Vermont Representative Jason Lorber (D-Burlington) has introduced H298. It provides that in special U.S. House elections, there would no longer be a primary. Instead there would be a single election event, at which all candidates would run, and Instant Runoff Voting would be used.
In addition, the bill says that when a U.S. Senate vacancy occurs, the vacancy would also be filled with a special election, using IRV. That part of the bill would eliminate the authority of the Governor to appoint a U.S. Senator to fill a vacancy.
I need to know why you think this is a good idea. In other words, what’s “broken”?
I haven’t expressed any opinion in that blog post.
However, it seems obvious what the advantages are for using IRV. (1) states are having budget crises, and the Vermont bill would save election administrators the costs of putting on both a special partisan primary and then a special election; (2) experience with IRV shows that candidates are more courteous to each other, since they each don’t want to offend the supporters of their various competitors, since they want their 2nd-place votes; (3) the candidates would also save money, because there would be only one election instead of two; (4) voters wouldn’t need to agonize over “wasting” their votes.
IRV is a good idea for a lot of reasons, not just those mentioned by richard in his post. It helps to weaken the 2-party system that results in poor leadership and divisiveness as each party fights for control. The most unfortunate part about this bill is that it doesn’t extend to the general elections.
The last time Texas had a special Senate election, there were 24 candidates. The time before that it was 75. Does IRV really work with that many candidates? What about in the California gubernatorial recall election?
Election administrators in Pierce County, Washington (Tacoma) indicated that the use of IRV greatly increased their costs. There is no need for partisan primaries, especially in the case of a special election. Or they could be incorporated within the special election as they are in California.
Is the matter of courtesy with one another, a function of IRV, or a function of a multi-candidate race?
The Vermont bill would have parties nominate privately, without taxpayers involved — just as NY does for its special elections. But using IRV in the one election will accommodate more choice.
Note that implementing IRV can definitely save money –depends on how it’s done. Cary (NC) saved money with is IRV elections in 2007 and Burlington (VT) saved a lot of money this year with IRV instead of a runoff.
What’s broken is that candidates can win without a majority. In fact, they can win even if a majority would consider them their last choice candidate. IRV fixes that.
There is no need for party primaries with IRV. If you are going to inflict parties on an IRV ballot, you might as well add in above-the-line voting or perhaps even proxy voting. Voters could simply hand their ballot over to a party official.
If Burlington saved money this year, it is probably because they hold mayoral elections on a triennial basis, while they elect councilors (by ward, FPTP) on an annual basis. Voter turnout was down this year, because there were no other elections on the ballot.
And it appears that the election officials are incapable of posting the councilor election results on their web page in years when there is amayoral election. Perhaps they have to lay off the IT people who handle the FPTP results, in order to pay for the handling of the STV election.
#6 If they count the last choice, while discarding “exhausted” ballots, it is an artificial majority, perhaps rewarding random choices by compulsive people.
A traditional runoff allows voters to reconsider their votes, and perhaps consider the advice of their favored candidate in the first round. If “your” candidate had been treated with discourtesy in the first round, he would be less willing to endorse one of the remaining candidates.
In a multi-candidate election using plurality voting, candidates who are ideologically close will suspect each other of splitting votes. Therefore, they demonize each other in a desperate attempt to get as many votes as possible for themselves.
With IRV, there is an incentive to appeal to voters who might give you their second choice. Understanding this, candidates are more civil to each other.
This effect has been observed in recent IRV elections; see this article for details:
http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=3978
In Burlington, Andy Montroll most likely would have won a conventional runoff if he had been the 2nd place candidate, or under IRV if he had been in 2nd place after the 4th place candidate was eliminated.
He definitely had an incentive to differentiate himself from Bob Kiss, yet at the same time, be not unnecessarily confrontational. This would be true under IRV or a conventional runoff.
And in a local election in a town with only 9000 voters, there is going to generally be more civility under any sort of election scheme. There is simply too much of a chance that a voter actually knows the candidates personally.