Presidential Elections and Majority Rule by Edward B. Foley

Author:Edward B. Foley
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Published: 2019-03-20T16:00:00+00:00

Instant Runoff Voting

There are strong reasons why a state might prefer not to adopt a two-round system as its way to comply with the majority-rule requirement. First, there is the considerable public expense of holding two rounds of voting, rather than just one. Second, there are also the additional costs of campaigning that the candidates would have during the time between the two rounds (costs the candidates would need to defray with additional fundraising). Third, and arguably even more significant from the perspective of operating a fair democracy, there is the greater burden on voters of having to cast two ballots rather than just one.

This burden is often reflected in lower turnout rates in runoffs or sometimes in the initial round of voting in a two-round system.16 Invariably, the electorate is never exactly the same in both rounds of a two-round system, and thus the majority of voters who elect the winning candidate in the second round is not necessarily a majority of the voters who cast first-round ballots. While this fact does not deprive the winner of the second round of being the choice of a majority who cast second-round ballots, it is a reason for combining both rounds into a single ballot.

Instant runoff voting is an electoral mechanism that permits just what its name suggests. It conducts whatever runoff is necessary “instantaneously” by enabling states to hold the first and second rounds of a two-round system at the same time. Often called ranked-choice voting, this system gives voters ballots that enable them to rank the candidates in order of preference. For reasons we shall shortly explore, it would be more accurate to call instant runoff voting a species, or subcategory, of ranked-choice voting.

In any event, as with any voting system that uses ranked-choice ballots, instant runoff voting can be structured so that voters are not obligated to rank candidates if they would prefer to vote only for one. Rather, the system can simply permit—not require—voters to rank candidates if they wish. Moreover, to simplify the ranking process in an election with many candidates, the system can limit the option of ranking to just a subset of candidates, for example just a voter’s top three choices from the entire field.17

Some have expressed a concern that giving voters the option of ranking candidates would be too confusing for some voters.18 But many have observed that this option would be no more difficult than inviting voters to identify their top three flavors of ice cream among the varieties offered at their local ice cream parlor.19 The acclaimed children’s author and cartoonist Sandra Boyton even produced an illustration showing how easily kids could rank their favorite animals among the choices of duck, hippo, tiger, rabbit, and pig (see Figure 7.1).20 In any event, ranked-choice voting is currently experiencing an insurgence of interest, with its recent adoption statewide in Maine, as well as its use in many municipalities nationwide, including San Francisco and Santa Fe. Voters who recently cast ranked-choice ballots expressed favorable views of the system in general.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.