Posted March 24, 2008 by J. Gerald Hebert

Vermont Poised to Adopt Instant Runoff Voting

Since the 2000 election, we have heard a lot of talk about reforming our electoral process.  As someone whose private law practice has included state and local governments as clients, I have seen many of them struggle with the rising costs of conducting elections.  And so I wonder why state and local governments don’t adopt instant runoff voting, or IRV.  It saves time, money and is a healthy reform for our democracy.

IRV originated here in the United States and has been around for well over a hundred years, but is not widely known. The way it works is simple.  Assume that in order to gain election, a candidate needs to get a majority of the votes cast.  When voters go to the poll, they indicate on their ballot both their favorite and their runoff choices by ranking candidates: first choice, second and so on. If no candidate wins a majority, the candidates with the fewest number of votes are eliminated. The second choice of those who voted for the eliminated candidates is then added to the tally of the leading candidates and this process continues until someone gets a majority.

IRV thus allows elections officials to declare a winner without the need for a runoff election.  This saves the taxpayers a considerable sum.  In San Francisco, which adopted IRV in 2004, use of IRV saved the city two million dollars every time a runoff election was avoided, as it was in 2005.  Although the savings alone might justify using IRV, the benefits are more than just financial.  IRV also prevents the winner from being chosen in a runoff election, when voter turnout is typically low, and often abysmally low.  I recall the U.S. Senate runoff in 1992 between Wyche Fowler and Paul Coverdell.  Voter turnout dropped by nearly a million voters from the November election to the December runoff.

By combining the original election with any necessary runoffs, IRV will ensure that the winning candidate(s) is selected in one decisive election with maximum voter turnout. 

And of course, eliminating a second low turnout runoff is also good for election officials, who need not spend time conducting a low turnout runoff election and instead can devote their time to other important electoral duties. Candidates should also support IRV.  Right now, candidates often fight to make the runoff and then find their campaigns strapped for cash.  They must turn again to raising funds for a runoff.  IRV puts an end to that second round of fundraising. 

And if candidates seeking elective office know that they can become the second choice for some voters, they are less likely to attack all of the other candidates in the hope that supporters of an opponent might rate them second or third.  This would also be welcome news to many who are concerned about the increasing use of negative attack ads in our body politic. 

The use of IRV also permits voters in general elections to cast a second (or third) choice for third-party candidates without fear of wasting their vote. This will also allow third party candidates to promote particular issues such as campaign reform that mainstream candidates might be less willing or less interested in promoting.

IRV has been winning at the ballot box as well. Most recently, in Santa Fe (NM), Sarasota (FL), and in 2006 in Minneapolis (MN), Oakland (CA) and Pierce County (WA).  One can only wonder why state and local governments have been slow to enact a reform such as IRV. 

Vermont’s Legislature has passed an IRV bill for congressional and US Senate elections and sent it to the Governor.  If the bill becomes law, more states will surely follow as they learn the benefits of IRV.