Instant Runoff Voting Unanimously Declared Constitutional By Appellate Court

http://www.theninthcircuit.com/2011/05/23/ninth-circuit-upholds-three-candidate-irv-election-system/

This is great news! Ranked voting is clearly constitutional and this decision should encourage more jurisdictions to start using it, especially as a remedy (or preventative measure) for alleged CVRA (California Voting Rights Act) violations!

Response To Anti-IRV Article Regarding Hawaii

Here is my response to Rebecca Mercuri's article about IRV in Hawaii:

There is nothing shocking or controversial about instant runoff voting (IRV). It simply means using a ranked ballot so it can be determined who would win a runoff election without having to conduct a second election.

The author is aware of the organization FairVote (http://www.fairvote.org/), so I'm surprised that she makes several errors in her statements about ranked voting.

For example:

(1) The author's concerns about electronic voting are legitimate. However, a person can be against electronic voting and still support IRV. Ranked voting does not require a computer, and even if a computer is used, the election results can be manually verified by a hand count of the ballots.

(2) IRV is not the same as "proportional representation" (PR). It is true that one method of PR involves ranked ballots, like IRV, however, IRV is used to elect one winner (e.g., in single-member districts), whereas PR is used to elect multiple winners (e.g., in multi-member districts or an at-large city council election).

Let's hope that Governor Abercrombie does NOT veto this bill.

And The Oscar Goes To... Ranked Voting!

Did you know that the Academy Awards chooses its Oscar winners through ranked voting?

Here's what I posted at the "Governing Califoria" blog:

Ranked Voting is not complicated. Instead of eliminating everyone but the top two vote-getters (which is crude, clumsy, and unfair!), it works like a series of runoffs, in which one candidate is eliminated at a time. 99.8% of Oakland voters cast a valid ballot for mayor. So when we talk about an increase in the percentage of invalid ballots under this new method, we are talking about going from a fraction of a percent to a slightly higher fraction of a percent. Not alarming at all.

It is misleading to say that under the old method, Oakland mayors always had a majority support. Of course one candidate will always receive more than 50% of the votes if you FORCE the voters to chose between only two remaining candidates by eliminating all others with one swift chop of the axe. Such a "majority" is really an artificially-created majority.

Furthermore, having two separate elections (primary and run-off) consistently results in a low voter turn out at either the primary election or the run-off election. In fact, voter turn out is frequently less than 50% in one of the elections compared to the other. So in an election where half as many voters show up to vote in the run-off, how can any winner be declared to have "majority support"?

One can just as easily make the argument that having two separate elections (instead of one) disenfranchises the under-privileged/disadvantaged communities.

IRV Is Not Complicated

Is instant runoff voting (IRV) really more complicated than the way we vote now? Take a look at this graphic and then decide for yourself:

http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2011/01/17/how-complicated-is-the-alternative-vote/

(NOTE: "Alternative Vote" is what they call IRV in England.)

The Cambridge Solution

Here is an e-mail I wrote today to a reporter who works for the Visalia Times-Delta/Tulare Advance-Register newspaper...

Hello,

I noticed that you reported on a lawsuit attempting to force the City of Tulare to change its election methods to district-based elections. I would like to inform you of an alternative solution for the city: a voting method known as "Proportional Representation" (PR). Proportional Representation is the voting method used by the City of Cambridge (Massachusetts) to elect its city council. It is an election method in which elections are conducted at-large, but with a vote-transfer process which ensures that minority groups elect their proportionate share of representatives.

If the City of Tulare implements Proportional Representation, it can continue conducting its elections at-large AND eliminate the grounds for the lawsuit, thus causing the lawsuit to be quickly resolved and potentially saving the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.

I would like to assist with and/or contribute to an article explaining "The Cambridge Solution" to the readers of the Times-Delta/Advance-Register.

Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail.

-----
Ryan Dunning
San Joaquin Valley Coordinator of Californians for Electoral Reform