captured 4.8% of the vote as well.
With 99% of precincts reporting, California’s 11th District race is one of the closest yet. Republican David Harmer led Democrat Jerry McNerney by 23 votes. The American Independent Party won 8,775 votes, clearly determining the election.
A similarly close election in Illinois’ 8th District shows Republican Joe Walsh winning by 797 votes. Green Party candidate Bill Scheurer won far more than this margin of victory with 6,412 votes. Given plurality voting rules, Scheurer effectively handed the election to Walsh – Scheurer ironically is a leading advocate of using instant runoff voting in such elections.

Many more elections played out just like these. With the increasing number of third party and independent candidates, our nation’s elections will undoubtedly get worse before they get better. Serious reform is needed to uphold the will of the majority – either traditional two-round runoff elections or instant runoff voting (IRV) being the most likely options in races for single-winner offices.

IRV, also called ranked choice voting, allows voters to rank their choices, and makes it far more likely to avoid spoilers and have majority winners. On this Election Day in North Carolina, IRV was used in a statewide Court of Appeals race successfully. Of the five races for Court of Appeals, more valid votes were cast in the IRV vacancy election than in all but one, including two traditional two-candidate races that were closely contested. Three county-level judicial elections with IRV in North Carolina also seem to have gone well. Elsewhere, voters approved IRV in Maine’s largest city of Portland for future mayoral elections, while voters used IRV for the first time in three California cities, including Oakland.

IRV is a pragmatic, tested solution that is being used more frequently as voters grow tired of politicians and judges receiving power through insignificant plurality victories that do little to indicate voter preference. Whether you are registered as a Democrat, Republican, independent, or third party, today should be a day for reflection on the flaws that obstruct true democracy in the United States.

Previous editions of Innovative Analysis can be found here.

The FairVote Reformer: February 2011

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:35:49 -0800

Subscribe | Donate | Get Involved

The FairVote Reformer: February 14, 2011

February 14, 2011
Newsletter Features

IRV on the ballot in Colorado city and the UK; state bills advance

Oscar for best voting goes to... ranked choice voting!

Congressional legislation on redistricting, proportional voting and a constitutional right to vote

Get ready for redistricting: Time for proportional voting

FairVote News: London speech, New York Times letter, new interns

A healthy democracy matters more than ever

FairVote's first FairVote Reformer of 2011 comes at a momentous time in the worldwide movement for more democratic, participatory governance. The street protests in Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab nations underscore the modern human drive to uphold the principle that governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." No protection is more fundamental than ensuring a nation's citizens have a right to vote for their leaders in elections with real choices, free-flowing information and fair access to voting and representation.

Democracy as a whole in the United States is of course far more developed than in Egypt, yet our elections fall well short of the ideal. Most American voters can be safely ignored by candidates for federal office due to our electoral laws, millions of votes every election are lost due to outdated administrative processes, the complexity of our views and interests typically boil down to "either/or," and our leaders rarely debate our nation's great challenges with the substance and candor our complex times demand.

FairVote's research and analysis ground our case for electoral reforms designed to respect every vote and every voice. Some of our proposals initially may have seemed "unrealistic", but we've made terrific headway - and democracy based on consent of the governed demands nothing less. My special thanks go out to our loyal donors who make our work possible.

I'm excited about our advances and the promise of a new year. Progress cannot be taken for granted, of course. Basic access to voting is under attack in many states, and we can expect redistricting to underscore how far too many elected officials are willing to put partisan and incumbent interests over doing what's best for voters. This year we plan to increase attention to two longstanding goals: establishing an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution to stop voting rights from being another political football and establishing forms of proportional voting to give all voters equal opportunity to earn fair representation regardless of how redistricting lines are drawn. Look for new research and analysis to provide the intellectual grounding for these goals and our other major proposals such as the national popular vote plan for president, instant runoff voting and universal voter registration - each of which already is the subject of viable legislation moving in states.

Stay tuned, enjoy the latest newsletter, and, for a lighthearted exercise in democracy, please rank your choices at our new OscarVotes123 poll for Best Picture of the year!

Rob Richie,
Executive Director

IRV on the Ballot in Colorado and the UK; state bills advance

Instant runoff voting (IRV, also known as "alternative vote", "ranked choice voting" and "preferential voting") is designed to accommodate increased voter choice and uphold majority rule. It simulates a "same day runoff", essentially, between the two strongest candidates, with the winner being the one who is ranked ahead of the other on more ballots. Used for decades to elect top offices in Australia (see a fun Aussie video about it here), Ireland and many private organizations, IRV has surged in use around the world in the past decade, including victories in ballot measures in the United States on every November election day since 2004. That support is grounded in voters' growing dissatisfaction with choices being limited to two and, in the words of a recent report by an influential international think tank, a plurality voting system that fails as "the worst of both possible worlds."

On May 5^th the United Kingdom is expected to vote on IRV in the second national referendum in its history. Yes to Fairer Votes is leading the charge; leading papers back the change, The Independent, Guardian, and Financial Times among them. Voters in Fort Collins (CO) will also vote on IRV this April in an initiative effort led by a broad coalition, with Red Wing (MN) voting on IRV in 2012. This November IRV will be used for the first time in St Paul (MN), Portland (ME) and Telluride (CO) and for a hotly contested open seat race for mayor in San Francisco -- across the Bay from Oakland, where 2010 mayoral election winner Jean Quan was outspent by some four-to-one, but was victorious due to more grassroots campaigning and reaching out to backers of trailing candidates. One of those candidates, council woman Rebecca Kaplan, recently touted the value of IRV in that election.

Oscar for Best Voting goes to...Ranked Choice Voting!

There aren't many opportunities to be like Matt Damon or Julia Roberts. But this month, they and their fellow Hollywood stars are voting for the Best Picture Oscar with instant runoff voting -- and you can too at FairVote's OscarVotes123.com. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a long history of using innovative voting systems: Since 1934, nominations have been elected with the choice voting method of proportional voting that FairVote recommends for legislative elections, as highlighted last month by Slate's Timothy Noah

FairVote has created OscarVotes123.com to explain IRV and choice voting and address questions about the system -- it currently features an IRV poll. We applaud famed election analyst Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com fame for his fascinating analysis in which he explains IRV and shows who would win Best Picture if the nation's critics were the voters.

National Popular Vote advancing in many states

The National Popular Vote plan would guarantee that the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. would be elected president. It is advancing in several states around the nation, building on its remarkable progress of passing at least one chamber in 21 states and being signed into law in six states and the District of Columbia. It has an opportunity to govern the 2012 election, with states representing a majority of the Electoral College needing to adopt it by July 2012. Recent media coverage of state bills includes an Alaska Public Radio story, an editorial in Glens Falls (NY) and in Connecticut News Junkie.

FairVote's Rob Richie is a co-author of Every Vote Equal, recently updated in a third edition that will soon be available at www.everyvoteequal.com. We also have our own website resources, including our Presidential Election Inequality report, soon to be out in a second edition. Richie joined with Matt Morris in aHuffington Post article on the potential of an Electoral College failure in 2012 where no candidate wins an Electoral College majority, putting Congress in charge of picking the president. Matt also explains on the FairVote blog just how low a percentage of the popular vote could have been necessary to win the 2008 election - the winner could have lost the popular vote by 40%.

Congressional legislation on Redistricting, Proportional Voting & a Constitutional Right to Vote

States and cities have the power to enact much of what we support, which is why we historically have focused our policy proposals and strategic action at those levels of government -- see 2011-12 state legislation and ways you can take action to support reform. At the same time, we believe Congress should take action to enact national minimum standards in several areas in elections and, ultimately, take bolder action to advance reforms in areas like instant runoff voting and proportional voting. Here is a review of notable federal legislation -- visit our federal legislation page for more information and easy ways to write your Members about these bills.

A Constitutional Right to Vote and HJR 28: FairVote fellow Jo McKeegan writes a regular blog series on voting rights and the increasingly obviously argument that we must ensure that voting rights never become just another pawn in the partisan battles between the major parties (See Rob Richie's recent contribution to this series). We must establish the clear principle that, just like our First Amendment rights, the right to vote is essential to representative democracy. We need confidence that every eligible voter vote has full access to vote, but that no ineligible vote should be cast. That means much clearer and grounded action and national standards on areas like voter registration, voting equipment and suffrage rights. To advance the conversation, we endorse Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s HJR 28, legislation that will be introduced this month to establish an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution.

The Redistricting Transparency Act: Winner-take-all elections make the partisan composition of legislative districts determinative for who wins most elections - and whether they are even remotely competitive. Redistricting is a seductive power for state legislators and partisans in the shadows, and it's time to put as much of the process in the sunlight as possible. We endorse Congressman Jim Cooper's Redistricting Transparency Act (HR 419) and applaud Congressman Heath Shuler for his Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (HR 453) even if disagreeing with some of its particulars.

Making the US House More Representative: FairVote's Rob Richie recently had a New York Times letter touting Congressman Alcee Hastings' forthcominglegislation to establish a commission on representation in the U.S. House. It would feature examination of two issues: whether the number of U.S. House Representatives should increase after a century of being frozen at 435 and whether states should regain the power to use proportional voting to elect House Members.

Voter Registration Reform in the States: States continue to take the lead in modernizing voter registration and moving us toward a sensible universal voter registration system in which every eligible voter is registered once to vote and no ineligible voter is registered to vote. One of our signature proposals is voter pre-registration for young people, as adopted in both Democratic-run and Republican-run states in recent years. This year, viable legislation is moving again, and Project Vote has published an advocacy toolkit. Meanwhile, Utah is showing indications of leading the nation in voter registration modernization.

Get Ready for Redistricting: Time for Proportional Voting

With the mid-term elections over and legislatures back in session, redistricting will soon be in full swing in states across the United States. Some states have already released the Census data that will be used to essentially determine representation for most voters for the next decade. This year allows more opportunities than ever before for civic groups and individuals to track the process, propose their own plans and push for public interest outcomes -- and learn just why the route to fairness must include replacing exclusive reliance on winner-take-all elections with American forms of proportional voting. Redistricting mapmakers' power over representation is a direct consequence of reliance on winner-take-all elections in which 51% of the votes earns 100% of representation, and 60% of votes makes a district nearly certain to be represented by that super-majority for years to come.

FairVote has excellent resources on redistricting, including extensive press coverage from 2001-02 (just click on http://archive.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/va.htm and substitute your state's initials at the end of the URL to see other press). This year, we're also partnering with leading reformers onEndGerrymandering.com, which features excerpts from the excellent new documentary Gerrymandering, now available on DVD. We also are tweeting news on redistricting around the country on a near-daily basis - you can easily review the www.twitter.com/endgerrymander archive with a simple click.

Recent articles on the FairVote blog provide a reminder that proportional voting, which greatly weakens the power to gerrymander outcomes, is already a reality in most well-established democracies. FairVote's Wael Abdel Hamid has been examining the political situation in Egypt and other Arab nations with an eye toward issues of representation. National leaders and opposition leaders in nations like Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan are all suggesting forms of proportional representation, as explained recently in a must-read overview of the transition to democracy in the Washington Post by the Hoover Institution's Larry Diamond.

FairVote News: London Speech, NY Times Letter, New Interns

FairVote's Board members and current and past staffers and interns have been busy. Here are a few highlights:

FairVote's long-time board chairman John B. Anderson serves on the FairVote Board and teaches law school at Nova Southeastern. Celebrating his 89^thbirthday on February 15, he remains a regular source for media comment, including observations on the state of independent politics and electoral reforms like instant runoff voting in a recent article in Newsweek.

FairVote's current chair Krist Novoselic regularly speaks about electoral reform and new directions in politics on campuses. In his music career, he plays on a song on the Foo Fighters album. Fellow board member Hendrik Hertzberg regularly addresses electoral reform in the New Yorker magazine, including pieces in January in the magazine and his blog on the filibuster.

Executive director Rob Richie last month explained the rise of support for instant runoff voting in the United States in a well-attended lecture in the British houses of parliament, with attendees including Members of the House of Commons and House of Lords. He also spoke twice recently on redistricting and proportional voting at American University's Washington College of Law and on February 25^th is giving the keynote address at the annual meeting of the North Carolina Political Science Association. He also had a letter published this month in the New York Times and regularly contributes to his Huffington Post blog.

Several former FairVote staffers also continue to advance reform. Author Steven Hill, a reform mainstay since helping found FairVote in 1992, recently published an oped calling for proportional voting in the New York Daily News and regularly speaks both here and abroad about his books and ideas, including onMarch 30th at Georgia Tech. Former Vermont state legislator Terry Bouricius recently gave three well-received talks about instant runoff voting in Maine, a state where Rep. Diane Russell has introduced legislation to move to IRV to elect governors after a series of low-plurality wins.

FairVote is just about to close applications for a new round of democracy fellows and summer interns. Current fellows Jo McKeegan and Toby Rowe have made terrific contributions to FairVote, while our current group of interns (Wael Abdel Hamid, Loqmane Jamil, Matt Morris, Sujung Kim and Andy Andrianantoandro) are also all boosting our research and communications. For those interested in civic learning, don't miss Loqmane's review of mock elections in schools -- and the fact that the Election Assistance Commission is accepting proposals to supporting holding such elections through February 15th.

Thanks for reading, and never hesitate to share your thoughts with us at info@fairvote.org, get involved or make a tax-deductible donation. Let's make democracy work for all of us!

And... don't forget. FairVote does rely on individual donations to do our work. Thank you.

Instant Runoff Voting for Best Picture: What you need to know

Wed, 02 Feb 2011 08:40:23 -0800

Contact:

• Rob Richie, rr [at] fairvote.org, (301) 270-4616

• Toby Rowe, jrowe [at] fairvote.org, (301) 270-4616

With nominations for the 2010 Academy Awards announced on January 25, Academy voters will soon begin sending in their final ballots for tabulation. Journalists covering the awards should be aware of the use of Instant Runoff Voting (also called “preferential voting”) to select the winner of the Best Picture category.

FairVote’s Rob Richie comments that “Instant runoff voting upholds the goal of majority rule even when voters have a wide range of choices. When the Academy went to nominating ten films for best picture, it was a sensible change to also move to instant runoff voting.”

Already in use by governments and organizations around the world, IRV was used to select the Best Picture winner last year and will be used again this year. The system has already received prominent coverage by the New York Times’ Nate Silver in his fascinating post on the Times web site. FairVote’s OscarVotes123.com also provides focused analysis of the IRV voting process and is now conducting an online election in which visitors can vote using a preferential ballot similar to that used by Academy voters.

FairVote, a national nonprofit organization focused on election reform, has been involved in running and analyzing IRV elections for more than a decade. With this experience in mind, here are some key points to consider as voting for Best Picture gets underway:

The Process

The tabulation of votes in an IRV system is a simple process that follows these steps:

1. Voters rank candidates in order of preference on their ballot. Voters get only one vote and their ballots never count for more than one candidate at a time, but they have alternate votes in case their first choice fares poorly and is eliminated in the count

2. First choices are counted. If any candidate is ranked 1st on a majority of ballots, then that candidate is declared the winner and the election is over. If not, then the counting process goes on.

3. The candidate ranked 1st on the fewest number of ballots is eliminated. Each of these ballots is counted instead for the candidate ranked 2nd on that ballot.

4. The redistributed ballots are added to the totals of the remaining candidates. If any candidate has over 50% of the ballots in play (the original 1st choices and the redistributed 2nd choices), then that candidate is declared the winner. If not, then the counting process continues.

5. The remaining candidate ranked 1st on the fewest number of ballots is again eliminated. Each of these ballots is counted instead for the candidate ranked 2nd on that ballot. If the candidate ranked 2nd has been eliminated, then the ballot is counted for the candidate ranked 3rd, and so forth.

6. This process of eliminating candidates and redistributing ballots continues until one candidate secures over 50% of the ballots in play.

The Outcome

Thanks to the IRV system, the winner that emerges will more accurately represent the preferences of Academy voters than what might happen in a plurality voting election where only a voter’s first choice is counted. To win an IRV election, a candidate must have support that is both broad and deep: the candidate must generally attract strong first-choice support from its enthusiasts while continuing to pick up ballots from supporters of other films who consider it a worthy 2nd or 3rd choice. In the end, the film that is the most strongly and widely liked will be crowned Best Picture, reflecting the consensus of the academy.

Resources

• OscarVotes123.com provides focused insight & analysis on the Oscar voting process and its implications for the awards. The site is currently hosting a demonstration election in which visitors use IRV to vote for Best Picture.

• Instantrunoff.com provides an introduction to instant runoff voting and its use in elections

• FairVote.org contains a wealth of background information on instant runoff voting.

• Nate Silver, of the New York Times & FiveThirtyEight.com, contributes a pollster’s perspective on IRV and the race for Best Picture.

FairVote

6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610

Takoma Park, MD 20912

www.fairvote.org fairvote@fairvote.org

(301) 270-4616

Understanding the RCV Election Results in District 10

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:51:29 -0800

Contact:

Steve Hill: (415) 665-5044, hill@steven-hill.com

Rob Richie: (301) 270-4616, rr@fairvote.org

Understanding the RCV election results in District 10

A FairVote Analysis

The Board of Supervisors race in District 10 was an unprecedented race in San Francisco’s seven-year history of using ranked choice voting (the first RCV elections took place in 2004). It featured 21 candidates, no incumbent and no obvious front runners. That resulted in an election in which the winning candidate, Malia Cohen, barely edged out the competition in an exceptionally close race. How close was it?

• The top vote-getter in the first round barely topped 12%.

• In the first round, the leading four candidates (Sweet, Kelly, Cohen and Tran) were all within about one third of a percent (0.34%) of each other. A fifth candidate (Moss) was within 1% of the first-round leader.

• Those five leaders remained the leaders and within 3.5% of each other (as a fraction of the first round continuing votes) for each of the following rounds until they were the last five continuing candidates.

San Francisco previously had an RCV contest in a supervisorial race that had 22 candidates (District 5 in 2004), but there were two clear front runners in that race that together had about 40% of the first round ballots and helped to order the field. That race was won decisively by the lead front runner. Similarly, other Board of Supervisors races this year requiring RCV tallies had far higher percentages for the two front runners, including 59% in District 6, 78% in District 7 and 82% in District 2.

But in District 10 the two front runners had less than 25% of the first round ballots. It was the most unusual race that San Francisco has ever seen due to the high number of candidates, the lack of any clear front runners, and ultimately in its closeness among five candidates. Given those atypical circumstances, ranked choice voting was decisive in selecting the legitimate winner preferred by the most voters.

COMPARISON TO OTHER ELECTORAL METHODS.

To understand the effectiveness of RCV, it is helpful to compare how this extraordinary race in District 10 would have unfolded using other electoral systems, specifically a plurality ("highest vote-getter wins") system or San Francisco's previous two round (November-December) runoff cycle.

Plurality elections. With a plurality system, the highest vote-getter wins regardless of how low their percentage of the vote. Plurality elections are used to elect the governor and other statewide offices, such as the attorney general in which this year’s winner will fall well short of having a majority of the vote, as have several recent California governors (as of this writing, the attorney general’s race is still undecided because of the closeness of the contest and a slow ballot count resulting from the vast number of absentee and provisional ballots). If the District 10 supervisorial race had been decided using this electoral system, the winner would have had only 12.06% of the popular vote and barely 2000 votes out of over 17,000 cast. The second-place finisher would have lost by a mere 30 votes, and the third and fourth place finishers by fewer than 60 votes. This would not have resulted in a very satisfactory or democratic outcome, as it would have meant that 88 percent of voters had selected a different candidate than the winner. San Francisco can be glad that it was not using a plurality system in the District 10 race.

Two round (November-December) runoff. If San Francisco's previous method with a separate runoff election in December among the top two finishers had been used, the candidate with the broadest support and the actual winner, Malia Cohen, would not have made it to the December runoff. Instead, the top two finishers facing off in the runoff would have been Lynette Sweet and Tony Kelly. Kelly would have made the runoff over Malia Cohen by a mere 27 votes and over Marlene Tran by only 29 votes.

So Kelly and Sweet would have squared off in December in what would undoubtedly have been a low turnout election. Typically in San Francisco's old runoff elections, voter turnout would plummet from November to December, sometimes by as much as 40% of the vote. That's because voters turn out in great numbers for the presidential or gubernatorial races in November, but lose enthusiasm over local races in December. Indeed, in the last December runoff for a District 10 race in 2000, voter turnout plummeted 46% from the November election. The winner was elected with fewer than 5900 votes, less than 30 percent of the voters that originally showed up to vote in this race in November (see Table 1 below).

Table 1. Runoff election, December 2000

District	November election (total votes)	December runoff total votes	Winner’s votes in Dec. runoff	Percent (winner’s votes compared to November votes)	Non-returning/ exhausted voters
District 10	19,764	10,668	5,887	29.8%	9096 (46.0%)

Advocates of returning San Francisco to a separate runoff election say one of its advantages is that, in a close race like this one in 2010, voters would be able to assess the benefits of the top two candidates. However if the past is any guide, not only would few voters return for that second election, but voters would have had to withstand a month and a half of more mudslinging and hack attack campaigning in which they heard the worst about their future supervisor. The tone of the campaign would have become increasingly bitter, and rather than some candidates openly endorsing competitors for second choice (as occurred under the RCV system) voters would have seen “everyone for themselves” behavior from the candidates.

In addition, a December runoff would have been expensive for candidates, undermining campaign finance reform. So-called 'independent' expenditures' focused on attack ads soared in the old runoff system, with the San Francisco Ethics Commission finding they quadrupled in December runoffs. The top two candidates in the runoff would have needed to quickly raise a lot of money, giving an advantage to whichever candidate has either more personal wealth or access to those organizations with wealth. And San Francisco taxpayers would have had to foot the bill for administering a second election, taking general fund revenue from other pressing needs at a time when the city is financially strapped.

Conclusion: A separate, second round runoff in December would have excluded the strongest candidate (Malia Cohen) from the runoff, exacerbated the ever-growing problem of money in elections, and resulted in a winner elected by a smaller, less representative electorate than a November election. Despite these shortcomings, a two round runoff would be far more preferable than the plurality method.

Ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting).

The dispersed vote in the District 10 race challenged RCV more than any previous contest in San Francisco. Cohen's share of the first round ballots more than doubled during the course of the RCV tally but ultimately fell well short of 50% of the first round ballots. Still, the overall number of voters participating in the 2010 RCV race were comparable to the number of voters in the November-December 2000 runoff cycle. The number of voters participating in the December 2000 runoff and the final round of the RCV tally were in a similar range, as were the number and percentage of votes won by the winning candidate in both elections (see Table 2 below and compare to Table 1).

Table 2. RCV election, November 2010

District	November RCV election (total votes)	Final round instant runoff total votes	Winner’s votes (in final round)	Percent (winner’s votes compared to first round)	“Exhausted” ballots (non-return voters)
District 10	17,175	7934	4173	24.3%	9140

Despite the challenges of this District 10 race, RCV has several features that make it desirable compared to a separate December runoff. First, it elected the true winner with the most support, Malia Cohen, whereas a separate runoff among the top two finishers would have resulted in Cohen not making it into the runoff at all. Yet, in one indicator of Cohen’s strength as a candidate, election simulations show that she would have defeated any candidate paired against her in the final round. Cohen was the legitimate winner even though she would have lost by less than 0.4% in a plurality voting election and would have failed by 27 votes to make it into the December runoff.

In addition, Cohen, an African American candidate, was able to benefit greatly from the supporters of other African American candidates in the race (third place finisher Lynette Sweet and Dewitt Lacy in particular), resulting in the election of a black supervisor in this district historically won by black candidates (note that if no black candidate had won this race, that would have been the first time in decades that the Board of Supervisors had no black members). Cohen was more successful than any other candidate at building coalitions, which is plainly evident in following the trail of runoff rankings that accrue to her during 19 rounds of the RCV tally. About 60 percent of the voters in this race used all three of their rankings. The ranked ballots allowed coalition-building to be a decisive factor in who was elected ultimately, instead of the winner benefitting from the usual hack attack, big money campaigns.

Conclusion: This race with 21 candidates and no clear frontrunners challenged the ability of any electoral system to accommodate it. This was a very unusual, even atypical race that San Francisco had never seen before and may not see again for a long time. Given the parameters of this race, RCV functioned smoothly to produce a winner that was preferred by the most voters. It fostered a degree of coalition-building as candidates and voters used the ranked ballots effectively, and unlike other races this race was substantially free of negative, mudslinging attacks as the multi-candidate field focused on seeking the second and third rankings from the supporters of other candidates.

Given the challenges of the District 10 race, reasonable people will disagree if it would be more valuable to have either a second election that helps voters to choose among the top two finishers in what is likely to be a low turnout, mudslinging election, or to finish the election in a single November election where the winner can emerge from the large pack of candidates on the strength of coalition building. But it is important to note that the negatives of a separate runoff election between the top two finishers would be prevalent no matter how many candidates enter the initial race in November, while the challenges that stem from using RCV decline as the number of candidates decreases to the norm that we have seen in other San Francisco RCV contests. The District 10 race was atypical in its complexity.

Postscript: Addressing Three Common Myths about RCV Elections in San Francisco

1. "RCV is responsible for delaying election results."

That is not correct. The fact that the statewide attorney general's race remains undecided due to a half million still-uncounted absentee ballots should put this myth to rest. Delays in RCV results are entirely due to two reasons: 1) With so many absentee and provisional ballots, San Francisco takes a long time to get all the ballots scanned in both non-RCV and RCV contests; and 2) the Department of Elections has made a policy decision to only release first rankings on election night, and to delay running the RCV tally until the first Friday after the election, when in fact it easily could run preliminary tallies on election night and each day thereafter. As the Registrar of Voters in Alameda County (which uses the exact same RCV voting equipment as San Francisco) recently stated in a PBS news broadcast, running the RCV tally literally takes seconds. It’s as quick and easy as walking to the computer that is used as the central tabulator, hitting a few keystrokes on the keyboard, and seconds later you have the results. Each time you run the RCV tally, you are doing it with the dataset of ballots that have been scanned to that point, and that provides preliminary results. It is simply untrue that you need to have all ballots scanned before the RCV tally can be run, since all results in all races, whether non-RCV or RCV, are preliminary until the election is officially certified 28 days after the election. Other jurisdictions that have used RCV elections have run the tally on election night using the exact same voting equipment that San Francisco has. Unfortunately by waiting until Friday to run the tally, the Department of Elections creates a false impression of “wild swings” in election results for some races. In Districts 2 and 10, the candidate ahead on election night in first rankings in fact was losing to another candidate, and that would have been immediately obvious if the RCV tallies had been run for both races on election night.

2. "RCV was responsible for Ed Jew (who was later convicted of bribery) winning in District 4 in 2006."

Ed Jew would have won a plurality “highest vote-getter wins” election and most likely would have won in a December runoff as well. In 2002, Jew, who is Chinese-American, had a strong showing and finished third in this highly Asian American district. He was well-known in the district, and in the 2006 race he was the most popular Asian American candidate, finishing first in first rankings and then picking up significant second and third rankings from the supporters of other Asian American candidates. The second-place finisher, Ron Dudum, was not Asian American and it is unlikely that Dudum would have been able to win a majority in this highly Asian American district in a December runoff. Dudum also failed to win a majority in the 2002 runoff when he ran against another Asian-American candidate, and a FairVote analysis of the 2006 ballots shows that any of the top three Asian American candidates in 2006 would have defeated Dudum if paired against him one-on-one. So Jew’s win with RCV is not surprising given the majority voting pattern of his district. Some have speculated that the troubles that caused Ed Jew to eventually resign from office (he lived out of his district and was soliciting bribes, for which he was later convicted) would have been uncovered if there had been a December runoff, but this contention is incorrect. The solicitation of bribes by Supervisor Jew did not occur until AFTER he was elected; and he had been living out of his district for a number of years prior to his election, but it was only uncovered during the investigation regarding the bribes. Indeed, when Mr. Jew ran for the same seat in 2002, it was not discovered during the campaign that he was living out of his district.

3. "With RCV, you can win by being everyone's second choice."

RCV now has been used to elect San Francisco leaders in every November election since 2004. Many of those elections required RCV tallies to determine a winner, but this is the first year in which candidates who led in the first round were defeated by candidates who came from behind to win. That happened in two races, Districts 2 and 10, and both of those races were extremely close in which the ultimate winners initially trailed their top opponents by less than 1% in the first round. With RCV, you can't ignore coalition-building but you also need to be a lot of voters' first choice as well. RCV represents an appropriate balance: you have to earn enough first choice support from some people who really want you, but you can't be so polarizing that backers of all other candidates overwhelmingly reject you. Winners, ultimately, are those that have a strong core of support as indicated by having a substantial number of first rankings but also have a broad base of support indicated by having your share of second and third rankings from the supporters of other candidates.

Background info:

* Watch a seven-minute segment on the PBS New Hour with Jim Lehrer on Jean Quan's victory in the RCV mayoral election in Oakland: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/oakland_11-19.html

* Read Steven Hill's commentary in the San Francisco Chronicle on "The New Politics of Ranked-Choice Elections":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/14/EDUH1GBFVT.DTL

NC Court of Appeals Instant Runoff Election Results

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:56:36 -0800

Media Advisory

December 21, 2010

Contact:

Rob Richie, rr [at] fairvote.org, (301) 270-4616
Toby Rowe, jrowe [at] fairvote.org, (301) 270-4616

NC Court of Appeals Instant Runoff Election Results

Gary Bartlett: "Whether you like it or not, it worked"

In an election that saw the first-ever use of instant runoff voting (IRV) in a statewide election in North Carolina, Doug McCullough has defeated Cressie Thigpen for a seat on the NC Court of Appeals by 50.3% to 49.7% in the instant runoff. With 13 candidates running for the position, the election would have posed a challenge for any electoral system. Using IRV, voters expressed their preferences among the available candidates and the candidate with the most popular support was elected.

[North Carolina State Board of Elections director] Gary Bartlett said there were no major problems with the count and voters got to participate in picking the winner . "Whether you like it or not, it worked," he said.

-- Associated Press story circulated on December 20

The election was one of four instant runoff voting elections in North Carolina this year. Superior Court race 12A in Cumberland County also was decided in a second round of counting, as we reported earlier this month.

Why instant runoff voting was used

In 2006, North Carolina adopted a law establishing that instant runoff voting would be used to fill judicial vacancies created between the May primary and early September of election years where a traditional two-round election system would be costly and result in low turnout in one round. Before 2006, such vacancies were filled in a single election where voters cast only one vote. In 2004, the winner in an eight-candidate statewide race for the North Carolina Supreme Court earned 23%.

This year, four judicial vacancy elections were created in the proscribed time period: one for the statewide Court of Appeals, for which 13 candidates ran, and three for Superior Court positions, each with three candidates.

What instant runoff voting is

On November 2, voters in these elections had the opportunity to rank their 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices for the position. IRV simulates a traditional runoff. If a candidate wins a majority of 1st choices, that candidate is elected. If not, all but the top two candidates are eliminated, and each ballot is counted once for whichever runoff candidate is ranked higher on that ballot. The candidate who is ranked ahead of the other candidate on more ballots is elected, just as the candidate with more votes in a traditional runoff is declared the winner.

No candidate came close to winning a majority of the 1st choice vote in either the statewide race or the Superior Court election in Cumberland County. The races proceeded to an instant runoff, with the top two candidates advancing and all others eliminated. The instant runoff started on November 29, after the statewide canvass of ballots was complete

Note about the ballot-counting: If North Carolina had instant runoff software that is used in other jurisdictions such as Oakland, California, the instant runoff results would have been available on election night. The cost of obtaining and implementing such software is estimated to be less than a quarter of the cost of a single statewide runoff.

Statewide results

After 1st choices were counted, no candidate came close to a majority of ballots cast. The top candidates were Doug McCullough with 15.21% of 1st choice rankings and Cressie Thigpen with 20.33%.

Since no candidate received a majority in the first round, the race proceeded to an instant runoff, with McCullough and Thigpen advancing and all others eliminated. Ballots ranking eliminated candidates 1st were then counted instead for whichever remaining candidate (McCullough or Thigpen) was ranked higher on each ballot.

Once these ballots had been added to the candidates’ totals, McCullough was the winner with 50.31% of the final-round vote. This means that among voters who expressed a preference between the top two candidates, 50.31% preferred McCullough. The vote-count was close enough to trigger a statewide recount; the margin between the candidates changed by fewer than 100 votes, underscoring the quality of the original count.

Key facts and their implications

Such a large field of candidates, combined with a relatively short time frame for conducting the election, would have placed strain on any electoral system. But IRV provided a better means of conducting the vacancy election than other alternatives – and clearly performed better than the previous method of electing judges.

As a tool for conducting vacancy elections, IRV showed that it provides a more accurate expression of voters’ preferences than the previous system. (The old system, in which the candidate with a simple plurality of votes won, became a target of public scrutiny when it allowed candidates with a very small percentage of the vote to win). Under the old system, Thigpen’s 20% of the first-round total would have been enough for an outright victory. This year, however, the use of IRV allowed more voters to express a preference between the two front-runners. The result was that 50.31% of voters who expressed a preference between the top two candidates preferred McCullough to Thigpen. This demonstrates that McCullough narrowly had more support than Thigpen, but that some of McCullough's backers also chose other candidates as 1st or 2nd choices. The current IRV method of filling judicial vacancies allows this support to be taken into account, rather than simply awarding the election to the candidate with the highest plurality of votes cast.

Voter participation in the race was higher than it would have been had a traditional runoff been used to fill the Court of Appeals vacancy. Traditional runoff elections are typically poorly attended, both in North Carolina and elsewhere – particularly in late November or December after a major November general election. Statewide, turnout in primary election runoffs typically declines sharply in North Carolina. For example, in 2008, just 63,910 voters participated in the Democratic primary runoff for Commissioner of Labor, as opposed to 1,200,407 voters in the first round in May. Overall, statewide turnout for the November 2010 election was 44% of voters, but runoff turnout almost certainly would have been in the single digits.

An illustrative recent example of the pitfalls of separate runoff elections comes from the state of Georgia, which held a statewide runoff for a judicial position in December 2010. Turnout in that race was well under 10%, just a fraction of turnout for the general election that preceded it. By contrast, IRV allowed North Carolina to fill the vacancies in in a single, higher-turnout general election.

Runoffs are also costly to taxpayers: In Georgia, the estimated cost of the statewide runoff was $4 million. Costs in North Carolina would have been comparable, perhaps as high as $5 million. Runoffs also exacerbate campaign finance demands, forcing candidates to raise and spend lots of money quickly.

Conclusions

The Court of Appeals election demonstrated the advantages of IRV over plurality voting and potential December runoff elections as a method of conducting judicial vacancy elections. As an alternative to separate runoff elections, IRV has the benefit of allowing for much higher voter turnout and participation than is typical of December runoffs. As an alternative to the former plurality system, IRV reduces the occurrence of low-plurality winners by providing a more comprehensive reflection of voters’ preferences between candidates. Taken together, these benefits suggest that IRV is the best available method of filling judicial vacancies that occur too late for the normal primary schedule.

Note

FairVote tracks these and other IRV elections around the country as part of its work on election analysis and reform. For more information, contact FairVote’s Toby Rowe or Rob Richie at (301) 270-4616 or press@fairvote.org.

FairVote Feed: Press

FairVote Reformer January 2012

FairVote Reformer December 16, 2011

Three cities hold first-ever Ranked Choice Voting ("IRV") elections

National Popular Vote plan earns two more wins--and FairVote research explains why it matters

Fair Voting plans to replace gerrymanders

Highlighted writings from FairVote

Internal News: Krist Novoselic on the road, our 2011-2012 Democracy Fellows, Applying for an internship

Portland Mayoral Election: One-Day Survey Results

Everything You Wanted to Know about Election Recounts 

North Carolina uses Instant Runoff Voting

Non-Majority Winners and "Spoilers" in Election 2010

The FairVote Reformer: February 2011

The FairVote Reformer: February 14, 2011

IRV on the Ballot in Colorado and the UK; state bills advance

Oscar for Best Voting goes to...Ranked Choice Voting!

National Popular Vote advancing in many states

Congressional legislation on Redistricting, Proportional Voting & a Constitutional Right to Vote

Get Ready for Redistricting: Time for Proportional Voting

FairVote News: London Speech, NY Times Letter, New Interns

Instant Runoff Voting for Best Picture: What you need to know

The Process

The Outcome

Resources

Understanding the RCV Election Results in District 10

Understanding the RCV election results in District 10

NC Court of Appeals Instant Runoff Election Results

NC Court of Appeals Instant Runoff Election Results

Gary Bartlett: "Whether you like it or not, it worked"

Everything You Wanted to Know about Election Recounts