Talk:History and use of instant-runoff voting in the United States

Where to begin? This article blatantly POV

This article seems to have been set up by an editor in order to repost, in POV form, material that existed at Instant-runoff voting, some of which had been removed as inadequately sourced, or which has been expanded to balance it. It specializes, without sufficient cause, in my opinion, beyond History and use of instant-runoff voting. I'm not proposing deletion, because there is some good research and material here, but it is presented as almost pure promotion. So I've deleted the Category tag and I'll be removing direct reference to this article from Instant-runoff voting, at the same time as I'll make mention of this as a project on Talk page there. The material could ultimately be merged into the other History article, or, if there seems sufficient cause, become a legitimate fork. It will need sources, of course, and the POV wording and imbalance will have to be removed. --Abd (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand the reference to WP:GIANTDICK

I'm yanking the entire page content, I'll put it here in Talk, but I now suspect it *all* could be a straw man account doing this, or at least part of this, *not* a supporter of IRV. Quite likely a Range advocate making some mischief. That's informed speculation, but nevertheless speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 13:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Article content moved here.

The history and use of instant-runoff voting in the United States goes back as far as the nation's founding and encompasses almost every geographic area in the nation. Instant runoff voting has been passed by voters in at least twelve jurisdictions in the United States, including eight consecutive victories in ballot measures in 2004-2006. It truly is the best system in the universe.

Recent measures

In March 2002, an initiative backed by the FairVote passed by referendum making instant runoff voting the means of electing candidates for the Board of Supervisors and most citywide offices in San Francisco. It was first used in that city in October 2004 for YouthVOTE, an election held throughout San Francisco’s public schools which elected the SF school board's student delegate, [1] after that it was used in the November 2004 supervisoral races. Instant runoff voting played a decisive role in at least one city election in 2004, 2005 and 2006 ([2]). Exit polls [3] by San Francisco State University have shown strong support for the new system from all groupings of voters. Note: The San Francisco Department of Elections prefers the term "Ranked Choice Voting" because "the word 'instant' might create an expectation that final results will be available immediately after the polls close on election night. The Department instead chooses to wait until most absentee ballots have arrived before running instant runoff ballot counts.)

In 2002, the town of Basalt, CO passed a new charter that establishes IRV for mayoral races where at least three candidates run.

Voters in Ferndale, Michigan and Berkeley, California amended their city charters in 2004 to allow for election of the mayor and city council by instant-runoff voting. On March 1, 2005, voters in Burlington, Vermont voted to amend their city charter to use instant runoff voting, and the legislature passed a law accepting the change.

In its first use in Burlington, VT, on March 7, 2006, state representative Bob Kiss (Progressive Party) [4] was elected mayor over better financed challengers. When the first choice rankings were counted, Kiss had 39%; the next highest candidates had 31% (a Democrat) and 26% (a Republican); Kiss won in the second round of counting after the Republican and two other candidates were eliminated.

In 2006-2007, instant runoff voting had several new adoptions ([5]):

• North Carolina adopted legislation to use instant runoff voting for certain vacancy elections and to use it on a pilot basis in up to 10 cities in 2007 and 10 counties in 2008. It was used in October 2007 in Cary (NC) and in November 2007 in Hendersonville (NC).

• Pierce County, WA, population 760,000, passed instant runoff voting in November 2006 [2] for implementation for most of its county offices in November 2008; the measure was placed on the ballot by a charter commission. In November 2007, its implementation date of November 2008 was upheld by 67% of voters.

• Takoma Park, MD adopted instant runoff voting for city council and mayoral elections after an 84% win in a 2005 advisory ballot measure. It held its first IRV election to fill a city council vacancy in January 2007 and for all offices in November 2007; an exit survey [6] by FairVote after the vacancy election found the large majority of voters understood the system and wanted it used for more elections.

• Minneapolis, MN in November 2006 passed instant runoff voting with 65%. Implementation is scheduled for the November 2009 municipal elections.

• Oakland, CA voters passed a measure by 69% to 31% in November 2006 to adopt IRV for its city offices; implementation is scheduled for November 2008.

• Sarasota, FL voters passed a measure by 78% to 22% in November 2007 to adopt IRV for its city offices once the county has voting equipment certified for IRV elections.

• Aspen, CO voters passed a measure by 77% to 23% in November 2007 to adopt IRV for its city offices.

Use of IRV by U.S. schools, colleges and universities

Suggested by a recent version of Robert's Rules of Order, instant runoff voting is used in the United States for a growing number of non-governmental elections, including student elections at more than half ([7]) of the nation's 30 leading colleges and universities, as ranked by U.S. News and World Report ([8]). Schools, colleges and universities that use IRV include:

• California Institute of Technology
• Carleton College (Northfield, MN)
• College of William and Mary
• Clemson University
• Cornell University
• Duke University
• Franklin Elementary School
• Harvard
• Hendrix College
• Johns Hopkins University
• Luther College
• Macalester College
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Princeton University
• Rice University
• Reed College
• Sonoma State University
• Stanford University
• Tufts University
• University of California at Berkeley
• University of California at Davis
• University of California at Los Angeles
• University of California at San Diego
• University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
• University of Maryland
• University of Minnesota
• University of Virginia
• University of Washington
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Vassar College
• Wake Forest University
• Whitman College

Other

Instant runoff voting received increased attention in the United States during the 2000 election. Supporters of Ralph Nader who nevertheless preferred Democrat Al Gore to Republican George W. Bush found themselves caught in a dilemma. They could vote for Nader, and risk Gore losing to Bush, or, they could vote for Gore, just to make sure that Bush is defeated. It has been argued that Bush won solely due to the "spoiler effect" of Nader supporters in either Florida or in New Hampshire.{{citation}}

Notable supporters include Republican U.S. Senator John McCain, Democratic Senator Barack Obama ([9]),2004 Democratic presidential primary election candidates Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader. The system is favored by the United States Green Party and the United States Libertarian Party, as a solution to the "spoiler" effect third-party sympathizers suffer from under plurality voting (i.e., voters are forced to vote tactically to defeat the candidate they most dislike, rather than for their own preferred candidate).

In part to increase awareness of the voting method and to demonstrate it in a real-world situation, the Independence Party of Minnesota tested IRV by using it in a straw poll during the 2004 Minnesota caucuses (results favored John Edwards). Also, the Green Party of Minnesota conducts an annual poll of Minnesota State Fair attendees, where each person ranks their preferences for fair food to better understand how IRV works in a real-world situation. IRV was adopted for mayoral races in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1974 after a successful ballot initiative sponsored by the local Human Rights Party; the process was used in the 1975 mayoral election.

Proposals not yet adopted

Dozens of states ([10]) have entertained instant runoff voting legislation in recent years. For example, in 2003, an amendment to the California State Constitution was proposed (SCA 14) with wide-ranging goals of election reform, including instant runoff voting for statewide offices. In the state of Washington, activists have been urging adoption of instant runoff voting there for several years; an initiative seeking to adopt instant runoff voting in 2005 failed to garner enough signatures. The city of Vancouver, Washington voted in 1999 to adopt instant runoff voting. The state legislature enacted enabling legislation in 2004, but the city in 2006 chose not to exercise its option. Instant runoff voting has been on a statewide ballot once, in August 2002 in Alaska, where it was defeated.

in the U.S. Congress, the "Voter Choice Act of 2005" H.R.2690 sought to require the use of instant runoff voting for general elections for federal office.

See also

• Instant-runoff voting
• Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting

Merge

I made this page a redirect, pulling out one section, and the rest was either duplicated, or sufficiently represented by IRV-Hype that I wasn't comfortable moving any more. Feel free to pull content from the history as defendable. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)