2. City Elections in Portland Majority Voting with Ranked Choice Voting (“Instant Runoff Voting”) January 14, 2010 Rob Richie Executive Director, FairVote www.fairvote.org

3. FairVote (www.fairvote.org)  Researches, develops and promotes innovative electoral reform policies such as universal voter registration and National Popular Vote plan  Board includes former presidential candidate John B. Anderson, New Yorker essayist Hendrik Hertzberg and civil rights leader Edward Hailes  Non-partisan and non-profit, but reform advocates  Widely recognized as a leading national resource on ranked choice voting systems

4. Tonight’s Presentation  Short review of voting methods  Ranked choice voting in one-seat elections (“instant runoff voting”) What it is and where used/adopted How it fares with criteria Election administration options Your questions and concerns

5. Ranked Choice Voting: Overview  What is ranked choice voting  Comparison with two-round runoff elections that are designed to achieve majority winners  Comparison with plurality voting that allows election of candidate who would lost to every other candidate one-on-one

6. What Is Ranked Choice Voting The ranked choice ballot: Used nationally in Australia and Ireland, in growing number of U.S. cities and private elections: Voters rank 1, 2, 3 The threshold:When electing one seat, typically requires a majority among top finishers to win The count: Eliminate weak candidates. Count those voters’ ballots for next choices until majority winner Has earned support of John McCain, Barack Obama, several state League of Women Voters. Robert’s Rules of Order recommends for mail elections.

7. Growing Use of RCV in United States Strong record on City Ballots, 2004-2009: 15 wins and 4 losses. Average victory share by more than two to one. Currently used: San Francisco (CA), Burlington (VT), Minneapolis (MN), Takoma Park (MD), Aspen (CO), Hendersonville (NC), and, upcoming, in 2010 in Berkeley & Oakland (CA) and 2011 in Memphis (TN). Overseas voters in Arkansas, So. Carolina, Louisiana State legislation: 2006 and 2008 laws in North Carolina to establish pilots in cities and counties. 2008 law in Colorado to encourage pilots and expand where legal. 2008 Vermont bill use IRV for Congress was vetoed.

8. Use of RCV Abroad & Private Elections International: Australian House of Representatives (nine decades), Irish president (seven decades), Sri Lankan president, Papua New Guinea parliament, London mayor, proposed UK referendum for House of Commons Organizations: Oscars for best picture, more than 55 U.S campuses, Utah Republican party in county elections, numerous major associations (including American Political Science Association League of Women Voters: Studied and supported in such states as CA, WA, OR, MN, FL, NC, SC, MA, WA, VT

9. How Traditional RCV Works Declare a winner No majority Eliminate lowest candidate Retally Ballots Is there a majority winner? Yes No Tally All Ballots Voters Rank Their Choices

10. How “Top Two” RCV Works Declare a winner Eliminate all but top 2 candidates Declare winner Is there a majority winner? Yes No Tally All Ballots Voters Rank Their Choices Tally All Ballots

11. What RCV is Not: “Bucklin” Voting In Bucklin voting (named after CO-based inventor), voters can indicate a 2 nd choice. If no majority winner, all 2 nd choices are added to all 1 st choices. System was used a century ago in major Colorado cities like Denver and used for several major statewide primaries in the South. Voters increasingly chose not to rank 2 nd choices because that ranking counted against 1 st choice. In one hotly contested Alabama gubernatorial race, nearly 90% of voters did not indicate a 2 nd choice.

12. RCV Ballots  The voter is presented with a list of all candidates and has option to rank them  The voter may choose to give just a first choice instead of ranking choices.

13. An Example of Why RCV Matters  Contrasting majority rule when 2 candidates run and more than 2 candidates run

14. Plurality: Two Candidates Winner Candidate A 55% Candidate B 45% Loser

15. Plurality: Three Candidates Winner But majority prefer A over B Siphons-off more votes from A than B

16. What Happens if Plurality? If Candidate A were running only against Candidate B, A would win: 55% to 45% But with Candidate C, with similar views to A, Candidate B now wins by 7% The so-called “Spoiler Problem”: History in presidential and gubernatorial elections

17. Plurality Voting in in Portland, 2004 - 2009 2004 Portland Water District Trustee winner: Connolly 34.21% 4-way race 2004 City Council District 3 winner: Donna Carr 38.67% 5-way race 2005 School Committee At Large winner: Susan Hopkins 38.06% 3-way race 2005 City Council At Large winner: Ed Suslovic 47.13% 3-way race

18. Plurality Voting in Portland (continued) 2006 City Council District 1 winner: Kevin Donoghue 47.26% 3-way race 2006 City Council District 2 winner: David Marshall 45.38% 3-way race 2007 City Council District 3 winner: Dan Skolnik 33.49% 4-way race 2008 City Council At Large winner: Dory Waxman 41.32% 3-way race

19. RCV in Practice: San Francisco  2004 Election: Seven city council races Majority winners identified despite big fields Studies show all racial and ethnic groups handle IRV effectively – very low error rates Exit polls show only 14% prefer old runoffs  2005 Election: Three citywide offices Valid ballots in most contested race: 99.6% Turnout 3 times higher than in old runoffs  RCV Elections in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

20. RCV in Practice: Burlington (VT), 2006 Mayoral Election Five candidates in open seat race First place finisher leads with 39% of first choices, then wins in instant runoff Valid ballots: 99.9%. Lowest-income ward: Of 1200 ballots, only 2 invalid. 93% rank 1 of top 2 candidates RCV preferred to runoffs by 4 to 1 in poll Low cost of implementation on the same voting machines now used in Portland

22. IRV in Practice: Burlington (VT), 2009 Five mayoral candidates with incumbent First place finisher leads with 33% of first choices, then loses in instant runoff to incumbent mayor who has 29% of first choices Valid ballots: 99.99% (one error) Somewhat higher cost of implementation due to decision to use second ballot paper Campaign praised for respectful nature and winner outspent by three opponents More controversy over result leads to repeal drive

23. RCV in Cary (NC), 2007 Top Two RCV used for race for mayor and city council in pilot use County reports saved money over runoffs in very first use of RCV - central handcount method One race went to RCV tally: narrowly won by candidate ahead in first choices Exit poll survey in 2007 and city survey in 2008 ound overwhelming support for RCV over runoffs Absolute majority gave rating of “9” on scale of 1 to 9 By ten to one margin, voters said 7-9 over 1-3

24. RCV in Minneapolis, 2009 Used for mayor, 13 city council races and other down-ballot offices Quiet election year in general – low turnout, but smaller decline than neighboring St. Paul Only a single defective first choice in whole election St. Cloud University Survey 65% said they believe RCV should be used in the future Only 3% of voters said they didn’t understand RCV

25. RCV vs. Traditional Runoffs  Instant runoff voting can determine a majority winner in one election. As a result, IRV: saves money after initial implementation costs eliminates hassle for voters and administrators maximizes voter turnout in decisive election reduces money in politics

26. RCV vs. Plurality Voting  Protects majority rule when more than two candidates seek a one-winner office  Addresses controversy of “spoilers” leading to election of candidates opposed by majority  Tends to reduce mud-slinging campaigns among certain candidates pursuing the same voters  Adds burdens to election officials

27. Implementation Options Two-machine option (as proposed) Central handcount option (as done in Cary, NC in 2007) Central machine count option (as proposed in NC in 2009) Central “private vendor” option (as done in Aspen, CO in 2009)

28. RCV & Election Criteria  Provides voters with real choices / Addresses spoiler effect / Minimizes wasted votes? – Yes (qualified)  Is simple/easy for voters to understand and easy for government to administer – Yes (qualified)  Increases voter turnout/participation? – Yes (qualified)  Fair representation of those in minority? – No impact

29. RCV & Election Criteria (page 2)  Positive/high quality campaigning – Yes (qualified)  Resists voter fraud/manipulation – Yes (qualified)  Balanced gender and ethnic representation – No Impact  Balanced geographic /cultural representation – No Impact

30. Who’s Opposing RCV Some election integrity advocates who believe it will promote touchscreens Some advocates of other single winner voting method reforms Some unhappy partisans in communities considering/using RCV Some election officials concerned about implementation questions

31. Your questions?

32. Choice Voting in At-large Districts  Used in Ireland & all Scottish cities  In Model City charter of National Civic League as option  Use since 1941 in Cambridge (MA)  Its American history

33. FairVote Rob Richie RR@fairvote.org (301) 270-4616 www.fairvote.org