Instant runoff system to be tested in San Francisco

[question everything]

Monday, October 18, 2004

Instant runoff system to be tested in San Francisco
By Tom Elias

For decades, local election outcomes in San Francisco have not become known until December, after a runoff that follows the November general election.

That's been time-consuming and expensive.

But not this fall. In every local race with more than two contestants, San Francisco voters will be told to name their first choice and then designate a second, third and fourth pick, depending on how many contestants are running. If no one wins over 50 percent of the vote in a race, and the first choice on some ballots is not one of the two leaders after all the votes are counted, votes will be reallocated, with those cast for folks finishing down the list now going to their second choices. If there's still no winner, third picks will be used.

It's called an "instant runoff" system, since it performs essentially the same function as a runoff election, but without the cost or delay. In the United States, this has been tried only once before -- in Ann Arbor, Mich., in 1975, when a Republican mayoral candidate got 49 percent of the vote and the Democrat 40. The eventual winner was the original second-place finisher, the second-pick of virtually all voters who first went for a leftist minor-party candidate eliminated in the first round.

More..


Find this article at:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/1108626.html

Tom Elias is author of The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It, now in an updated second edition. His e-mail address is [e-mail].

[MatrixEscape]

1. This is the system

that some have suggested as a reform idea for US voting in general. I have heard about it and it sounds rather interesting.

It looks like it is more conducive to a multi-party system.

[Martin Eden]

2. Let's hope it works, and it spreads!

I.R.V. is one of the major electoral reforms needed to improve democracy in America. John Anderson (independent 1980 presidential candidate) made a good case for it in this commentary:
http://www.fairvote.org/articles/openprocess.htm

The other needed reforms are, in my opinion:

Real campaign finance reform that ends the system of legalized bribery currently being practiced.

Eliminate the Electoral College or mandate that each state allocate its electors proportionally. The E.C. is an anachronism that doesn't serve its intended purpose. Rather, it discourages people from voting when their state is solidly red or blue, and focuses the campaigns on the swing states while largely ignoring most of the country.

Put an end to gerrymandering. Drawing the boundaries od Congressional districts on the basis of partisan advantage and protecting incumbency is a corruption of democracy and should be outlawed.

Improve and standardize the balloting process to ensure that voter intent is accurately and securely recorded.

Ensure that eligible voters are correctly registered and not disinfranchised through negligence or purges.

I'm sure there's more, but these are the main reforms I can think of that need to be implemented if "the world's leading democracy" is to live up to its name.

[Robbie67]

3. RCV (as it's called) has had a side-effect

Supervisorial candidates are appearing TOGETHER at fund raising events. This way, candidates who may oppose each other individually can link themselves together when the voter has more than one choice.