"Election Day is long gone for most Americans, but in Louisiana, campaigning is reaching a fever pitch as voters prepare to trudge back to the polls Dec. 7 for a runoff election. Incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, denied a majority of the vote in a field of nine on Nov. 5, faces the No. 2 vote-getter, Republican Suzanne Haik Terrell, in a new election that's costing millions of dollars more and luring President Bush back for a campaign visit Tuesday.

Unknown in much of the country, runoffs are used by Louisiana, eight other states -- from Texas to North Carolina -- and scores of cities. The idea is to make sure winners garner more than half the vote for public offices, an important goal that prevents fringe candidates from winning with a small minority of ballots in a crowded field.

But the system is needlessly costly -- a $3 million tab for taxpayers in Alabama's runoff primaries alone this year. It sends candidates and their backers into a renewed frenzy of fundraising. And turnout frequently plummets from the earlier election.

There is a better way: instant runoffs. Instead of voting for just one candidate, voters rank their preferences for candidates from first to last. If no one receives a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and the second choices from those ballots are added to the totals for the remaining candidates. The process continues until one candidate emerges with a majority. Ireland and Australia have used the system in national elections, and it has been adopted in parts of Great Britain.

Now, the idea is starting to catch on in the USA. Louisiana residents who vote from overseas by absentee ballot already have that option. San Francisco will start using instant runoffs next year and several other municipalities, largely in the West, are preparing to go the same route.

In Vermont and New Mexico, support for the idea is growing in response to significant third-party movements that raise the prospect of candidates regularly winning state offices with less than majority support. Several local non-binding votes in Massachusetts this year also showed support for the idea because of growing concern about candidates winning primaries and general elections with slim percentages.

Critics say ranking candidates violates the principle of "one man, one vote," an argument that spurred voters in Alaska to reject the system this year. But the courts disagree. Though the goal of ensuring that the "least objectionable" candidate wins might not always be achieved, that's less a worry than the risks of highly undemocratic minority representation under the current system.

Candidates aren't the only immediate winners from instant runoffs. The idea also saves money, spares voters the need to return to the polls, and improves the chances that the wishes of a majority are truly heard."

- Editorial, "Election Day replay Poses avoidable problems," 11/18/02

USA Today

"If the Instant-Runoff system begins to take hold, the impact on America's political culture could be profound. It would encourage civility, discourage fratricidal negative campaigning, prevent the election of candidates strongly opposed by majorities, and broaden the range of candidates while eliminating the third-party spoiler phenomenon. The two big parties would retain their primacy, but no one can say which would benefit. The only sure winners would be the voters."

- Hendrik Hertzberg, in "The Talk of the Town," 3/25/02 The New Yorker

"Plurality voting is a strong reason why third parties and independent candidates so seldom win and why the two-party system is so entrenched in American politics. It explains why duly elected mayors, governors and presidents so often have to govern without an official, or a least a truly sympathetic majority, and why so many Americans resent what they believe is the necessity to cast a 'strategic' though insincere vote rather than one for a candidate they truly support. ...The problems posed by plurality voting could be resolved, and far more democratic election results obtained, by a change...to 'Instant Runoff Voting.'"

- Tom Wicker, "Instant Runoff Voting: A new Way to Vote. Voting Doesn't Have to Be Either-Or," 9/26/00 TomPaine.commonsense, A Public Interest Journal (on the web).

Tom Wicker is the retired Op/Ed writer for The New York Times.

"Ralph Nader still hasn't lived down the charge that his third-party candidacy in 2000 swung the election to George W. Bush. It's the perennial problem for third-party candidates: too often they serve merely as spoilers, siphoning votes from candidates their supporters might otherwise back. But a little-noticed proposition approved last month by San Francisco voters offers a glimpse of how democracy may look in the future. Instead of casting their ballots for just one candidate, San Franciscans will now rank the candidates in most local races according to their first, second and third choices. If no candidate gets more than 50%, the last-place finisher is dropped, and his or her second-place votes are allocated among the remaining candidates. The process is repeated until one candidate eventually reaches a majority. ...The system is being tried only in local elections for now. But if it works, it could spread to national contests - even someday, perhaps, to the presidential election."

- Karen Tumulty, "Making Second-Place Votes Count," 4/15/02 Time Magazine

"A good idea being touted by several of Minnesota's "third" parties is still a good idea, even though those parties failed to score any world-shocking victories in last week's election. The idea is "instant runoff voting," a vote-by-number system that is particularly well suited to multi-candidate elections...

...If instant runoff voting would have produced the same result in this year's governor's race, why try it? Here's why: Candidates must appeal to a majority of voters to win. A plurality isn't good enough. Speaking to and for only a narrow base of voters won't cut it. Candidates in two-way races have always known as much. That knowledge is behind the politicians' two-step that is so familiar to American voters - move toward one's ideological base to be nominated, move away from it to be elected. That's not a cynical dance; it's a necessary and important one. The majority-wins requirement of two-party politics has served this country well, producing governments of pragmatism and moderation.When two parties give way to three or more, as has happened in Minnesota, a majority vote is no longer needed to win. Neither is majority appeal. The assent of a little more than one-third of those voting was sufficient to elect the current governor. It's not hard to imagine a future election that might be won with the votes of an even smaller slice of the electorate....

...This state's tradition of political ferment is too well established, and voters' desire for wider choice too evident, for those whose ideas lie outside the two-party mainstream to fall silent. The inspiration they can draw from Independence Gov. Jesse Ventura's 1998 victory will long outlast his tenure as governor. Rather than trying to stifle third parties, the Legislature would do well to adjust state election law so that multiparty politics can be practiced without sacrificing the benefits of majority rule. Instant runoff voting would nicely serve that goal.

- Editorial, "Instant Runoff Voting; It's a Better Way to Vote," 11/12/02 Minneapolis Star-Tribune

"...If Bush hadn't eked out a court-ordered edge in Florida, Republicans would be denouncing Buchanan just as Democrats do Nader (for small margins of victory for Gore in New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin and Oregon). ...Two California cities, Oakland and San Leandro, just adopted a better way for local elections, called 'Instant Runoff Voting.' Under it, voters rank the candidates 1,2,3 in order of preference. Voters thus could support both a Nader and a Gore, both a Buchanan and a Bush, or any other combination. ...Third-party candidates ought to be able to run without being labeled spoilers, and officeholders ought to be able to say they have the support of a clear majority of the public."

- Editorial, "Spoiler-free elections," 2/5/01 USA TODAY

"The League of Women Voters believes that the majority of voters should directly elect their leaders. ...The simplest solution is to adopt a voting reform called 'Instant Runoff Voting."

- Marge Gaskins, President of The League of Women Voters of Vermont,

"Instant runoff presents fair solution for voters," 2/28/02 The Burlington Free Press.

"There is no way a winner of an election by plurality can achieve the legitimacy of majority support when the numbers just aren't there... But a plurality candidate can show he or she is the most representative of all the voters if we have Instant Runoff Voting."

- Goverman, George and David R. Leslie, "A fairer system for voters," 9/1/98 The Boston Globe

"An offbeat but common-sense and beneficial election reform idea is spreading across the country: 'Instant Runoff Voting' or IRV. ... "'Instant Runoff Voting' means 'the majority rules' and 'every vote counts.'"

- Editorial Board, "Majority Would Really Rule," 3/25/02 South Florida Sun-Sentinel

"Yet again, Illinois has a Democratic candidate for governor who cannot even claim the support of more than 40 percent of his party. ...Our voting system allows the vast majority of party members to split their vote between two or more candidates, allowing someone with a small percentage of the vote to win. And a voter who likes one of the less-popular candidates feels compelled to vote for one of the likely winners instead. Isn't there a better way to decide who should represent each party in the November elections?

There is: Instant Runoff Voting."

- Editorial, "Instant Runoff Voting Needed," 3/28/02 Chicago Sun-Times

"Studies show that the major reason voter turnout has declined is the lack of choices on the ballot. This is particularly the case now that more Americans identify themselves as 'independents' than as either Democrats or Republicans. The experience of other countries suggests that voter turnout will rise as choices increase. An this, in turn, would lead to more serious and credible candidates running as independents. ...Changing our electoral system to Instant Runoff Voting could also reduce the bitter polarization that tends to turn American elections into civil wars. Under winner-take-all, it's in the interest of a candidate to vilify all his or her opponents in the hope of eking out a bare plurality, if not a slight majority. By contrast, in an instant runoff system, candidates have a built-in incentive to appeal to supporters of rival candidates rather than alienate them."

- Halstead, Ted and Michael Lind, "How the Majority Can Rule," 3/19/02 The Washington Post

NYS-IRV www.nysirv. org April, 2003