As the melodrama of the Coleman-Franken recount unfolds, much invective, hyperbole, and puzzlement is appearing in print and online. One of the "solutions" brought forth to the close vote is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). See
"Avoid the agony of recounts, and more, with instant runoffs", David Durenberger, Star Tribune, 2008-11-25
and
"Elections with less acrimony? That's the true beauty of IRV", Nick Coleman, Star Tribune, 2008-11-24
I think IRV is another magic bullet that is going to cure confusion, apathy, and the common cold. As in any system of voting, one can find scenarios in which the system will not give the desired results.
Suppose Al, Bert, and Chuck are running for dog-catcher in an IRV system. The choices of the voters are
First choice - 100(Al), 100(Burt), and 50(Chuck)
Second choice - 75(Al), 75(Burt), and 100(Chuck)
Third choice - 75(Al), 75(Burt), and 100(Chuck)
Assume further that the voters for Chuck split their votes for Al and Burt, 25 each for second choice and 25 each for third choice.
Eliminating Chuck's first place votes and distributing those voters' second choice votes, we wind up with Al and Burt each getting 125 votes each. Recount anybody?
Add to this the task of verifying that the original vote calculations were correct...
My own preference is for a blanket or jungle primary followed by as many runoffs as needed to achieve a majority vote. See "Nonpartisan Blanket Primary" and "Blanket Primary" in Wikipedia.
In Louisiana, several candidates are allowed to run under the same party label. I suggest that candidates may use a party label only if they have received the endorsement of that party.
Under "my" system, people would not "throw their votes away" by voting for the candidates they really want to be in office. Assume the polls say that Chuck would receive only 20 percent of the vote. If Al were to get 50 percent of the vote plus one, he would clearly be the winner.
If Al and Burt got 40 percent each as in the above example, then they would have a runoff without Chuck. With only two candidates in the race, it is more probable that one of them would get a clear majority. If not, we're in just as much trouble as with the IRV example.
But suppose the polls are wrong. Many voters refused to read the polls and voted as they really believed. Not knowing they "would throw their votes away" voting for Chuck, 40 percent voted for him, 35 percent voted for Al, and 25 percent voted for Burt. In the runoff the result might be as high as 65 percent for Chuck or as high as 60 percent for Al; either case would be a clear majority. Of course, we could still have a tie and ...
As usual, no human system is flawless, but I think this system is more fluid than the so-called "two-party system". Rather than having to vote for a "major" party that has lost much of its popular support and voting for it only as a vote against the other "major" party, voters can feel more free to vote for a party more to their liking. It took less than 70 years for a new party to replace a major party; at over 150 years since the last change, we are long overdue for a new party.
