Instant Runoffs An Idea Worth Debating

April 28th, 2008 by Jake Hatlin | Posted in Election Commentary, Talking Policy |

How do you eliminate millions spent by local governments and at the same time reduce by one the number of times that voters are called to the polls? According to the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the answer to that riddle is instant runoff elections that are calculated and compiled on the spot the moment a primary election result warrants a runoff.

Under the proposed plan that is used in other parts of the nation, instead of going to the primary polls and picking just one candidate out of a crowded field, voters would rank all the candidates in a race from highest to lowest preference. This way if candidate A and candidate B qualified for a primary runoff but you put top preference on candidate C, your runoff vote would then automatically bestow to which of the two remaining candidates (A and B) you ranked higher. The end result, the ranking system calculates primary runoff votes as soon as a runoff is triggered and runoff winners are crowned on the same night as the primary election.

An interesting concept that would certainly: save county election divisions the costly hosting off runoff elections that voters sometimes turn a cold shoulder too, spare voters one less trip to the polls, and shorten campaign cycles. But as with every innovative idea, there is a double-edged sword at play, so let’s take a look at the pros and cons from the perspective of certain players entrenched in the process.

The Candidates

Candidates running in crowded party primaries will like this because not only does it reduce the time required to campaign for public office by 5 weeks, but it will also drastically cut the price, as runoffs tend to grow exponentially more expensive as the field narrows. So this would allow candidates to spend more time in front of voters and less time on the phone dialing for dollars, as well as exit from the primary campaign trail ahead of schedule.

Now, here’s why they won’t like it. If you are a candidate who qualifies for a runoff, under the instant system you will be deprived of the opportunity for voters to do a straight comparison between just you and your runoff opponent, a critical factor that could be the only way you win the popular vote.

The Lobby and Political Donors

Obviously the money men would love this system because it means that they will not be called upon in the months of March and April to open up their checkbooks for expensive runoff races. But on the flip side, if prominent donors financially back a candidate who does not qualify for the runoff, they will be deprived the opportunity to make amends with those candidates that do. Also, if their candidate comes in second on election night and then is automatically calculated to again come in second in the instant runoff, donors are denied the chance to double their efforts in the 5 week runoff and see to it that their candidate pulls through in the end.

Voters

The voting population in Texas will shine upon this idea because it counts for one less time that they have to go to the polls, which they think is already too many times. I disagree with this view because I see voting in elections as a privilege and not a burden, but alas, I am in the minority.

Forget the fact that this move would shift negative campaign tactics out of one-on-one runoffs and into crowded primaries, causing five times the mud slinging. Where voters would most oppose this move is on the grounds of change. Voters in Texas are still hesitant to use electronic ballots (and I’m not saying they should or should not be), and there are still those who refuse to employ the convenience of early voting. So consider how aphrensive voters will be when they’re asked to not bubble in one circle in a race, but instead to place a ranking on all the candidates involved.

So like I insenuated in this post’s title, instant runoffs is a good idea, but one that needs to be properly vetted first.