Avoid the agony of recounts, and more, with instant runoff

With this well-tested procedure, we might get not only better elections but also better campaigns.

By DAVID DURENBERGER

IRV is a very important pro-democracy reform, regardless of the recount issue. By combining a first round and runoff into a single … read more election, it addresses the "spoiler" problem, but also maximizes voter participation. My home city of Burlington, VT has used IRV for mayoral elections since 2006, and it works great. In the 2006 IRV election we had higher turnout, a broad choice (five candidates), without any concerns about "spoilers." An exit poll showed voters overwhelmingly preferred using IRV, and had no problems (fully 99.9% of ballots cast in the race were valid). Ultimately we need proportional representation (as adopted in Minneapolis), but IRV is a great step.
We all were hoping that the bruising and expensive race for the U.S. Senate seat would end on Election Day.

Instead, the $40 million-plus campaign continues to permeate our headlines and limit our forward momentum. The Coleman-Franken race is now in a contentious recount and is almost certainly headed to the courts from there. The recount and its aftermath will be a protracted and high-priced affair, and no matter the outcome, most voters will be left wondering if there is not a better way to express our preferences.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) would have produced an entirely different election.

Under IRV, voters rank candidates in order of preference -- 1, 2, 3 -- knowing that if their first choice doesn't place among the top finishers, their vote will continue to count. The votes cast for the least popular candidate are not "wasted" but rather are redistributed to the more popular candidates, based on the voters' second choices, until one candidate emerges with a majority of votes. It's a runoff that happens in a single election, avoiding the need for separate, costly and low-turnout second election.

How would IRV have made a difference?

To see full article:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/35018964.html