Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Voting

1
Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Voting
Rob Richie Executive Director,
FairVote www.fairvote.org
2
FairVote

• Researches and develops innovative reform
  policies
• Board chairman is John B. Anderson, former
  Congressman and presidential candidate
• Non-partisan and non-profit, but
  advocacy-oriented
• Widely recognized as leading national
  organization backing proportional voting and
  instant runoff voting

3
Todays Presentation

• General discussion of voting methods
• Instant runoff voting
• What it is and where used in the USA
• How it fares with task force criteria
• Your questions and concerns
• Proportional voting
• Candidate-based systems in U.S. citie party
  based systems in many nations
• How systems fare with task force criteria
• Your questions and concerns

4
Instant Runoff Voting Summary

• What is an instant runoff ballot
• Its use for overseas/military voters
• Comparison with runoff elections
• Comparison with plurality voting

5
What Is Instant Runoff Voting

• A ranked choice ballot pioneered for national
  elections in Australia Ireland Voters rank 1,
  2, 3
• Requires a majority to elect a candidate
  (typically)
• Eliminate weak candidates. Allocate those voters
  ballots to next choices until a majority winner
• Has earned support of John McCain, Barack Obama,
  several state League of Women Voters. Roberts
  Rules of Order recommends for mail elections.

6
Success on the Ballot and In City Councils and
Legislatures

• Record on City Ballots, 2004-2006 8 wins, 0
  losses Average Victory Share 68
• Used in San Francisco (CA), Burlington (VT) and
  Takoma Park (MD). Soon in Minneapolis (MN),
  Pierce County (WA), Berkeley Oakland (CA),
  Cary and Hendersonville (NC)
• Legislation 2006 law in North Carolina to
  establish pilots in cities and counties. 2007
  bill in Vermont to use IRV for Congress
  passes state senate.
• Overseas voters Arkansas, So. Carolina,
  Louisiana

7
How IRV Works
Is there a majority winner?
Retally Ballots
8
IRV Ballots

• The voter is presented with a list of all
  candidates and has option to rank them
• The voter may choose to give just a first
  preference instead of ranking choices.

9
An Example of Why IRV Matters

• Contrasting majority rule when 2 candidates run
  and more than 2 candidates run

10
Plurality Two Candidates
Candidate B 45
Candidate A 55
Loser
Winner
11
Plurality Three Candidates
But majority prefer A over B
Siphons-off more votes from A than B
Winner
12
What Happened without IRV?
If Candidate A were running against Candidate B,
Candidate A would win by 10 55 to 45. But
then you add Candidate C to the mix, with similar
views to Candidate A. Candidate B now wins by
7-- even though a loser with the same voters in
a head to head race.
13
What IRV is Not Bucklin Voting

• In Bucklin voting (named after CO-based
  inventor), voters can indicate a 2nd choice. If
  no majority winner, all 2nd choices are added to
  all 1st choices.
• System was used a century ago in major Colorado
  cities like Denver, Fort Collins, Pueblo,
  Colorado Spring and Grand Junction. Also used for
  several major statewide primaries in the South.
• Voters increasingly chose not to rank 2nd choices
  because that ranking counted against their 1st
  choice (similar to approval voting). In one hotly
  contested Alabama gubernatorial race, nearly 90
  of voters did not indicate a 2nd choice.

14
IRV in Practice San Francisco

• 2004 Election Seven city council races
• Majority winners identified despite big fields
• Studies show all racial and ethnic groups
  handle IRV effectively very low error rates
• Exit polls show only 14 want old runoffs
• 2005 Election Three citywide offices
• Valid ballots in most contested race 99.6
• Turnout 3 times higher than in old runoffs

15
IRV in Practice Burlington

• 2006 Mayoral Election
• Five candidates in open seat election
• First place finisher wins 39 of first choices,
  then wins in instant runoff count
• Valid ballots 99.9.
• Lowest-income ward - Of 1200 ballots, only 2
  invalid. - 93 ranked one of final 2 candidates
• IRV preferred to runoffs by 4 to 1 in exit poll
• Low cost of implementation

16
IRV Ballots and Military Voters

• Tested solution to protect overseas voters in all
  state and federal election runoffs in Louisiana,
  Arkansas, South Carolina
• Addresses problem of short turnaround time
  between first round and second round.
• Voter receives an IRV ballot or a regular ballot
  with an IRV ballot. The IRV ballot is counted in
  the runoff toward the runoff candidate ranked
  highest

17
IRV Ballots vs. Delayed Runoffs

• Instant runoff voting can determine a majority
  winner in one election. As a result, IRV
• saves money
• eliminates hassle for voters and administrators
• maximizes voter turnout in decisive election
• reduces money in politics
• reduces concern about wasting votes

18
IRV vs. Plurality Voting

• Protects majority rule when more than two
  candidates seek a one-winner office
• Vacancies are a good example
• Primary elections for open seats, such as the
  upcoming presidential primaries
• General elections with third parties and
  independents
• Addresses controversy of spoilers leading to
  election of candidates opposed by majority
• Tends to reduce mud-slinging campaigns among
  certain candidates pursuing the same voters

19
IRV Task Force Criteria, Page 1

• Provides voters with real choices / addresses
  spoiler effect / minimizes wasted votes?
• Yes (qualified)
• Is simple/easy for voters to understand and easy
  for government to administer
• Yes (qualified)
• Increases voter turnout/participation?
• Yes (qualified)
• Fair party representation?
• No impact

20
IRV Task Force Criteria, Page 2

• Positive/high quality campaigning
  Yes (qualified)
• Resists voter fraud/manipulation Yes
  (qualified)
• Balanced gender and ethnic representation
• No Impact
• Balanced geographic /cultural representation
  No Impact

21
Your questions and concerns?
22
Proportional Voting Overview

• The international norm Of 40 largest democracies
  with high human rights ratings, only the United
  States and Canada do not use a proportional
  system for at least one national election.
  Canadian provinces debating PR seriously
  Ontario to vote in October.
• The principle Like-minded voters earn
  representation in proportion to their share of
  the popular vote.
• An important history of use in American cities
  and the Illinois state legislature

23
Examples of Approaches

• Super districts Multi-seat districts with
  3-to-5 seats, using a proportional system like
  choice voting or cumulative voting
• Single-member district plus Combination of
  one-seat districts and compensatory seats

24
Choice Voting in Super Districts

• Used in Ireland all Scottish cities
• In Model City charter as option
• American history
• See other Powerpoint

25
Proportional Voting Task Force Criteria, Page 1

• Provides voters with real choices / addresses
  spoiler effect / minimizes wasted votes?
• Yes (qualified)
• Is simple/easy for voters to understand and easy
  for government to administer
• Yes (qualified)
• Increases voter turnout/participation?
• Yes
• Fair party representation?
• No impact

26
Proportional Voting Task Force Criteria, Page 2

• Positive/high quality campaigning
  Yes (qualified)
• Resists voter fraud/manipulation Yes
  (qualified)
• Balanced gender and ethnic representation
• Yes (qualified)
• Balanced geographical cultural representation
  Yes

27
Three Potential Steps to Reform

• Citizens assemblies Canadian model
• Pilot programs North Carolina and United
  Kingdom
• Voting equipment requirements Put flexibility
  for alternative voting methods into equipment
  standards

28
FairVote

• Rob Richie
• RR_at_fairvote.org
• [phone]
• www.fairvote.org