USA Today Endorses Instant Runoff Voting! (fwd)

[Evan D Ravitz <evan@vote.org>]

(USA Today's editorial is below this message... Evan)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:05:43 -0500
From: Ted Glick <indpol@igc.org>

Folks:

USA Today has come out for Instant Runoff Voting!!

Thanks to Rob Richie for passing this on. Let's keep building the
Pro-Democracy Campaign; the time is right, and we can win some
victories!

Let us know if you'd like 10, 20, 50, 100 or more of the Pro-Democracy
Campaign's 4-page tabloid with the Voters' Bill of Rights and other good
information.

Ted Glick



USA Today, February 5, 2001

Spoiler-free elections

Life isn't very happy these days for the ''spoilers'' from November's
elections.

As reported by USA TODAY last week, Democrats in Congress are shunning
their old consumer-advocate comrade in arms, Ralph Nader, because he
siphoned off enough voters to cost Al Gore the election. If just a
fraction of Nader backers in Florida and New Hampshire had gone for
Gore, he would have won both states, and a majority of the Electoral
College.

While not widely reported, GOP renegade Patrick Buchanan played a
similar role. Bush lost New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin and Oregon by
margins so small that Buchanan's votes could have given him victory. If
Bush hadn't eked out a court-ordered edge in Florida, Republicans would
be denouncing Buchanan just as Democrats do Nader.

Clearly, both parties have a stake in changing the system - ideally
without making it harder for third-party and independent candidates to
get on the ballot.

Some states, notably in the South, already require runoffs between the
top two candidates if no one gets 50% of the vote in a primary or
election for state office. Many other countries elect presidents that
way. Thus whoever wins can legitimately claim to have majority support.
But second campaigns are expensive and would result in even more
special-interest money tainting the process.

Two California cities, Oakland and San Leandro, just adopted a better
way for local elections, called ''instant runoff voting.'' Under it,
voters rank the candidates 1, 2, 3 in order of preference. Voters thus
could support both a Nader and a Gore, both a Buchanan and a Bush, or
any other combination.

If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the count is
over and that candidate wins. If not, the last-place finisher is
eliminated. Ballots cast for that candidate are counted for voters' next
choice, until someone has a clear majority. Australia and Ireland have
used the system for decades.

In Alaska, instant runoff is to be on the ballot for voter approval in
2002. Similar efforts are underway in New Mexico, Vermont, Washington
and elsewhere in California.

Changing presidential elections on a nationwide basis would require a
constitutional amendment, though states could adopt such changes on
their own.

Third-party candidates ought to be able to run without being labeled
spoilers, and officeholders ought to be able to say they have the
support of a clear majority of the public. Getting there, though, will
require both major parties' support for change.

Sent via grns-gpoc
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe grns-gpoc" to majordomo@greens.org