Instant Runoff Voting: Is it the best election reform?

Instant Runoff Voting: Is it the best election reform?

The Minnesota Independence Party (IP) advocates the use of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for single seat elections in Minnesota:

http://www.mnip.org/platform3.shtml
SUPPORTING PLANKS: Require Instant Runoff Voting in all statewide and congressional district elections and suggest it at the county and local levels of government.

I believe that Instant Runoff Voting is a fair method, but that its implementation may unnecessarily overstep our needs for reform from plurality.

All partisan, single-seat elections in Minnesota - from U.S. Senate to Governor to State Representative use the plurality election method. Plurality means simply everyone gets one vote, and the candidate with the most votes win.

Plurality lacks a requirement that a majority of voters agree on chosen winner. In fact the last two Minnesota governor elections failed to confirm a majority winner:

See: ttp://www.sos.state.mn.us/election/result.html - Minnesota Governor - General Elections results 1998, 2002

• 1998: Ventura=37.0%, Coleman=34.3%, Humphrey=28.1%, Pentel 0.3%
• 2002: Pawlenty=44.4%, Moe=36.5%, Penny=16.2%, Pentel=2.3%

A plurality winner will usually win a runoff process as well, but we have no way to confirm that result.

Ventura's surprise win 1998 demonstrates that plurality doesn't always shut out "third parties" from a shot at winning, however the lack of any required support threshold for a winner mean two parties can often control election results by momentum of past success rather than truly advancing the best candidates. Any candidate who dares run outside this duopoly control, risks throwing the election to the candidate whom is least like themselves. This "spoiler effect" discourages independent-minded candidates from running.

To break this stranglehold we require majority rule. Traditional runoffs and Instant Runoff Voting both support this majority requirement. Traditional runoffs do it two or more rounds of voting. IRV does it by a allowing voter a rank preference ballot and it is counted by a simulated runoff process using the top remaining choice each round from each voter.

One year ago I was a part of a small group of volunteers with Fairvote Minnesota which lobbied at the State Capitol for the use of IRV in a special election in the City of Roseville. It was a great experience to take my personal research on the topic and talk with State Representatives.

The Roseville bill passed the State Senate, but failed in the House with a Republican majority voting it down. I was sad, but somewhat relieved. An experimental election method without much time or money available for educating voters risked problems and putting a bad name on a good idea.

I could understand a paternalistic concern from the state legislature, but I was disappointed the Republicans rejected it as undemocratic:

See: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/8195315.htm MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE: House rejects instant runoff, Mar. 16, 2004

• Republican leaders [...] said they simply voted against a bill that "defied onstitutionality."
• "The Constitution is 'one person, one vote,' " said House Speaker Steve Sviggum. "You don't get two or three or four or five votes. That's not what making choices is."
• House Majority Leader Erik Paulsen said "[...] People vote for the one person they think should hold office, and you live with the results. That's democracy."

Did Sviggum really believe what he said, or was it just the best wording he could give for his gut feelings against it? By the Speaker's words alone, I can equally claim that "Primaries are unconstitutional" since they allow people one vote in the primary and one vote in the general election.

In fact, this perspective was my first reaction against a claim of unconstitutionality of IRV. Partisan primaries specifically can be judged as undemocratic because they artificially force voters to pick a single party to support in the primary. Honest voters are trapped if they are interested in candidates from multiple parties. Dishonest voters can try to influence their competition.

In contrast primaries used for nonpartisan elections like city mayor are open top-two primaries. Voters are free to support any candidate and the harsh top-two elimination rule encourages everyone to vote honestly.

Returning to the IRV process, there is one subtle issue that sticks with me: How do IRV supporters justify a bottom-up elimination process? (compared to a top-two elimination)

Imagine an election with 7 candidates. Say the first round votes are, ordered from most to least: 40%, 21%, 15%, 11%, 6%, 5%, and 2%.

Eliminating one candidate at a time offers a thrilling underdog hope of the next-to-last candidate. Unfortunately this process also creates an unnecessary fear from all the higher candidates. This is what I suspect Speaker Sviggum is concerned about. Do we really NEED to give a 5% candidate a chance to win merely for avoiding last place?!

If we see an election is a "cooperative process" where we want to maximize support, like a party endorsements, then perhaps it makes sense to allow a more careful elimination.

In comparison in a competitive election, allowing the option for undue cooperation will be seen as a threat. Being first or second place among all competitors is an honor that must be worth some advantage. These top candidates (and supporters) will consider it unfair to allow lower candidates a chance to combine their votes. Majority rule itself doesn't demand this. There's no way within a runoff process for 3 strong candidates to compete as equals. Someone has got to go.

There are higher order election methods that allow comparison among three or more candidates without elimination (i.e. Condorcet's method), but limiting ourselves to runoffs where we can only choose a final two, only the plurality top-two candidates stand most worthy for this final competition.

Instant Runoff Voting is usually considered to be a "Bottom up" elimination, I consider it reasonable to use the same basic term qualified as a "Top-two Instant Runoff."

It is good to realize that IRV is not the only way to implement a top-two runoff.

In fact there's at least three options:

1. Top-two Primary (Replaces partisan primary)
   
2. Top-two Runoff (Requires an extra election sometimes)
   
3. Top-two Instant Runoff (Uses rank preference ballots - can be used for BOTH party Primaries and the General election)

Each of these has relative disadvantages to consider. A top-two primary does not allow parties to unify as now. A top-two runoff will cost more money with another election required. Lastly top-two IRV will require equipment upgrades and voter education.

Some will surely complain this "top-two" approach as seeming somehow unfair to smaller parties, but consider: A top-two process allows many parties to compete for these esteemed top-two placings and success will come from the strength of the candidates as much as their party name. Different parties will surely succeed in different times and places. The duopoly stranglehold of plurality will be broken, while the strength of party organization will remain to promote strong candidates.

My conclusion:

The simplest and fairest "one person, one vote" election method with a majority requirement is a top-two elimination process.

Let's agree majority rule alone our reform goal, and let's fight for it, whatever form it may take.