Ranked Vote Choice (RVC) or Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)



In Austin, Texas, two important changes in voting for Austin City Council members were implemented in November 2014. First, Austin moved from an at-large-by-place election to a single-member district election for its council members, and at the same time, increased the council from six members and a mayor to ten council members and a mayor. Second, the election date was moved from the first Saturday in May to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, which coincides with the general election to elect national, state, and county officials.

In the first election under this system, seventy candidates were competing in the ten single-member districts. In the election on November 4, 2014, only two of the ten council candidates won a majority of the votes in the district; so eight districts were scheduled to hold runoff elections between the two highest vote getters on December 16, 2014. Subsequently, one candidate withdrew, leaving seven districts to conduct runoff elections.

Is there a better method of deciding elections than with a runoff? One method of eliminating the necessity of a runoff election would be to abandon the majority vote requirement and institute a plurality vote requirement. That is, the candidate with the largest number of votes in the election wins, regardless of whether that is a majority or not. The problem with this system is, of course, that the winner may have garnered a small percentage of the vote. For example, in Austin’s District 8, the candidate who received the largest number of votes won only 26.38 percent of the vote, leading the candidate with the second highest vote total by only 179 votes out of 21,538 votes cast in the district. Other districts had similar results. Had the plurality system been in place, the District 8 candidate who was not the first choice of nearly 74 percent of the voters would have won the council seat in the district. This does not seem right.

So, the question remains: Is there a better method of deciding elections without a runoff? The answer involves ranked vote choice (RVC) or instant runoff voting (IRV), which mean essentially the same thing. Here’s how the system works: each voter ranks the candidates for the office according to his/her first, second, and third choice. When the votes are tallied, if one candidate receives a majority of the first- choice votes, that candidate is elected. However, if no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, then the candidate who received the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and the voters who selected that candidate as their first choice have their second-choice votes assigned to one of the remaining candidates. If, as a result of those second-choice votes, one of the candidates now has a majority of votes, the candidate is elected. However, if no candidate still has a majority of the votes, then the remaining candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and his/her second-place votes are assigned to one of the remaining candidates. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority of the votes in the contest.

The RVC or IRV system is used in several cities in the United States to conduct their mayoral and/or city council elections. Examples include Berkeley, California; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; San Francisco, California; San Leandro, California; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Telluride, Colorado.

The advantages of the RVC or IRV system include lower election costs by eliminating runoff elections, higher voter turnout, and, according to Fair Vote, RVC or IRV:
  • Gives voters the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidate.
  • Empowers voters with more meaningful choice.
  • Minimizes strategic voting.
  • Creates a positive atmosphere where candidates campaign to the voters rather than against each other.
Source: Fair Vote: The Center for Voting and Democracy, http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/

Thus, Austin should amend its charter to substitute instant runoff voting for the current runoff election system.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party apparatu
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a
Read more

The Battle for Texas (Part II)

In the first part of this post, I explained what happened in the 2014 general election in Texas. Democrats lost badly statewide and in legislative contests. What is necessary to reverse the results? I strongly believe that the only way to reverse the Republican dominance of Texas state and local elections in to organize precincts in urban and suburban areas of Texas on a multi-block level within voting precincts. What do I have in mind?  As you know, political scientists agree that the most effective method of getting registered voters to vote is face-to-face contacts, preferably by people who they know and who share their values. That means, someone who lives in the neighborhood and whom they see frequently in the neighborhood. Can an organization at this level be created? I have had the good fortune of seeing an operation like this in several precincts in southwest Austin during a runoff election campaign for a city council seat in District 8. Last weekend, precinct c
Read more