Maine League of Women Voters Concurrence Study Instant Runoff Voting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Maine League of Women Voters Concurrence Study Instant Runoff Voting The Maine League of Women Voters is asking its members whether or not they concur with a study done by the Minnesota League of Women Voters on Alternative Voting Systems, endorsing the use of Instant Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice Voting) as an acceptable alternative voting method. LWVME began looking at the issue of IRV four years ago and reviewed studies done by state Leagues in Minnesota, Washington, and California. Diane Russell, state legislator from Portland, gave a talk about IRV at our state convention in 2009 and Terry Bouricius, of FairVote, was a guest speaker at the Quad States workshop in May, 2010. As we move into the final phase of concurrence, LWVME will hold meetings in Portland, Brunswick, and Ellsworth to first inform members and to then ask for a vote. In addition to the information contained in this Concurrence Study, information on IRV is available on our web site at www.lwvme.org. INTRODUCTION The League of Women Voters believes that democratic government depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens. The League believes in representative government and in the individual liberties established in the Constitution of the United States. The League works to promote an open governmental system that is representative, accountable and responsive. The League of Women Voters believes that every citizen should be protected in the right to vote. The League has a history of working to improve our voting systems and believes that increased accessibility is essential to ensuring a representative electoral process and every citizen’s right to vote. For example, the struggle for the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) was long and arduous, but the League stayed the course. When President Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act in May 1993, he gave one of the pens used to sign the historic legislation to the LWVUS president Becky Cain. He saluted the League and other pivotal supporters as "fighters for freedom" in the continuing effort to expand American democracy. The "motor-voter" bill enabled thousands of citizens to apply for voter registration at motor vehicle agencies automatically, as well as by mail and at public and private agencies that service the public. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY When the 2000 election exposed the many problems facing the election system, the League leaped into action. Bringing our coalition allies together, the League worked to ensure that key reforms were part of the congressional debate. With the League's special expertise, we argued for improved voting systems and machines, securities in electronic voting machines, provisional balloting and other safeguards, and improvements in voter registration systems, poll worker training and administration. Presently, LWVUS does not have a position on alternative voting methods such as Instant Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice Voting). However, eight state Leagues (MN, SC, CA, WA, MA, VT, AZ and FL) have conducted studies or otherwise 1 adopted positions on alternative voting methods, including positions in favor of IRV. In order for LWVME to participate in the debate and advocate on this proposed change in Maine's voting system, LWVME's State Board has initiated the process of determining whether it can come to concurrence with the Minnesota state League's position on IRV. The purpose of this study is to provide background information about instant runoff voting for reference, discussion, and debate. It compares our current plurality method with IRV andincludes: descriptions of the two voting methods; benefits as described by the methods’ advocates; problems as described by critics; issues as seen by election officials, political scientists, mathematicians and political parties; and legal issues involved in changing election systems. The scope of the study is limited to single seat elections at the local or state level (such as mayor or governor). PURPOSE OF THE CONCURRENCE MEETINGS The purpose of these meetings is twofold: first, to provide an opportunity for League members to learn about the facts and issues involved in our current voting method and an alternative voting method; and secondly, to reach consensus on each of the questions being asked. From these results, the State Board will determine whether or not to concur with Minnesota’s position and whether or not to endorse IRV as an acceptable alternative voting method. SUPPLEMENTARY RESOURCE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR INFORMATION The LWVME web page at http://www.lwvme.org/IRV.html includes a list of resources and “hands-on” sample ballots. We strongly encourage local League members to visit the site and experience completing a sample ballot using the IRV voting method. If you do not have access to the Internet, please phone the League at 207-622-0256 for more information. Sample ballots will also be available at our informational IRV meetings, as well as our subsequent concurrence meetings. Alternative Voting Systems: Facts and Issues INTRODUCTION The 2000 Presidential election challenged Americans’ complacency about the accuracy and fairness of our voting system as never before. With the outcome still in doubt three weeks after Election Day, the combination of a close race, multiple candidates, antiquated voting equipment, and confusing recount procedures created a perfect storm that left voters across the country frustrated and angry. For the first time in many years, some started to question seriously the fundamental structure of a winner-take-all plurality election system. When only two major party candidates are on the ballot in an election using the plurality system, majority rule is not a concern. However, when three or more candidates are running, the winner might not have received a majority of the votes. 2 VOTING SYSTEMS PLURALITY: AN UNRANKED VOTING SYSTEM Maine uses the Plurality system in which each voter chooses a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins. In races with three or more candidates, it is possible for a candidate to win with fewer than 50% of the votes; in other words, the winner can be elected by a minority of the voters. Recent examples of this include Maine’s 2006 gubernatorial election where John Baldacci was re-elected with just 38% of the vote and the 2010 gubernatorial election where Paul LePage also won with only 38% of the vote. The Plurality system originated in ancient Greece and Rome and evolved in England before the American Revolution. Outside the United States, the Plurality system is used in the United Kingdom and other former British colonies, such as Canada and India.1 Although the U.S. Constitution sets out a complicated process for electing the president via the Electoral College which requires a majority vote of electors, it permits the states to determine their own election procedures for electors and for other federal and state offices.2 The Maine Constitution and state statutes, therefore, not the U.S. Constitution, dictate how elections in Maine are conducted for presidential electors, for U.S. Congress, for governor, and for the Maine State Legislature. Any changes to our existing Plurality system might require modifying the Maine Constitution and/or these statutes. The section on legal issues later in this document discusses these statutes. INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING (IRV): A RANKED VOTING SYSTEM In Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters rank the candidates on the ballot, marking their first, second, and third choices, depending on how many candidates are in the race; however, a voter does not have to vote for more than one candidate. In round one, the first-choice votes are counted. If a candidate gets 50% + 1 of the votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no one has a majority, the counting goes to round two. The candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The votes cast for the eliminated candidate are then transferred (or moved) to the second choice listed on each ballot. If someone gets a majority, the election is over. If no one receives a majority, the counting goes to round three. All ballots are retallied, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter’s highest ranked candidate who has not been eliminated. This process of elimination and retabulation is continued until a majority winner is found. That majority winner will have been ranked by 50%+1 of the voters who ranked at least one non- eliminated candidate. There is no need for a separate runoff election, thus explaining the term Instant Runoff Voting.3 1 J. O’Connor and E. F. Robertson, “The History of Voting,” School of Mathematics and Statistics. University of St. Andrews, Scotland, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Indexes/ Hist_Topics_alph.html 2 U. S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1. “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. .” 3 “A Simple Guide to Instant Runoff Voting.” What Is IRV? http://www.lwvpasadenaarea.org/irv.html 3 A simple example illustrates how IRV works. One hundred citizens are voting for the most architecturally unique city hall in Maine. The candidates are Portland City Hall, Augusta City Hall, and Bangor City Hall. Round One City Halls First Choice Second Choice Portland 41 6 for Augusta 35 for Bangor Augusta 40 10 for Bangor 30 for Portland Bangor 19 15 for Portland 4 for Augusta No courthouse has a majority, so the election goes to the next round. The lowest vote- getter, Bangor, is eliminated, and the 19 votes are redistributed—15 for Portland and 4 for Augusta. Round Two City Halls First Choice Second Choice Portland 41+15 6 for Augusta 35 for Bangor Augusta 40+ 4 10 for Bangor 30 for Portland Bangor 19 15 for Portland 4 for Augusta Now Portland has 41 + 15 votes or 56, and Augusta has 40 + 4 or 44.