FairVote Feed: Instant Runoff Voting

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

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 --

Portland’s Biggest Winner: Democracy with Ranked Choice Voting

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:50:27 -0800

This month, I had the privilege of witnessing the first-ever ranked choice voting (RCV, or “instant runoff voting”) election in Portland (ME). I spent a week in the city helping with voter education about RCV, conducting a one-day survey of early voters and answering media and candidate queries at the RCV ballot-count.

Portland had a remarkable introduction to RCV despite challenging circumstances, starting with 15 candidates for mayor and no city budget for voter education. But nearly all of the candidates lauded the process, the media largely embraced the system after some initial skepticism and voters showed every indication of liking RCV and benefiting from the kind of campaign it generated.

Just a year ago, Portland voters adopted a charter amendment to have a mayor directly elected by voters with RCV. FairVote’s Rob Richie was among those who had testified to a charter commission earlier in the year about why RCV made more sense than a plurality vote for mayor. The commission was prophetic to anticipate so many candidates and recommend a system that handled voter choice so effectively.

This year, as the city looked forward to having its first directly elected mayor in nearly a century, a large number of candidates starting to run, including several current and former state legislators and city councilors. Ultimately a few candidates started to break from the pack as they secured endorsements, participated in numerous debates. A ranked choice voting poll by the Maine People’s Resource Center found that the frontrunners were former state senators Michael Brennan and Ethan Strimling and current mayor Nick Mavodones, with Brennan more effective at securing second, third and other high rankings from supporters of other candidates.

In the actual election, Michael Brennan led with 26% of first choices, followed by Strimling with 22%, Mavodones with 15%, and the remaining 37% of the vote spread among the remaining candidates. You can see the flow of the count on our website.

I could analyze the number of runoff rounds and talk about vote transfers and the 99.83% rate of valid ballots. I could talk more about ballot design and voter education. But what shouldn’t be missed in the fray of post-election coverage here in the great state of Maine is the glorious five minutes of pure democratic spirit that everyone in the State of Maine room experienced when the round-by-results results of the election were presented before everyone's eyes.

In what other instance would you have every single candidate in the race, their supporters, the media, community members that were just curious, all in one room, waiting to hear the results? As election administrators presented the round by round results, the type of excitement and anticipation in the room was like Christmas morning. For those five minutes, there wasn't any politicking, just democracy in action. And, as captured in this local television news story, when Brennan was identified as the winner, the room erupted with congratulations, and acceptance of the results from all the candidates and their backers.

This election really embodied the attitude of Maine people—friendly, cordial, and full of depth and caring. Mayor-elect Brennan made an impromptu speech right after the results were announced, praising the process and citing how he and his 14 fellow candidates were participants in a historic election. You can get a feel for the spirit in the room from this television news report on the election.

The largest local paper, the Portland Press Herald, has been skeptical about tying election of a mayor to RCV, but wrote a glowing editorial entitled “Brennan, ranked-choice voting both winners”:

Without ranked-choice voting this would have been a very different campaign. If they were just seeking to have the most votes on Election Night, the candidates would have targeted a number of voters, identified their supporters and made sure they turned out to the polls. In this case, about 5,000 votes from nearly 20,000cast would have been enough. A candidate with a hot-button neighborhood issue could have run away with the election without ever meeting a voter from another part of town. Under the ranked-choice system, candidates were forced to engage with each other and talk to each others' voters. The result was an interesting conversation about Portland and its future that would not have happened in a "turn-out-your-base" election. That debate helped clarify the job description for Portland's mayor, and it will make life easier for Brennan when he shows up for work.

Especially in a year where we have seen so much partisan vitriol on the national level, the fact that this type of election that is more about community than personality is definitely historic. And, as the paper observed the next day, the high quality candidates who ran have contributed a range of good ideas for the city that should help focus policy in the coming years.

Such outcomes show that ranked choice voting is not just a math exercise. Although it’s an effective means to handle more than two choices, it can be much more. Repeatedly, we are seeing RCV winners being the candidates who do a particularly effective job at reaching out to voters, often with direct contact involving community debates, local events, and door-knocking. One Portland candidate, David Marshall, said he knocked on 20,000 doors. He didn’t win, but it was ballots from his supporters that provided a particularly strong boost to the new mayor’s win total.

Our one-day survey of 122 early voters underscores some of these values. They reported that they were more engaged in this election than usual, felt the candidates were more civil than the norm and were far more likely to vote for the candidates they most supported without worrying about whether they could win.

Being in Maine was notable also for a the statewide vote on “the People’s Veto,” a ballot measure decided by a resounding landslide to keep Maine’s 38 year old same day voter registration law -- definitive evidence of pro-democracy attitudes in the state.

Looking to the future in Maine, the future seems bright for RCV. The state has a history of multi-candidate races for governor, with only one of the last five races won with more than 50% of the vote. With the example of Portland, we expect the state to have a vigorous debate in the years ahead about the best way to promote majority winners – and a governor who effectively reaches out to voters across the state.

Portland Mayoral Election: One-Day Survey Results

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:20:22 -0800

Voters Overwhelmingly Rank More than One Candidate and Find it Easy

FairVote 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

Irish presidential election with instant runoff voting: Voter choice without "spoilers"

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:36:51 -0700

It's a year to the 2012 presidential nomination. Once again, our political leaders are rolling the dice with the American people. Rather than pursue statutory solutions to potential electoral landmines, they've left intact a set of electoral rules that aren’t designed for elections where voters have more than two choices – featuring an Electoral College that could thrown the choice of president into Congress and a plurality voting system that turns third parties into “spoilers” and can allow a polarizing candidate to win only due to split votes in the majority.

Ireland last month showcased a better way in its election of poet and Labor Party leader Michael Higgins as president in a field with seven candidates. As with all other well-established democracies with presidential elections, Ireland elects its president based on a national popular vote. Like nearly all such democracies, it also has a runoff system if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first round vote.

Ireland uses the instant runoff form of ranked choice voting, upholding majority rule in one election without the need of a separate runoff. Voters rank candidates in order of choice: a first choice, and if they so choose, second choice, third choice and so on. Ballots are counted to simulate a series of runoff elections, with the last-place candidate eliminated after each round of counting. In the next round ballots cast for that candidate are added to the totals of the candidate ranked next on each ballot until a candidate wins with a majority of the vote in the final round.

The popularity of Ireland’s most recent presidents, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, increased the office’s importance. Although with largely ceremonial powers, the president is elected for seven-year term, drawing strong interest. Turnout on October 27th was 56%, higher than in many American presidential elections.

Seven candidates ran, with a mix of major party nominees and independents and shifting patterns in polls showing a wide-open field. Higgins ultimately stood out in debates an earned a landslide win despite being a member of the third largest party in Ireland.

In contrast to elections by plurality voting rules in the United States, that many candidates could run strongly with nary a word about “spoilers” and “wasted votes.” The outcome ultimately reflected how voters perceived the candidates, judging their individual qualities along with their party affiliations. Here, for example was where candidates stood in a Sunday Business Post poll on September 25th, a month before Election Day.

21% - David Norris, independent: Long-time senator and human and gay rights leader
18% - Michael Higgins, Labor Party: Former member of parliament and poet
16% - Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein: Deputy 1st minister in Northern Ireland and former IRA leader
13% - Mary Davis, independent and managing director of Special Olympics Europe
13% - Gay Mitchell: Fine Gael: member of European parliament
11% - Sean Gallagher, independent: successful businessman and television personality
6% - Dana Rosemary Scallon: independent: singer, former member of European parliament

The race shifted dramatically after debates and more voter focus on the field, with a remarkable growth in support for independent Gallagher. A Sunday Business Post poll on Oct. 16th had these results:

39% - Sean Gallagher (up from 11%)
27% - Michael Higgins, Labor Party (up from 18%)
13% - Martin McGuinness (down from 16%)
8% - Gay Mitchell (down from 13%
7% - David Norris (down from 21%)
4% - Mary Davis (down from 13%)
2% - Dana Rosemary Scallon (down from 6%)

But while Gallagher may have benefited from loose associations with Ireland’s long-time dominant party Fianna Fail, Irish voters remain angry at the party's role in its economic downturn, and news that Gallagher's links to the party were closer than expected caused voters to shift their preferences again. Higgins was the big beneficiary despite being a member of the country’s third largest party. Of nearly 1.8 million voters on Election Day on October 27th, Higgins earned a big lead in first choices:

39.6% - Michael Higgins
28.5% - Sean Gallagher
13.7% - Martin McGuinness
6.4% - Gay Mitchell
6.2% - David Norris
2.9% - Dana Rosemary Scallon
2.7% - Mary Davis

Because it was an instant runoff voting election, Higgins wasn’t the winner yet. Tallied by hand in a day and a half of counting, Higgins was by far the most successful candidate in earning second and third choices from backers of defeated candidates. After the five trailing candidates were eliminated and their ballots counted for their next choice, Higgins' final vote total was 56.8% of first round totals and 61.4% of votes when matched against Gallagher in the final round. Higgins secured 306,003 additional votes from backers of other candidates, while Gallagher picked up only 123,150 additional votes

Gallagher gracefully accepted his defeat, saying of Higgins: "He will have my full support as president and I sincerely thank him for a positive campaign. His slogan stated that he would be a president to be proud of and I believe he will be that president."

Can we bring this kind of politics to the United States? Instant runoff voting is the voting method for wide-open mayoral races this week in San Francisco (CA), Portland (ME) and Telluride (CO). It’s also being used for competitive, multi-candidate races in Takoma Park (MD) and St. Paul (MN) and in its proportional voting form in city council elections in Cambridge (MA).

With more such American jurisdictions working through implementation issues, we’re approaching a time where states and cities will have an easy decision to make: uphold majority rule in one election or keep a plurality voting system that delivers questionable results and broken politics. No voting system is perfect and at the end of the day we have to rely on the quality of candidates and the wisdom of voters, but instant runoff voting represents a powerful advance for giving Americans real choices and, ultimately, better representation.

Ranked choice voting in major elections

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:19:15 -0700

Ranked choice voting (RCV, or instant runoff) accommodates voters having more than two choices at the polls. This month, San Francisco (CA) will elect a mayor and two other citywide leaders with RCV. Portland (ME) and Telluride (CO) will elect mayors in hotly contested RCV races, and St. Paul (MN) and Takoma Park (MD) will elect city councilors with RCV. In Ireland, Michael Higgins was elected president with RCV, breaking out of a 7-candidate field for a landslide win thanks to a combination of strong first choice rankings and backup preferences from supporters of losing candidates. Cambridge (MA) will use the choice voting form of RCV that provides fair representation to its voters.

FairVote has been deeply involved in many of these implementations and will be tracking elections closely next week. Although controversial with some, RCV is working well -- and has strong backing from almost all mayoral candidates in both Portland and San Francisco. For more on the races, see:

RCV in San Francisco: New opeds by Matt Gonzalez & Steven Hill
Portland: Our Portlandvotes123.com, TV local news story and FairVote voter survey
Coverage in Freakonomics
Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio & Economist on San Francisco
Associated Press on Portland
Cambridge: Candidates for school board & city council
Rob Richie blogs on Irish presidential election
St. Paul elections: Voter education site & Star-Tribune commentary

Occupy and Democracy Reforms: A Match Made in Heaven?

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:21:43 -0700

The Occupy movement has gone national and even international after its start near Wall Street. It has pretty much every organization with a pet cause trying to ride its coattails right now. Whether you’re an environmentalist, anti-capitalist, pro-capitalist, union member, or even an election reformer (!) you’re trying to figure out how you can capitalize on Occupy for your issue’s gain. Now, this is understandable because Occupy has a unique energy, and it’s a forum that’s very open to discussion and new ideas. One of the reasons for this is that there are people in the Occupy movement who are supportive of a plethora of different issues, and the whole point of Occupy is for them to be able to express their viewpoints.

I don’t like the way some organizations are looking at Occupy with hungry eyes, salivating over all those potential volunteers. However, since I’m an election reform nerd, I’m going to do my best to make the case to Occupiers around the country why democracy reforms, specifically proportional representation or “fair voting” and ranked choice voting (instant runoff voting), are ideal issues for Occupiers to support.

We’ve seen several videos, tweets, blogs, and forum posts from Occupiers in the past few weeks supporting proportional representation and instant runoff voting. In Portland, OR, the Occupy Portland General Assembly recently voted to support instant runoff voting.

There have also been various discussions and teach-ins about proportional representation and instant runoff voting in other cities like Boston as well. It makes a lot of sense for anyone with dissenting political views with an interest in electoral politics--the winner-take-all wall can be a rigid barrier.

Now, as I said, there are obviously just as many tweets, blogs, and videos from Occupiers supporting other issues. But democracy reforms have the unique ability to challenge the status quo in a way that fits in very well with the goals of the Occupy movement. It’s a nonpartisan solution to inequality that challenges corporate influence in politics by changing the system to focus more on the voter and less on the candidate. I think a lot of people, not just those in Occupy, feel that right now our political structures aren’t set up for our voices to be heard. Changing the structure of our electoral system is the first step to creating a space for more voices and points of view within our political process. Maintaining the system we currently have- a stilted, two-party system with low voter turnout isn’t an option any more.

Democracy reform would also provide an alternative for Occupy itself. Right now Occupy in most cities is run by consensus. If the cities want to connect to be a larger movement, running a nationwide organization by consensus seems extremely difficult. Using a proportional representation system within the Occupy movement would be a great alternative to a traditional top-down, winner-take-all decision-making model traditionally used by unions, environmental organizations, and other non-profits that are becoming extremely interested in the Occupy movement. Having proportional representation within Occupy would also be a safeguard against what a lot of people are starting to fear: that the movement gets co-opted by the Democratic establishment for the upcoming election.

Conventional wisdom right now is still that Occupy is a fad. I don’t believe that at all. If you’re buying into the notion that “there is no clear message” and “they’re just a bunch of hippies in a park” I recommend that you listen to the beginning of this excellent podcast that has a lot of interviews from people occupying Wall Street.

I think that Occupy will morph into something huge, even if the way that it looks a year from now is very different from the structure in place now. Occupy has the chance to create a model for the ideal American democracy. After all, in Occupy there’s no Electoral College, no campaign finance laws, no single-member districts, and no history of a structure of elections that keeps people out instead of bringing them in.

Ranked Choice Voting in Action

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:03:53 -0700

Ranked choice voting or instant runoff voting ensures that the candidate that wins an election wins the majority of the vote. Voters will use ranked choice voting this fall in several exciting races: wide-open elections for mayor in San Francisco (CA) and Portland (ME); the presidential race in Ireland; and for other city races in the U.S., including St. Paul (MN). New voter education initiatives are helping show how easy ranked choice voting is for voters, and there have been excellent media stories.

Caleb Kleppner explains how ranked choice votes are counted in Portland, ME
Local newspaper in Portland discusses RCV
Article from San Francsico has a breakdown of some of the 16 mayoral candidates running
Check out this video of Portland election administrator Bud Philbrick explaining RCV
Voters in St. Paul, Minesota can go to this page for RCV resources
The Irish presidential election also uses RCV

Other FairVote RCV Resources

Ranked choice voting in the Bay Area
FairVote's http://www.InstantRunoff.com