Orval Osborne

Orval Osborne blogs here about religion, politics and urban planning issues. I also blog on creek-muskogee.livejournal.com. I like to figure out how things work.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

LA City Council proposes Instant Runoff Voting

http://www.newamerica.net/blogs/2007/05/five_million_for_six_percent

LOS ANGELES, CA – With barely six percent of voters coming to the polls on Election Day, Tuesday May 15, 2007 for an election that cost taxpayers $5 million to administer, the New America Foundation proposes eliminating the runoff election and instead using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to elect majority winners in a single election.

Lynne Serpe, deputy director of the New America Foundation's political reform program based in Los Angeles, says: “Los Angeles taxpayers just spent $5 million -- $40 per voter -- on an election where almost nobody bothered to show up. We CAN do better than this.”

As a solution, the New America Foundation is proposing an electoral method known as IRV. IRV allows voters to rank a first, second and third choice candidate, and the runoff rankings are used to elect a majority winner in a single election. This saves the cost and inconvenience of holding a second election. With IRV, Los Angeles could combine the primary and runoff into a single consolidated election.

Los Angeles City Council members Jose Huizar and Eric Garcetti recently introduced a motion requesting that the Chief Legislative Analyst and City Clerk report to the City Council with an analysis of Instant Runoff Voting. The motion will be considered at the June 13th meeting of the Rules & Elections Committee.

“Instant Runoff Voting is a win-win proposition for our democracy," said Councilmember Huizar. "This approach is much fairer to voters, who will only have to go to the polls once to have every vote count. At the same time, our City would save millions of dollars needlessly spent on runoff elections."

IRV is currently used in San Francisco, and in November 2007 69% of voters in Oakland passed a measure to adopt IRV. Voters in Davis and Minneapolis also recently passed IRV ballot measures. Student governments at UCLA, California Institute of Technology, Stanford, UC-Berkeley and others are using such electoral methods.

New America recently released a report on runoff elections in Los Angeles may be found on the web at www.newamerica.net/irv_la. The report found that:

* Cost to taxpayers. The City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Unified School District and the Community College District have spent over $30.9 million administering runoff elections since 1993. From 2001 to 2005 the City of Los Angeles spent $9.2 million to administer runoff elections, $4.7 million in 2005 alone as costs have escalated in recent years.

* Voter turnout. Despite the high costs, hardly anyone is bothering to vote. In addition to only 6 percent turnout for Tuesday’s election, the March 6, 2007 election had a voter turnout of barely 10% overall, with single digit turnout for LA Unified School District and LA Community College District races. Since 1997, voter turnout has declined in more than half the runoff elections for the city of Los Angeles.

* Campaign finance. Runoff elections are having a negative impact on campaign finance reform, leading to huge increases in independent expenditures. Since 1993, $7.5 million have been spent by independent expenditure committees in runoff elections, over $3 million in the 2005 mayoral race alone as political fundraising has escalated in recent years. Since 1993, $27.8 million have been donated to local candidates for their runoff campaigns, over six million dollars in 2005 alone. And the City’s partial public financing program has dispensed $8.9 million to candidates engaged in runoffs, in addition to money given to a full field of candidates in the first (primary) election.

* Environmental costs. Runoff elections also waste huge amounts of paper. For the 2005 runoff, the Voters Information Pamphlet was mailed to 1.5 million voters, a total of 20.7 million pieces of paper, and sample ballots were made available at 1,599 polling sites. A blizzard of multiple campaign mailers sent out by candidates and organizations wasted additional amounts of paper.

“The costs of running elections and political fundraising have escalated in recent years,” said Steven Hill, director of New America’s Political Reform Program. “Los Angeles could combine the primary and general election into one instant runoff election, and improve democracy as they save tax dollars. It’s a win-win solution.”

About the New America Foundation


The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, post-partisan public policy institute whose purpose is to bring exceptionally promising new voices and new ideas to the fore of our nation’s public discourse. Relying on a venture capital approach, the Foundation invests in outstanding individuals and policy solutions that transcend the conventional political spectrum. Headquartered in our nation’s capital, New America also has offices in California and New York.

For more information on New America, please visit: web site.

4 Comments:

At 5:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great to flag this issue. Instant runoff voting works well and is popular in all the places that have adopted it in recent years. Check out www.instantrunoff.com

 
At 6:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article supports the common myths that are perpetuated by IRV propaganda groups, like FairVote.org. The truth is that better and simpler methods than IRV exist - and IRV is lethal to third parties, because voting for a non-major-party candidate is statistically more likely to hurt you than help you. The world needs Range Voting or its simplified form of Approval Voting. Here's why.

Consider this hypothetical election using IRV.

% of voters - their vote
28% "Green" > Edwards > McCain
20% Edwards > "Green" > McCain
6% Edwards > McCain > "Green"
46% McCain > Edwards > "Green"

In this IRV election, Edwards is eliminated in the first round, and then McCain wins against "Green". But wait! 54% of voters prefer Edwards to McCain - and 72% prefer Edwards to "Green"! Yet Edwards loses? The Greens now slap themselves on the forehead for not strategically top-ranking Edwards, the most similar major party candidate to their true favorite.

IRV sounds initially appealing, because people picture a weak third party candidate who loses in the first round. The myth is that this takes away the fear of voting for your sincere favorite candidate, and gives third parties a fair chance to grow; but if that candidate or his party ever grows to be a contender, he is statistically more likely to hurt the party closest to his own than to win. It doesn't matter how unlikely you imagine the above scenario to be - it's still _more_ likely than the odds "Green" will win. And so third party voters will learn to strategically vote for their favorite major-party candidate. You don't have to buy my math; you can look at decades of IRV usage in Australia's house, and Ireland's presidency. Both use IRV, and have been two-party dominated. So much for the myths that IRV allows you to "vote your hopes, not your fears", and eliminates spoilers. Now we know why the Libertarian Reform Caucus calls IRV a "bullet in the foot" for third parties.

Electoral reform advocates (especially third parties!) should be demanding Range Voting - score all the candidates and elect the one with the highest average. Its simplified form, Approval Voting, is probably the most feasible to implement. It simply uses ordinary ballots, but allows us to vote for as many candidates as we like. Consider the benefits:

* Spoiler free: Whereas IRV merely _reduces_ spoilers
* Simpler to use and implement: A simple one-round summation tells us the results, whereas IRV's potential for multiple rounds can cause long delays before the final results are determined. A side-effect of Range Voting's simplicity is that it makes the necessary transition away from voting machines more feasible. IRV's complexity leads most communities implementing it to purchase expensive and fraud-conducive (electronic!) voting machines, the fraudster's best friend.
* More resistant to strategy: As we see above, IRV often strategically "forces" voters not to top-rank their sincere favorite. But with Range Voting and Approval Voting, this _never_ happens. A vote for your favorite candidate can never hurt you, or the candidate. With IRV it can hurt both.
* Decreases spoiled ballots: Since voting for more than one candidate is permissible, the number of invalid ballots experimentally goes down with Range and Approval Voting. But here in San Francisco, we saw a seven fold increase in spoiled ballots when we started using IRV.
* Greater voter satisfaction: Using extensive computer modeling of elections, a Princeton math Ph.D. named Warren D. Smith has shown that these methods lead to better average satisfaction with election results, surpassing the alternatives by a good margin. But IRV turns out to be the second _worst_ of the commonly proposed alternatives. This mean that all voters will benefit from the adoption of either of these superior voting methods, regardless of political stripe.
* Reduces the probability of ties: While they are not extremely common, they do happen. IRV statistically increases them, but Range Voting decreases them.

Get the facts at RangeVoting.org and ApprovalVoting.org

And if you're in the market for a better system of proportional representation than the antiquated STV system, check out Reweighted Range Voting and Asset Voting.

http://RangeVoting.org/RRV.html
http://RangeVoting.org/Asset.html

 
At 2:14 PM, Blogger Bob Richard said...

Blog readers will find this post by broken ladder in substantially the same form all over the internet. Range voting advocates should put more of their energy into getting it implemented and tested in real world elections, and less into attacking IRV. They act as if IRV is a bigger obstacle to changing the status quo than the status quo itself.

Meanwhile, the rest of us should keep in mind that the case for range voting rests on the premise that majority rule is a bad idea, and should be abandoned in favor of utilitarian efficiency. In a sense, that's all we need to know about it.

 
At 9:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is great info to know.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home