FairVote Feed: Instant Runoff Voting

Look to Election Rules to Reverse Decline of Political Center

Fri, 11 May 2012 08:34:20 -0700

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Despite having one of the Senate’s more conservative voting records, Dick Lugar (R-IN) has not been a partisan ideologue. His landslide primary defeat to Tea Party-backed challenger Richard Mourdock is the latest sign that reaching across the aisle to build bipartisan policy has become a recipe for a shortened political career.

After a campaign in which Mourdock charged that Lugar was “President Obama’s favorite Republican,” Lugar defended “constructive compromise” and warned that “unrelenting” partisanship would paralyze American government. His remarks mirrored those of Olympia Snowe (R-ME) when she announced her retirement this spring. Snowe lamented that her approach to governance no longer fit an institution in which partisans “block the other side” and demand reflexive fealty to party.

Snowe called on Americans to see “strength in compromise, courage in conciliation, and honor in consensus-building.” But moderates are far more apt to be pilloried and purged than prized and protected. Lugar and Snowe are only the latest in a string of victims of a “do-not-compromise” stance that has been reinforced within both major parties by every new hardliner victory. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (D/I-CT), George Voinovich (R-OH), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Lincoln Chafee (R/I-RI), Arlen Specter (R/D-PA), and Bob Bennett (R-UT) are among high-profile senators whose history of bipartisanship led to retirement or lost reelection bids. The ranks of moderates in the House have been similarly depleted.

The decline of the middle in the Senate is especially significant given that its rules make one-party rule almost impossible. Because the Senate needs 60 votes to break a filibuster, moderates can assist the majority by voting for cloture or side against the majority until it tempers its proposals. They often inject restraint into a dialogue often soured by venomous rhetoric.

Yet as the divide between the parties has widened and solidified, moderates today face pressure to conform or retire. Those remaining face a dual threat: stronger challenges to holding onto their party’s nomination and uphill general elections in the “opposition territory” they disproportionately represent. It’s no accident that 2012’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents—Scott Brown (R-MA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO)—all represent states that their presidential nominee will likely lose. Overcoming that partisan challenge has become harder in every passing election.

Sen. Snowe has rightly faulted the “corrosive trend of winner-take-all politics,” in which winning parties fail to forge bipartisan solutions. But we must go further to understand this behavior. Winner-take-all politics is grounded in winner-take-all voting, in which a plurality of votes earns 100% of representation. We have had those rules for a long time, but not with modern consultants armed with new polling methods, modern technologies, and near-limitless funds. In mastering how to win the game, we have destroyed its ability to produce effective representative government.

While not as enthralling as the battle for power and clash of values that dominate political coverage, election rules matter—they condition ballot tabulation, voter behavior, and campaign strategy. Winner-take-all influences the composition of government—who’s in it and who’s not, as well as how they get there. If Americans are dissatisfied with the latter, they must examine the former.

Winner-take-all rules today simply cannot represent fairly the left, right, and center. In a two-party system, the gain of one side is undeniably the other’s loss when third parties and independents are dismissed as mere “spoilers” rather than viable alternatives. Vilifying one’s opponent leaves voters with only one viable electoral option: oneself. The apocalyptic rhetoric and black-and-white thinking that pass for political strategy work under winner-take-all.

These tools of negative rhetoric and zero-sum campaigning translate into the habits of governing. With only two viable choices, parties are rewarded electorally for obstruction more than compromise. In turn, partisans seek representatives who will fight more than seek consensus.

Winner-take-all voting incentivizes partisanship, compels centrists to squeeze into restrictive ideological boxes and rewards the “us-versus-them” mentality moderates resist. But it is not part of our Constitution, and our cities and states are already providing a roadmap for change. In Illinois, cumulative voting in three-seat state legislative districts led to shared representation across the state for both parties until 1980, when the legislature was reduced in size and went to one-seat districts. In Minneapolis and San Francisco, the instant runoff form of ranked choice voting rewards candidates who can earn the second choice support of other candidates’ supporters.

Electing representatives interested in compromise and independent thinking in proportion to the share of voters who support them will require structural election change. Pleading with voters to support centrist politicians is not sufficient when the institutional framework of American elections and government discourages and penalizes such behavior. Rather than just criticize Congress as broken, let’s act to fix it.

Election Wonk: Growing trend of plurality wins in governors' races

Fri, 04 May 2012 09:20:24 -0700

Mark Dayton of Minnesota won the governorship in 2010, despite winning only 44% of the vote.

In 2010-2011, a staggering 28% of the nation's 39 races for governor were awarded to a candidate who failed to win at least 50% of the vote. Though these candidates were able to win a plurality of the vote among a slate of candidates, it's possible that a second-place finisher would have won the election if a one-on-one runoff had been held. When so many state executives are placed in power without the expressed consent of the majority, we have to question whether our system successfully functions to deliver the will of the people.

In fact, FairVote's analysis of gubernatorial elections shows that this trend has increased steadily, decade by decade, since the post-World War II era. What used to be a rare occurrence in governor's races has now become common practice in a lot of states. While only 11% of gubernatorial elections since 1946 were won with less than a majority, that percentage has jumped from 5% of races in the late 1940s to over 20% in the past decade. While no general election was won with less than 35% of the vote, we're getting closer: over the last 20 years, eight governors won with less than 40%.

States have varied significantly in the proportion of elections resulting in a non-majority winner. Alaska, for instance, has held 14 gubernatorial elections since it became a state in 1959, and eight of those elections (57%) awarded the governorship to a candidate lacking a majority of the vote. Eleven states, in contrast, have never sent a non-majority winner to the governor's mansion.

States with Most Non-Majority Wins States with No Plurality Wins

Dividing the states into the four regional classifications designated by the Census (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West), there is another glaring disparity: northeastern (17%) and western (14%) states have a much higher occurrence of non-majority wins and make up a combined 65% of all gubernatorial plurality wins documented in this study. Meanwhile, the South, which accounts for 32% of states in the country, constitutes just 14% of the country's plurality wins since 1946, and only 5% of the state's gubernatorial elections ended in a non-majority winner.

Interestingly, fourteen sitting governors (28%) have been elected to a term in the state's highest office without a majority in a general election race - previous studies by FairVote show that governors also regularly win office with less than 50% of the vote in a primary. Nine gubernatorial candidates since 1946 won the governorship with a mere plurality not once but twice. Almost all of these governors won with a plurality in back-to-back elections, but Walter J. Hickel of Alaska has the distinction of winning two terms as governor without a majority in non-consecutive elections (1966 and decades later in 1990).

Will Problems in Maine and Minnesota Lead to a Solution?

Two states have fallen into a particular rut with regard to electing a governor without a majority. Minnesota's last four gubernatorial elections (and last five out of six) have resulted in a non-majority winner, while the last six of seven gubernatorial elections in Maine have ended in plurality wins. Maine is a frequent offender of non-majority winners, as 38% of the state's gubernatorial elections were delivered to a candidate with a plurality, and nearly a quarter of gubernatorial elections went to candidates with less than 40% of the vote. Winning percentages for Maine governors include 38% in 2010 and 2006, 47% in 2002, and 35% in 1994.

With so many high profile plurality elections in Maine and Minnesota, there is little surprise in all the talk surrounding the instant runoff voting form of ranked choice voting (RCV) in these states. RCV simulates series of runoff elections based on voters' preferences until a candidate receives a majority of the vote. Without forcing taxpayers to pay for multiple elections, RCV ensures that a candidate never takes office over the majority's strong opposition. It also alleviates concerns for the "spoiler effect," which often plagues states with significant independent voices, such as Maine and Minnesota - it is nearly certain that more than one governor in both states has been elected only because the majority vote was split between two or more like-minded candidates.

While RCV has yet to be implemented for the highest office in these states, there has been progress in these state's largest cities. Minneapolis first used RCV for municipal elections in 2009, and St. Paul voters used RCV for the first time in November of last year. When officials in Portland, Maine were considering a voting system to transition away from mayoral appointments, they opted for RCV for its first mayoral election in 88 years - and the system earned wide praise.

Non-majority wins in gubernatorial elections used to be an anomaly, but a growing trend demonstrates a need to reevaluate our electoral processes. Municipalities have shown that RCV works, and it behooves us to consider alternative systems to ensure majority victories for the state's highest office.

Snowe-ball Effect: How the Loss of Yet another Congressional Moderate Makes the Case for Election Reform

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:30:27 -0700

The Senate’s Moderates under Assault as Polarization and Partisanship Increase

Admonishing the U.S. Senate for “dysfunction and political polarization,” Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who throughout her career often received praise for eschewing party orthodoxy and embracing bipartisanship, announced on March 1 that she would not stand for a fourth term. In explaining her decision, Snowe wrote that her unique brand of moderation no longer fit an institution in which ideologues, laboring to “block the other side” and demanding reflexive fealty to party, ruled the roost.

In her statement, Snowe reiterated the importance of bipartisanship. “There is not only strength in compromise, courage in conciliation and honor in consensus-building,” she insisted, “but also a political reward for following these tenets.” Or at least, she might have added, there should be. Unfortunately, recent elections and retirements have demonstrated that moderates are more apt to be pilloried and purged than prized and protected. Snowe is simply the latest example in an increasing “no-more-moderates” trend that has only intensified as the ideological gulf between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats in the Senate has widened. Consider the following recent examples:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D, NE) – to retire in 2013; Nelson would have faced a robust 2012 general election challenge in a heavily Republican state
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D, CT) – to retire in 2013; Lieberman—the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 2000—lost in the 2006 Democratic primary to liberal challenger Ned Lamont, but nevertheless won the general election as an independent
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D, AR) – defeated in the 2010 general election after barely besting liberal challenger Bill Halter in the Democratic primary
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R, RI) – defeated in the 2006 general election after barely besting conservative challenger Steve Laffey in the Republican primary; in 2010, Chafee was elected governor as an independent in a fractured three-way race
Sen. Arlen Specter (R/D, PA) – switched parties in 2009 to avoid conservative challenger Pat Toomey in the 2010 Republican primary; Specter nevertheless lost the 2010 Democratic primary to Joe Sestak
Sen. Bob Bennet (R, UT) – despite a conservative track record, Bennett was accused by Utah Republicans of being too moderate; they defeated his 2010 bid for re-election at the state convention
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R, AK) – lost the 2010 Republican primary to conservative challenger Joe Miller; Murkowski beat the odds, winning the general election as an independent write-in candidate
Rep. Mike Castle (R, DE) – though not an incumbent senator, the long-time House member was considered a lock for the general election, but lost the Republican primary to conservative challenger Christine O’Donnell

Image: New York Times

Whether defeated electorally or departing for retirement, the common theme among these aforementioned moderates is that all faced disillusionment within their own party among the base and, therefore, were susceptible to primary challenges—from the right for Republicans and the left for Democrats. When bases feel energized and confident, as did liberals in 2006 and conservatives in 2010, moderates within their respective party coalition are apt to feel intra-party pressures to embrace party orthodoxy, in order to mollify critics within the party. While some moderates such as Montana’s Max Baucus (D) and Maine’s Susan Collins (R) have been fortunate enough to avoid robust primary challenges, such individuals are the exceptions that seemingly prove the rule.

Nothing highlights the power of a dissatisfied base more than an incumbent moderate who loses the primary despite representing a “safe” state regularly won by their party at the presidential level—Republicans in “red states” (Bennett, Murkowski) and Democrats in “blue states” (Lieberman). For these individuals, victory in the general election was relatively assured—provided they could survive a primary from a base recognizing the party’s nominee could become more orthodox without jeopardizing the “safe” status of the seat.

From Left: Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln

The above list also demonstrates that many moderates today face a dual threat: not only difficulty in winning their party’s nomination as the ideological gulf between them and the base widens, but also difficulty in winning the general election. This is particularly the case for individuals hailing from states within “opposition territory”—moderate Republicans in Democratic “blue states” (Snowe, Chafee, Castle) and moderate Democrats in Republican “red states” (Nelson, Lincoln)—in which their party was the minority in federal races. As such, these individuals were vulnerable to not only primary but also general election challenges. Such is in marked contrast to the past, as Senate moderates historically were able win and hold seats in states the other party dominated at the presidential level, including southern Democrats and northeastern Republicans. However, as polarization has increased, such occurrences have become exceedingly rare.

The electoral stage at which a particular moderate stumbled notwithstanding, it is clear that this group of politicians faces recurrent pressure to conform or perish. While Snowe, Nelson, and Lieberman have exited the electoral stage, others have not. Indeed, many of the most vulnerable incumbent Senators in 2012 are moderates who represent “opposition territory” states: Scott Brown (R) in Massachusetts, Jon Tester (D) in Montana, and Claire McCaskill (D) in Missouri. Veteran Republicans Richard Lugar of Indiana and Orrin Hatch of Utah, both accused of being too moderate for their conservative states, face tough primary challenges from the right of their party. As presidential candidate (and moderate) Jon Huntsman quipped this week when discussing his struggles within the GOP, “This is what [a party does] in China on party matters if you talk off script.” While obviously hyperbolic, Huntsman’s quote nevertheless highlights the way in which a party’s demand for ideological homogeneity and desire to speak with one, official voice can potentially trouble a political system.

From Left: Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett

Yet moderates, whether liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats, are essential to the health of a functioning democracy, especially given Senate filibuster rules that make one-party rule almost impossible. In a closely divided Senate, moderate members can act as swing votes, forcing the majority leadership to temper its proposals as it patches together a winning coalition. In a Senate in which one party has a sizable majority, albeit shy of the 60-vote supermajority required to break the filibuster, moderates can cross the aisle and end the deadlock. Moderates also can inject civility and restraint into a discourse too often soured by animus and venomous rhetoric.

How Election Rules Affect the Political Fortunes of Moderates

Snowe’s retirement immediately whipped the political punditocracy into frenzy. It would be a mistake, however, should Snowe’s clarion call, which warned of a paralyzed legislature, lamented a moribund public discourse, and spoke of the need for reform, be lost in the resulting tumult. It is essential for Americans not only to grapple with the question of why our polity has mutated into a creature so disquieting, but also to strike at the root of the cause. That root, as Snowe adroitly noted, is the “corrosive trend of winner-take-all politics,” to which she attributes the prevalence of zero-sum tactics and “brinkmanship” in Congress.

Winner-take-all politics, in turn, are linked inexorably to winner-take-all election rules, in which a plurality of the vote wins 100% of representation; voters who select the losing party receive nothing, no matter the margin of defeat. And the rules of a voting system, while perhaps not as enthralling as the battle for power and the clash of values that dominate political coverage, matter—they condition ballot tabulation, influence voter behavior, and affect campaign strategy. “Electoral laws are of special importance for every group and individual in society,” political scientist Douglas Rae noted in 1967, “because they help to decide who writes the other laws.” In other words, winner-take-all rules greatly impact the composition of government—who is in it and who is not, as well as how they get there. If Americans are dissatisfied with the latter—and polls consistently indicate they are—then they must examine the former.

From Left: Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle, Claire McCaskill

It is astonishing, as one begins to investigate critically our system, how archaic, broken, undemocratic, and destructive our rules are. While many Americans share Snowe’s concerns over political polarization and the seeming inability of partisans to place aside their differences for the public good, they have failed largely to recognize the contribution of winner-take-all rules. After all, under a framework in which the gain of one party is undeniably the loss of the other, it is understandable—though not desirable—that leaders in the political minority might begrudge collaboration with the majority, if such means handing the latter an accomplishment upon which it may run in the next election. It is no surprise, then, that each party defines itself in singular opposition to the other; winner-take-all encourages this behavior.

Many Americans are tired also of negative campaigns, spooky advertisements, and the regularity with which one side brazenly accuses the other of toiling for the ruin of the country, but, again, fail to examine the culpability of winner-take-all rules. After all, in a two-party system permitting just one winner, if negative advertising can devastate or disqualify a competitor, a candidate for elected office need only vilify her opponent to leave voters with just one remaining viable option: the major party that ran the attack (that, or not to vote). Simply put, the apocalyptic rhetoric and black-and-white thinking that pass for political discussion today work under winner-take-all. If you see the world in shades of gray, too bad—recognizing the humanity of the other party and occasionally teaming with it is no way to win votes.

From Left: Scott Brown, Jon Tester, Richard Lugar

An Alternative Electoral Framework that Could Advantage Moderates

The most natural alterative to winner-take-all is proportional representation (of which there are many forms), a voting system that allocates seats to parties in proportion to their share of the vote. For a while, Illinois employed a "semi-proportional” system, called cumulative voting, for elections to the state legislature; districts featured three seats each. Under this arrangement, each third of the electorate—left, right, and center—typically won a seat. Such meant that most representatives shared constituents with colleagues from other parties. The result was that moderates and independent-minded legislators had the ability and the incentives to forge bipartisan solutions.

While proportionality is feasible for elections to the U.S. House, such a framework, however, is not applicable for senatorial and gubernatorial contests that must feature, by definition, one winner. While no election system is a panacea, there is a lot to like about ranked choice voting (RCV, also called instant runoff voting), an alternative framework—used recently for mayoral elections in Portland, Maine, and San Francisco, California—that would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

RCV consists of a series of rounds, in which last place finishers are eliminated and their voters redistributed to remaining candidates based on second choices. This process continues, round by round, until a candidate receives a majority of continuing ballots. RCV’s requirement of a majority, rather than a plurality, to win office is very important, because a candidate—unless he or she commands over fifty percent of first choices—must build a majority coalition, which means bidding for the supporters of eliminated candidates. Whereas winner-take-all highlights partisan divisions, RCV creates incentives for candidates to emphasize points of concurrence.

Such a system advantages moderate candidates—provided they have genuine support—in a number of ways. First, under RCV, politics is less of a sprint toward the poles of the ideological spectrum. Second, RCV usually sees a decline in negative attack advertisements, the rules encouraging candidates not to slander an adversary—and risk the ire of his voters—but to build bridges and form partnerships. RCV, in that narrow appeals to a niche of base voters is a less sagacious campaign strategy, also encourages ideologues to moderate, in order to appeal to voters outside their partisan bases—ironically, much like their heroes, Franklin Roosevelt for liberals and Ronald Reagan for conservatives.

* * *

Importantly, the habits of campaigning become the habits of governing, the negative rhetoric and zero-sum thinking of the campaign trail become the negative rhetoric and zero-sum thinking of the Senate floor. If we desire a government founded upon compromise and conciliation—as indeed the Senate was designed—then we must fashion an electoral system that selects for candidates possessing such proclivities. Clearly, winner-take-all is antagonistic toward this goal; it not only compels moderates to squeeze themselves into restrictive ideological boxes but also rewards the very “us-versus-them” mentality moderates by definition resist. I suspect Snowe’s retirement will not, unfortunately, have a lasting impact on the political discourse nor will it galvanize Americans to demand structural change. What is clear, however, is that it should. Snowe had the courage of her convictions. It is time for Americans to have the courage of theirs.

Third Parties and the Spoiler Effect In the 2012 Election

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:39:45 -0800

As the 2012 presidential election approaches, it's clear that while many American voters are ready for a third party, America's election system is not.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 52% of Americans, including a majority of independents and for the first time a majority of Republicans, believe America needs a third major party. Fivethirtyeight.com’s election analyst Nate Silver recently detailed reasons to expect a serious third-party run in 2012: low approval for both major parties, lack of strong support for either party's positions on debt and economic issues, and congressional deadlock lowering public opinions about the Inside-the-Beltway establishment. Silver analyzed post-WWII races, finding that ones with similar conditions to 2012 often featured strong third-party activity. Silver's predictions may already be vindicated - between President Obama, the GOP nominee, Virgil Goode (the Constitution Party nominee), Gary Johnson (the likely Libertarian nominee), and an as-yet undecided Americans Elect nominee, we could easily see five current or former governors or Members of Congress on the November ballot - the most in US history.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is among those calling for a third voice in the election, writing in support of a candidate to represent the “radical center” with a focus on economic and fiscal issues. This candidate, Friedman believes, might follow in the footsteps of Ross Perot who, despite losing the election, in 1992 succeeded in making a balanced budget a major issue for Clinton’s presidency. Friedman suggests former comptroller general and current Comeback America Initiative CEO David Walker be a third-party candidate.

Friedman wants Walker in this fall’s debates, but it’s revealing that Friedman ends his glowing discussion of Walker with the caveat that he might not actually vote for his most preferred candidate because of the spoiler effect – as seen in the 2000 election when Ralph Nader drew away voters from Al Gore and the 1992 election when many believe Ross Perot hurt George Bush’s re-election changes. This showcases the current problem with third parties: even if they occasionally affect debates, third parties are not serious contenders in elections even in their strongest years because the spoiler effect scares away potential supporters.

The spoiler effect is one of the most bizarre and undemocratic consequences of our winner-take-all electoral system. For instance, voting for a conservative candidate should not make a liberal candidate more likely to win – but that is exactly what has happened in a series of key U.S. Senate elections where Libertarian Party candidates have earned significantly more votes than the winning margin for Democrats. Liberal Democrats frustrated with relative centrism of Bill Clinton and Al Gore suffered similar unintended consequences for supporting Ralph Nader in 2000.

The spoiler problem is a product of state statutes that allow a candidate to win all of its electoral votes even when falling short of half the popular votes – a rule that meant that in 1992, 49 states awarded all their electoral votes to candidates who won less than 50% of the vote in their states.

One traditional approach is runoff elections, which states could establish even for presidential elections by statute. FairVote’s preferred solution is instant runoff voting (IRV), a ranked choice voting (RCV) system designed to uphold majority rule. With IRV, voters indicate both their first choice and their backup choices by ranking candidates in order of preference. If no candidate earns more than 50% of the vote in the first round, the election count simulates a series of runoffs elections.

If you are a third-party supporter in an IRV election, you can vote for a third-party candidate without losing the chance to help defeat the major party candidate you like the least. For instance, if your third-party candidate loses a round of runoff voting and you selected a major party candidate as your second choice, your ballot will then be added to the total of your preferred major party candidate. Elections across America use IRV, including mayoral elections in San Francisco; St. Paul; Oakland; Telluride; Portland, Maine; and Minneapolis, as well as overseas voters in runoff elections in Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Internationally, it’s used to elect the mayor of London, president of Ireland and members of the House of Representatives in Australia.

In the short-term, states can adopt IRV for more elections, including races for U.S. Senate and governor. In 2010, 14 general elections for Senate or governor were won with less than 50% of the vote, underscoring the value of adopting IRV for these elections. In the long-term, the success of IRV in individual states will speak for itself, building momentum for a constitutional amendment combined with a national popular vote for president.

The American hunger for more choices is likely only to increase in the modern era. Presidential elections should never hinge on “spoiler” candidates and aggressive partisanship – they should depend on the will of the people. Instant runoff voting is a critically important step towards helping America’s political process catch up with the rich political diversity of America’s voters.

Survey of California Republicans Has Revealing Results

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:04:01 -0800

Read the full press release from Californians for Electoral Reform here.

Californians for Electoral Reform conducted a revealing survey of delegates to the California Republican Party state convention last weekend. Using a ranked choice voting ballot, they surveyed the delegates about their presidential picks. The results have Newt Gingrich winning in the fourth instant runoff round. More insights from the press release concerning the survey include:

“By enumerating their preferences, California Republican activists give insight into their voting patterns. Ron Paul’s support is deep but not as widespread as his campaign might wish. Only 16 of the 116 voters who did not support Ron Paul as a first choice subsequently chose him as a later preference.”

“The most significant news this poll offers is the strength exhibited by Newt Gingrich, especially as the second choice of the overwhelming majority of Rick Santorum supporters. Gingrich shows considerable resilience among activists in the California Republican Party.”

Results:

ROUND ONE
Ron Paul 60
Newt Gingrich 45
Rick Santorum 32
Mitt Romney 30
write-ins:
Herman Cain 2
Chris Christie 2
Michelle Bachmann 1
Rudy Giuliani 1
Jon Huntsman 1
Sarah Palin 1
Donald Trump 1
There were other write-ins, but not as first choices, so they didn't get any votes. They were: Mitch Daniels, Jim DeMint, Fred Karger, Bobby Jindal, Gary Johnson, M. Woodrow Johnston II, Sheriff Richard Mack, Chuck Norris, Rand Paul, Tim Pawlenty, General David Petraeus, Marco Rubio, Ralph Wiggum (Simpsons character), "Anybody but Obama", and "None of the rest".

ROUND TWO
All write-ins were eliminated simultaneously, and those ballots redistributed to each voter’s
respective second choices. Ballots that list no further preferences for active candidates are
placed in the Exhausted category.
Ron Paul (+3) 63
Newt Gingrich (+4) 49
Rick Santorum (+0) 32
Mitt Romney (+1) 31
Exhausted (+1) 1

ROUND THREE
Mitt Romney had the fewest votes in round two, so he was eliminated and those ballots
redistributed to each voter’s respective next choice. Note that Romney supporters divide fairly
evenly in their second choices.
Ron Paul (+7) 70
Newt Gingrich (+8) 57
Rick Santorum (+11) 43
Exhausted (+5) 6

ROUND FOUR
Since round three still produced no candidate exhibiting a majority of support, we now eliminate
Rick Santorum. Note that Santorum supporters overwhelmingly make Gingrich second choice.
Newt Gingrich (+35) 92
Ron Paul (+6) 76
Exhausted (+2) 8
So Newt Gingrich, with a clear majority of 92 votes, wins the ranked ballot survey.

Read the full press release.

Read more about instant runoff voting.

FairVote analysis in national news

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:20:53 -0800

On February 12th, FairVote executive director Rob Richie was a guest on CSPAN television's Washington Journal, aired live around the nation. That day he also had the first and final letters in the New York Times' "Invitation to Dialogue" series on voting reform. FairVote staff and interns have been publishing many articles in 2012.

Rob Richie on CSPAN

New York Times "Invitation to Dialogue"

Fair voting op-eds in St. Louis Post-Dispatch & Austin American-Statesman

FairVote blogs on Huffington Post & Oped News

RCV for the GOP: Mitt Romney, Fractured Conservatives, and the Importance of Rules in Determining Election Outcomes

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:09:32 -0800

Photo Credit: Justin Sullivan, Getty

After low-plurality “wins” in the Iowa caucuses* and the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney became the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. Viewed in historical context, Romney’s impending nomination appears rather unremarkable; the GOP has long had a reputation for hierarchy, regularly opting for the “heir apparent” over a challenger, and 2012 was Romney’s turn after having waited patiently in line for four years. Yet when viewed through the prism of current events—with the recent ascent of energized conservatives† in the Republican coalition—the GOP’s nomination of a man widely considered the least conservative remaining candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential field is remarkable.

As disillusioned conservatives wonder how a “Massachusetts moderate”—as Romney’s opponents call him derisively—found a path to the nomination in a party moving rightward, they would do well to remember that, as always, the devil is in the details. Romney’s steady march to the nomination is very much a product of the current election framework in place, which allows a candidate to win a state with a plurality, rather than a majority, of the vote. True, in this election cycle, more GOP contests will allocate delegates proportionally than ever before, but in actuality, the media, commentators, and voters still treat each state contest as “winner-take-all.” In Iowa and New Hampshire, for instance, a plurality of the vote no longer earns a candidate 100% of delegates, but it still gives her a surge of momentum, the true life-giving force in a presidential campaign.

Majorities, though technically unnecessary, are desirable in that they “legitimatize” candidates and give the appearance of widespread consensus. But plurality election rules only guarantee majorities in races featuring two candidates. In a multi-candidate contest sporting three or more viable candidates, plurality voting does a woeful job—the larger the field, the more difficult it becomes to win a majority, the “triumphant” candidate often denied the legitimatizing effects of a convincing victory. Plurality elections are also susceptible to “spoiler effects,” which occur when a voting bloc fractures between two (or more) like-minded candidates, a schism that allows a third, least-preferred candidate to win. Spoiler effects, as the inherent bitterness of the term implies, can lead to animosity between campaigns and disillusionment among voters, lingering negativity that could prove detrimental to a party in subsequent elections.

Romney's 2012 Opponents: Gingrich and Paul

Although too late for the 2012 Republican nomination battle, there are alternatives to plurality elections, voting systems designed to respect the nuances of opinion in a multi-candidate field, while at the same time guaranteeing a majority of voters support the winning candidate. Ranked choice voting (RCV, also called instant runoff voting) —recently used for local elections in Democratic-leaning Portland, Maine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and San Francisco, California, but also for key party contests held by Republicans in Utah—allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference: one, two, three, four, etc. If no candidate receives a majority of the initial vote, the last place finisher is eliminated, his votes redistributed to surviving candidates based on expressed second choices; this process of elimination/redistribution continues, round by round, until a candidate has received a majority of the vote.

Whereas plurality elections highlight the division within a party and often weaken candidates, RCV seeks consensus and concurrence, strengthening the position of the party and its nominee as it pivots to the general election. In ensuring winners can earn a majority when matched against their toughest opponents, RCV not only precludes plurality winners, but forces a candidate to build carefully a diverse, layered coalition, combining her own first choices with voters of subsequently eliminated opponents (unless, of course she commands a majority in the first round).

As a result, RCV usually sees a decline in negative campaigning and attack advertisements, the rules encouraging candidates not to slander an adversary—and risk the ire of his voters—but to build bridges and form partnerships. RCV also removes the spoiler effect from the electoral equation: like-minded candidates who divide a voting bloc in the first round are pared eventually down to one representative, voters liberated to cast expressive rather than strategic ballots.

________

Plurality rules have affected greatly the 2012 battle for the GOP nomination, and although RCV might achieve the same ends, plurality’s means of selecting a nominee arguably have been negative for all parties involved—whether Romney or his conservative challengers. Whom RCV would have benefited in 2012, had it been implemented, depends on the narrative to which one subscribes—does a latent majority reside in the possession of a unified conservative bloc or that of a diligent Romney campaign that has successfully courted select conservatives? Polls have contradicted each other on this point—some showing a latent majority for conservatives, others for Romney—and, as such, both should be treated as equally plausible.

Scenario 1: Assuming an Anti-Romney Conservative Majority

According to this narrative, plurality rules have penalized conservative voters for failing to coalesce around a single ideological standard-bearer, dividing their majority within the party between a multitude of candidates—each garnering enough support to survive, but never enough to flourish—and allowing Romney to take advantage of the disarray and lack of coordination. Despite Newt Gingrich’s declaration that Romney must “get a majority somewhere,” in fact under plurality rules, he need not get a majority anywhere, steamrolling to the nomination like McCain four years ago without ever having had to prove his standing among conservative voters.

Romney's 2012 Opponents: Santorum and Perry

This version of events portrays Romney as usurper, an opportunistic “conservative of convenience” rather than an authentic ideological warrior of the Right, in the process of snatching the GOP nomination away from the party’s fractured conservative majority, the beneficiary of a “spoiler effect.” If true, such an occurrence is deeply troubling for the Republican Party, as it would contribute to the perception that, yet again, the voice of conservatives has been muffled and its wishes disregarded. The Weekly Standard recently gave voice to such resentment, questioning why “the party of Ronald Reagan” repeatedly nominates individuals who “opposed Reagan” in the 1980s.

In order to unite a divided movement under plurality voting rules, one or more conservative contenders would need to withdraw from the race—thereby denying voters in other states the right to evaluate all candidates; already, such considerations have forced Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann out of the field. Such was the reasoning behind Gingrich’s recent statement that “any vote for Santorum or Perry is in effect a vote to allow Romney to become the nominee,” the former House speaker imploring the South Carolinian, anti-Romney vote to solidify around him, as well as a recent Texas meeting among influential evangelical Christian and conservative leaders seeking to encourage a united front for Santorum.

RCV, by contrast, would eliminate such concerns, allowing conservative voters to rank Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and Perry (that is, before he dropped out) on a ballot—permitting, rather than penalizing, nuance—and to unite behind one anti-Romney in subsequent rounds. At the very least, RCV would have forced Romney to reach out to conservatives, moving rightward to repair a strained relationship. Regardless, the spoiler effect would be eliminated and the voice of conservatives heeded.

Scenario 2: Assuming a Pro-Romney Majority

According to this narrative, while many conservative voters might prefer other candidates first, Mitt Romney has made significant and numerous rightward strides this election cycle in an attempt to pursue Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians. The quarrels over ideological purity and questions over Romney’s standing among conservatives, which have dominated the media’s coverage of the race, have merely obscured the existence of an increasingly strong Romney majority, concerned most with defeating President Obama in November and which views Romney as the most “electable” of the Republican crop. Plurality voting then, has allowed Romney to win by clearing the lowest necessary bar, but has prevented him from displaying his wider appeal as the second choice of many voters.

This version of events portrays Romney as consensus candidate, the one man capable of uniting the GOP’s diverse coalition of voting blocs and preventing a second Obama term. Romney’s pluralities have failed to convince, the rules masking his majority, portraying him as vulnerable, and denying him the legitimacy that only a majority can confer. Sensing weakness, Romney’s conservative opponents have continued to believe in the existence of a “stop-Romney” majority, which—if this narrative is true—simply does not exist.

Under RCV, however, Romney, buoyed by an electoral framework that respects nuanced, multilayered opinion, would have the opportunity to demonstrate his appeal, a “consensus candidate” preferred most by all elements of the party and in command of a majority. The damaging and unflattering story that he cannot win among conservatives would be rendered untenable, and Romney’s efforts to attract conservatives would finally pay electoral dividends. And if, in actuality, a majority proved outside Romney’s grasp after the reallocation of second/third/fourth choices, then RCV would at least legitimatize another candidate.

________

The rules matter, discussion over electoral law being more than an esoteric, philosophical abstraction best left to academics teaching Political Science on a college campus. Rather, it affects citizens and political actors in very real, personal ways. Too often wrongly dismissed as a ploy by progressives, RCV and other reforms transcend the traditional divide between conservatives at one end of the ideological spectrum, progressives at the other, and centrists in between, and could have very real benefits for a divided Republican Party craving consensus and searching for unity in the age of Obama.

________

* Although finalized vote totals show Rick Santorum winning the Iowa caucuses by 34 votes over Mitt Romney, we purposefully refer to the contest as a win for Romney, who—since the media jumped the gun on election night and declared Romney the victorious candidate—received the lion's share of post-Iowa momentum.

† As a term, "conservative"—like most labels—is nebulous and difficult to define. In this article, we have used conservative as an umbrella term for a heterogeneous coalition of evangelical Christians and Tea Party supporters, which is consistent with journalistic opinion.

Utah Republicans Use Instant Runoff Voting

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:03:52 -0800

The Republican Party in Utah used Instant Runoff Voting this week to elect a replacement for a state senate vacancy in a seven-candidate race. Indeed about a half dozen current Republican state lawmakers first won office in a similar way. In 2004, the state convention used IRV when former governor Jon Huntsman was first nominated.

Account of this week's election

Round by Round results from Davis County Republican Party

Article about past use of IRV to fill 2009 vacancy

Articles & analysis of 2002 & 2004 state conventions using IRV

Article on Utah testimony on adopting IRV for state offices

Understanding how the Iowa caucuses work – and don’t work

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:49:55 -0800

The national media is in a frenzy about the Republican contest in tonight’s Iowa caucuses. Unfortunately, most journalists seem to be getting the story wrong – and a key reason is not understanding or even thinking about the rules and their implications.

First, we shouldn’t obsess over who gets the most votes in the caucuses -- seriously. Several candidates are polling in double digits, but none are getting more than 25%. If that holds up, then the “winner” will have been rejected as a first choice by as many as four out of every five caucus participants.

Depending on the candidate finishing at the top of the heap, that winning total in fact might be closer to a ceiling of support rather than a floor. In other words, that winner might have been landslide loser if facing off against just his or her strongest opponent in a runoff.

Furthermore, Republicans aren’t allocating delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Indeed, they aren’t awarding national convention delegates at all tonight – the final Iowa delegates won’t be chosen for months at the state convention. Tonight is really more of a straw poll.

Given that it’s a straw poll and the media obsession with “winning,” it’s a shame that Iowa isn’t using instant runoff voting rather than plurality voting. Plurality voting simply isn’t designed for elections with more than two choices. In 2008, for example, John McCain’s nomination became inevitable due to low-plurality wins like his 37% in New Hampshire, 33% in South Carolina and 36% in Florida.

Ironically, the GOP field has several candidates who may have benefited from plurality rules. In 2006, for example, Rick Perry’s re-election bid in Texas drew just 39% when opposed by a Democrat and two strong independent candidates. In 2008, Michele Bachmann earned only 46% in her re-election to the U.S. House.

Given that Iowa Republicans are stuck with plurality voting, though, journalists should calm down about “winning.” It’s the same with most other primaries and caucuses before April 1st due to the fact that most states use variations of proportional representation for allocating delegates Proportional voting means that the statewide winner is only likely to earn more delegates, not all delegates. With only South Carolina and Florida using a statewide winner-take-all rule that shuts out opponents, candidates can come back from defeats.

Just like Tim Pawlenty must be regretting his decision to drop out after finishing “only” third in the August straw poll in Iowa, candidates should consider staying in the race, making their point and giving more of the nation’s Republicans a chance to weigh on in on their nominee.

So, political junkies, sit back, and eat your popcorn as you watch the pundits go crazy tonight. But let’s keep things in perspective –and be open to sensible changes to improve the process.

RCV Election Results: Portland and San Francisco

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:57:30 -0800

As our latest newswire describes, voters in six cities across the United States used ranked choice voting for their elections. San Francisco, California and Portland, Maine were among cities using ranked choice voting for the first time to elect their mayors.

In Portland, Michael Brennan led in the first round and was the strongest candidate in securing votes from backers of defeated candidates, winning with 56% when matched against his strongest opponent. In San Francisco, Interim Mayor Ed Lee led in the first round and also expanded his lead during the count, securing 60% of the final round tally.

See our visual presentation of San Francisco's three citywide elections decided in multiple rounds of RCV tallies. For another portrayal of San Francisco's results, visit the Bay Citizen Simulator.

San Francisco (CA) 2011 Mayoral RCV Results --

San Francisco (CA) 2011 District Attorney RCV Results--

San Francisco (CA) 2011 Sheriff RCV Results--

Portland (ME) 2011 Mayoral Results --