Special interests upset with instant runoff voting in San Francisco - and broader lessons

by Rob Richie // Published June 21, 2009
The San Francisco Bay Guardian's long-time editor Tim Redmond had an important scoop this week: the downtown business community is contemplating an assault on San Francisco's instant runoff voting (IRV) system. At a June 18th strategy meeting, the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce and several other downtown leaders talked about a potential campaign to repeal IRV. A Chamber executive said that its recent polling had found that after five annual elections with IRV in 2004-2008, support for IRV was strong - but potentially vulnerable to the right combination of attacks.

The Chamber's representative was revealing in explaining his opposition to IRV. "The Chamber has always been in favor of direct runoffs" because "it allows the top two candidates to directly address their differences on the issues." Steven Hill, director the Political Reform program of the New America Foundation, astutely observed that when San Francisco had traditional runoffs, however, "We saw regular attack ads and nasty campaigning. The Ethics Commission found a four-fold increase in independent expenditures during direct runoffs. Getting rid of IRV is a vote to empower special interests." Redmond added, "In other words, direct runoffs allow groups like the Chamber and its allies to dump huge amounts of money into negative campaigns in a short election period. "

The Chamber has no fundamental reason to be against IRV, of course. It's based on one fact: they're losing in the current system. Redmond points out: "Downtown has never liked [IRV]. The Chamber and Committee on JOBS folks also dislike the fact that they've gotten their butts kicked in the past few supervisorial elections -- and instead of finding better candidates, or recognizing that the electorate really isn't interested in a pro-corporate Republican-style agenda, they've decided to go after 'the system.'"

Sometimes the best way to measure the value of a reform proposal is by who's against it -- and why.  That certainly is the case with IRV. When it was just a "neat idea" in the United States, instant runoff voting was seen by many as win-win solution to problems like "spoilers" in partisan elections and expensive, low-turnout runoff elections. That's why reform-minded major party leaders like Barack Obama and John McCain both have actively supported it. That's why ballot measures on IRV have often passed by such lopsided margins, including wins by two to one or more in major cities like Minneapolis, Oakland and Memphis. That's why we almost certainly would have IRV for statewide elections in both red and blue states if our election administration regime had greater flexibility and resources for accommodating innovation.

I believe it's only a matter of time before IRV becomes a fixture in our politics -- that within a decade the phrase "Rock the Vote" will effectively be replaced by "Rank the Vote." But before that transition happens, IRV advocates will have to beat back the inevitable backlash due to partisans and special interests  that measure a reform not by how it performs for voters, but whether it helps their side win. Call it "outcome-based evaluation. " An electoral reform is only as good as what it does for your special interest in the short-term, not what it does for the democratic process as a whole.

That's why instant runoff voting is the subject of a repeal attempt in Pierce County (WA) this year, where insider county political leaders became uneasy in the wake of last year's elections. In the highly competitive county executive race, a Republican had a plurality lead after counting first choices, but lost to a Democrat when the field was narrowed to two - so some Republicans aren't happy. However, the winning Democrat -- the first woman county executive in Washington State history - wasn't the favorite of the Democratic Party establishment and was outspent by another Democrat - so some establishment Democrats aren't happy. Not only that, but in a down-ballot race, an independent - horrors of horrors - defeated several elected Republicans and Democrats. To cap things off, several races didn't go to the best-funded candidate, something that always makes special interests nervous.

Meanwhile, angry partisans are gathering signatures to force a repeal vote on instant runoff voting on the March 2010 ballot in Burlington (VT). A Republican again won the plurality of first choices, but lost to the Progressive incumbent Bob Kiss in the final round. Because Democrats have yet to win under the new system, their support has become more tepid. Never mind the fact that Burlington campaigns have been substantive, voters have had more choices and the impact of money has been lessened (Kiss in fact was outspent by all three of his major rivals). Such "good government" outcomes are irrelevant to partisans when their side loses.

Looking at this narrowly, IRV advocates obviously have to be smart in defending reform. But more broadly, our political leaders need to look in the mirror. Are they just mouthing support for democracy while only pursuing or opposing changes based on calculations about whether it helps their side in the next election? Or when it comes to democracy, will they start putting principle first?

Comments currently closed for Special interests upset with instant runoff voting in San Francisco - and broader lessons

  • I hear your points, Robert, but the proposal to replace IRV in Burlington would be _worse__ from your perspective: it would allow the candidate who is most opposed to win (the threshold would be less than 50%) and would still be a top-two runoff without the sequential elimination feature of IRV that gave Montroll at least a chance to move from third into second as other candidates were eliminated. , As I commented elsewhere on the site today, I don't think a single vote in Burlington did not vote sincerely due to the concerns you have and would think it extremely unlikely that they would do so in the next election -- in that sense, IRV is "spoiler free". As to Montroll being the candidate who "should" have won, he was in third place in first choices and in third place when the field was reduced to three. He would have lost under the rules of every single-winner system used for every public office in the world. A lot of folks would have problems with a system that allows someone in third in a three-person race to win and creates incentives for candidates to be inoffensive and avoid "controversial" positions that can be important for establishing leadership. I'd take Condorcet voting over plurality voting, but I wouldn't take it over IRV

    Posted by Rob Richie, 2009-08-13 14:58:29 (4 years ago)

  • In addition IRV in Burlington in 2009 was not spoiler-proof. If any loser is removed from the race and from all ballots and if everyone continues to vote their same preferences regarding the remaining candidates, that should not change who the winner is. The presence of Kurt Wright in the race does not affect the relative merit, in terms of the majority of Burlington voters, of candidates Bob Kiss and Andy Montroll. If the majority of voters think that Montroll was preferable to Kiss in a ?mano-a-mano? contest, the outcome of that contest should not be affected if Kurt Wright is a candidate or not. But what happened? In effect, in 2009 with IRV rules, Montroll was identified as the biggest loser in the second round when he was actually preferred over either Kiss or Wright when compared directly to either candidate. Montroll was eliminated prematurely and would have beaten any candidate, including Kiss, in the IRV final round had he been in the final round. If Wright had not been in the race, Montroll would have been elected over Kiss in the IRV final round if the same 8976 voters came to the polls March 3rd and expressed the same preferences that they had on March 3rd. That is a matter of public record. (see file: 2009 Burlington Mayor Final Piles Report.txt in http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/20090303/2009%20Mayor%20Reports.zip) Please do not claim that IRV is spoiler-proof. It ain't and this year in Burlington is the evidence.

    Posted by Robert Bristow-Johnson, 2009-08-11 20:57:56 (4 years ago)

  • Rob, you weren't being complete about what *all* the fuss is in Burlington VT about this most recent mayoral election (by IRV) and why some persons have doubts that the outcome reflected the popular sentiments. To repeat: As a matter of public record, we know that on March 3rd of this year (election day), 8984 ballots were cast for mayor of which only eight ballots had problems in the manner that they were marked. Of the 8976 ballots that were properly marked, 7541 (84%) expressed an opinion of the merits of Progressive Bob Kiss vs. Democrate Andy Montroll for mayor. THE MAJORITY (4064, nearly 54%) CLEARLY EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR MONTROLL, YET THE MAYOR WAS RE-ELECTED. Andy Montroll prevailed in voter preference in a head-to-head comparison to any other candidate, whether that be (Republican) Kurt Wright or (independent) Dan Smith or Bob Kiss. We must ask ?Why should either Councilor Wright or Mayor Kiss be occupying the mayor?s chair in the resulting term when, in either case, more of us Burlington voters have already expressed on March 3rd that we would rather see Andy Montroll as mayor over either of those candidates?? How might Bob Kiss (or Rob Ritchie) answer that question? If he says, ?Because I got more 1st-pick preference votes than Andy Montroll?, that is true, but why does that give him preference over Kurt Wright who had even more 1st-pick votes cast (but is likely widely disliked by over 4500 Prog and Democrat voters that voted for Kiss or Montroll as their 1st-pick)? If he says his election over Wright is because he got so many more transferred votes (those would have been 2nd-pick or lower votes by people who did not vote for him as their 1st pick) than Wright, then how does he use that against the fact that Montroll got even more? If he says, ?That?s what the rules are and we are nation of laws and we follow the rules?, that is true but does not speak to why we should keep those rules if these rules result in losers winning elections and winners losing. The Republicans have some kind of fig leaf to cover themselves when they claim that their candidate, Wright, should have won because he held the simple plurality of 1st-pick votes. But we know that their candidate was actually lesser preferred than either Kiss or Montroll. However the Democrats (or whoever supported Montroll) have a strong case in pointing out that Montroll, when compared to Kiss directly, beats Kiss (as he also beats Wright). IRV has the right goals, but failed to attain those goals in Burlington in 2009. I don't think that you're promoting the best interests of democracy by ignoring this failure. When a Condorcet winner (the candidate who beats every other candidate in a head-to-head contest) wins the election, no one can claim that their candidate was preferred over the Condorcet winner by the electorate. The ballot count clearly and simply indicate otherwise. But when the IRV winner is not the same as the Condorcet winner, there is clear confusion in the minds of voters that the popular sentiment of the electorate was reflected in the election. IRV *failed* to reflect the popular sentiment in Burlington VT last spring. And that failure should not be swept under the rug.

    Posted by Robert Bristow-Johnson, 2009-08-11 20:47:04 (4 years ago)

  • My general philosophical premise is that, when it comes to politics, we are all sinners and saints... In this line of thought, my impression has also been that if you don't accommodate the influence of $peech, it becomes harder to sustain democracy over time. This may mean that, in seeking to lower the playing field, we accept that there will still be a hierarchy whose priorities are other than what we believe is right. This is why I'd be open to limiting the no. of candidates in an election that uses IRV. If there are two eventual winners then perhaps there needs to be five contenders that the voters will rank. I'd rather be open to conceding on something like that if it takes the edge off of the opposition of $peech and seems likely to facilitate the secondary goal of bolstering intra-party discipline in the major parties, than fight each and every counter-reaction to the use of IRV. My fear is that when we use strong rhetoric against such opponents, as if they were trying to uproot democracy in our country, it will polarize the issue. IRV is great. It is inevitable that we will use it, but it is not the end-goal. A pure IRV may be a little too harsh on incumbents for some positions. If all election systems embody cultural values, then we need to consider our many options and (using IRV hopefully to measure the relative usefulness of alternatives) work out creative solutions that we can all live with. dlw

    Posted by dlw, 2009-07-29 15:31:38 (4 years ago)