1. Exploring Instant Run Off Voting 

Seventy percent of Memphis voters recently approved a voting process known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Not only is the process deemed to be fairer and more efficient, but an annual $250,000 savings from eliminating run-off elections was estimated. Perhaps even more importantly, IRV has the potential to break the back of polarized politics and to ensure America elects candidates who forge consensus with a majority of voters.

Describing how IRV works would take this space several times over, so the reader is invited to look at the web site of the leading proponent of IRV, www.FairVote.org, for the details. What follows is our interview with Rob Richie, the Executive Director.

Bradley: How did you discover IRV and get FairVote started?

Richie: One of our board members is John Anderson, who ran unsuccessfully as a third party candidate for President in 1980. Ross Perot’s campaign in 1992 brought back all the memories of John’s campaign difficulties. Many voters only consider a candidate viable if the candidate seems capable of getting 50% of the vote. That means a lot of candidates with good ideas never get heard. IRV has been in use for a long time in other countries like Australia and we began to imagine what it would be like if we had IRV here.

Bradley: I’ve often wondered myself what would have happened if we had had IRV in 1992. To what degree were you involved in the recent approval of IRV in Memphis?

Richie: We provided technical support, as we will for any municipality or group interested in getting IRV approved. We have explanatory materials already prepared that simply need reproduction. The key to success is having a local passionate advocate to promote the proposal.

Bradley: I would like your opinion of my perception of the impact of IRV on the political process. IRV seems to offer the ability to bring almost a scientific experiment approach to our politics. In science, you run an experiment with some factors as constants and some as variables. Using variables enables you to find the combination giving you the optimal result you want. In politics, you’re looking for the right combination of policies to win an election. I see IRV as a purifying process enabling development of alternate policies or combination of policies because more parties have a legitimate chance to win. How do you view that assessment?

Richie: Give me an example of what you mean by variables.

Bradley: A July 2007 USA Today poll said 43% of the respondents were so disgusted by both Democrats and Republicans they call themselves Independents. There must be specific issues that keep those voters from wanting to affiliate with either Democrats or Republicans. What if a third party were to come along and offer policies on those issues satisfying those Independents coupled with a system eliminating the spoiler scenario?

Richie: That’s an interesting perspective. Advocates of IRV voting measures typically have been more focused on the efficiency in the process and the savings to be had (particularly at a local level) by eliminating formal run-off elections. But, as you say, the current system does force voters into a lesser of two evils scenario and that scenario does keep third parties from gaining traction. For example, the Libertarian Party got a very small percentage of the vote this time despite Ron Paul’s success in the primaries. So, yes, this system would enable the elimination of the spoiler scenario and let third parties who have something to say voters should hear gain traction much easier than they can now. We need a politics that allows credible candidate to anticipate problems, not just react to them – and an electoral system like instant runoff voting that accommodates and indeed embraces that wide voter choice.

Bradley: I’m very much an advocate of what you’re doing. Is there anything else you would like to comment on or that I could help you with?

Richie: Actually, yes. We have always been intrigued by Nebraska and its single house legislature. If I’m not mistaken, candidates run for those positions as non-partisans, yet you have a primary election to determine the top candidates early in the year and then a runoff election in conjunction with the general election in November.  Because of that, we have always thought the Instant Runoff process would be a natural for your state.

Bradley: That’s a great thought. I’ll be happy to look into it and report back to you. That could be a significant savings for Nebraska and the candidates. Thanks for taking the time to speak with me.

Richie: My pleasure.

Author’s note: Mr. Richie provided the contact information for the leader of the IRV initiative in Memphis. An interview with that person will be featured in a future column.

2. Congress in a Glass House

The Concord Coalition’s Robert Bixby recently published an OpEd in the Washington Post about the interactions of the Congress and the Auto Industry’s “Big Three” or “Detroit Three”, if you prefer. Bixby rightly points out the hypocrisy of the Congress scolding the automakers for financial mismanagement. (Remember that scene in Casa Blanca when the police shut down Rick’s Place? Rick: Why are you shutting me down? Police: I’m shocked, just shocked to find out there’s gambling going on here! Waiter: (Approaches Police with Money) Here’s your winnings, sir. Police: Oh, thank you very much. (Pockets money, turns and walks out).) Bixby writes,
“Pelosi and Reid declared that the American people "deserve to see a plan that is accountable to taxpayers and that is viable for the long-term," with "significant sacrifices and major changes to [the automakers'] way of doing business."
These sound conditions should be applied to the federal budget as well. Unfortunately, though, there is no special guardian of future generations to make such demands. That job belongs to our elected leaders. They, too, must demonstrate significant sacrifices and major changes to their way of doing business. After all, they share responsibility for the nation's future just as the Big Three executives share responsibility for the future of the auto industry. “

Read the full article at this link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR2008120302891.html