The Lottery

The voters of Burlington narrowly voted to repeal their four year old experiment with instant runoff voting.  As I tweeted earlier, I find that disappointing (though not entirely surprising).

Some people complained that the system didn't work as advertised or is patently unfair.  I disagree with both of those charges.

I think pretty much every objection to IRV really stems from a cultural experience we have in the US.  In the rest of the world it seems to have more acceptance, perhaps because voters elsewhere aren't trapped by the hegemony of a two-party system and are used to things like proportional representation in parliamentary systems.  Here we expect binary choices, whether it be ballot initiatives like the one that got rid of IRV yesterday or tossing a coin between the Democrat and Republican.

In the last two mayoral contests IRV did precisely what it was supposed to, but voters weren't really prepared for how the mechanism cranks through a multiparty ballot.  Really, the results aren't all that unexpected: the socialist candidate wins in a town that has consistently elected such people? 

It's just that the process is unfamiliar and perhaps a bit more complicated than our usual one-off ballot schemes.  So much like with global climate change denial or charges that NASA faked the moon landings, there's enough "weirdness" for people to latch onto that flies in the face of their experience and thus they can be easily convinced they've somehow been sold a bill of goods.

Seems like the 2005 election was cool for people, but 2009 freaked them.  The eventual winner was in 2nd place after the initial round (nobody ever comes back in a second traditional runoff, of course), beating out the "leading" Republican and a Democrat who polled better than either them in head-to-head matchups (which accurately reflect a multiparty IRV election, right?), so clearly this system is bogus (I'm not sure that's a strawman).  Whatever.

There was enough concern by voters, mostly in the conservative/Republican wards, that the city has returned to its old system.  Now if a candidate gets 40% of the vote, they win--otherwise there's a runoff between the top two vote getters.  Yeah, sounds like majority rule to me!

That seems weird because we do have a general distaste for plurality.  In our state we require a majority for the Governor to be elected, lest the decision reside with the Vermont House of Representatives (Dean narrowly won post-civil unions against two opponents). 

And remember how some people called Clinton illegitimate because he didn't win 50% of the popular vote in a 3-way race (his large Electoral College majority notwithstanding)?  The US Constitution requires a majority of Electoral Votes to select a President, not just getting more than the other candidates, otherwise there's an almost-instant runoff in the US House right after the ballots are counted.

So it's not like we're against the idea of multiple rounds in an electoral process.  But for some reason a goodly number of folks don't trust an approach that has it all happen at once instead of requiring more campaigning and another expensive election wherein fewer voters turn out.  From where I sit, going into overtime seems more clunky and unfair than getting it all done with on election day.

If I'm not mistaken, most distaste for IRV comes from Democrats and Republicans.  Makes sense because this does threaten the established order.

But let's think about this from an outside, alternative vote perspective, which in the end could help the two dominant parties.  If I'm not all that happy with the Dems' nominee because he's not progressive enough or whatnot, maybe I'd prefer to vote for the Green.  But I'm stuck in something akin to the Prisoner's Dilemma. 

Should I fear enabling a Republican's victory, my absolute last choice even after Satan himself, because I've diverted a vote away from my second choice, I have to gamble and either make a protest vote that could have unintended consequences or just throw my lot in yet again with "lesser evil".  And speaking of gambling, here's my buddy Thoreau for the eleventy millionth time:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance...

I leave less to chance when I can provide more information about my preferences.  This frees me to cast a ballot more consistent with my conscience because I can indicate not only my first choice but also what I'd rather see as an outcome should the question still be up in the air when the majority's positive will is not yet fully expressed.

Thus in 2008, I might have felt more empowered to work for McKinney's campaign to get as many 1st choice votes as possible, vote for her myself and then put Obama down for 2nd.  In 2000, of course, Green voters could still have voted Nader without necessarily throwing Florida's Electoral Votes to Bush. 

I suspect if more people took a risk on non-duopoly candidates in an IRV environment, independents and alternative parties could make a better showing for public financing, inclusion in debates, and even win significantly greater than a couple hundred offices out of tens of thousands in the US.  That would lay the ultimate foundation for more choice at all levels of government, making it more representative of our diverse constituencies.

So yes, I lament Burlington's capricious decision to regress to the plurality threshold.  No democratic process is going to perfectly reflect the desires of the electorate, but a system that allows for more nuance better approximates the collective will.  This is a little setback for statewide and nationwide electoral reform--it would be nice to point at a successful implementation as we try to expand its presence--but hey, old habits die hard and tearing down the walls wasn't ever going to be easy.

ntodd