Should be interesting to see if the topic comes up between the Texan who likes the voting system and the local political organization which isn’t exactly a fan when they break bread together.
Category: IRV
IRV folks have been pushing for a charter amendment in King County for the past few months, similar to the path taken in Pierce County. The charter review commission moved to suggest the county study IRV instead.
Not really a win, but not an all out loss either. Looks like Pierce County is still the pioneer. This fall with the Top Two/IRV taste test will be interesting:
Via email:
Hi folks this is to let you know that last night we won a modest but significant victory on the road to opening up our voting system to more voices and choices through using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), also known as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in King County. The King County Charter Review Commission, a group of citizens appointed every 10 years to recommend changes in the County’s Charter, voted 16-1 to ask the King County Council to form a citizens task force to investigate whether we should put an initiative in support of IRV for County Elections of the ballot in King County. The recommendation is for the citizens’s task force to be convened in January 2010 and to make a recommendation about the advisability of an IRV initiative by the end of the year.
Of course, we would have preferred something much stronger, we were urging the commission to recommend adoption of IRV right away due its many advantages, including ensuring the election of a true majority, encouraging greater voter turnout, reducing negative campaigning, allowing people to vote their hopes rather than their fears by eliminating the “spoiler” factor, and saving pubic dollars by combining the primary and general election into a single contest.
Still, the commissions’ vote was a significant victory for electoral reform, their initial recommendation had been to essentially do nothing- take no action of IRV and to simply wait and see what happens in Pierce County where IRV will be used for the first time this year after a successful pubic vote. Our public testimony affirmed the fact that IRV has been used successfully around the county and around the world for decades and demonstrated broad public support for a system that offers much greater choice. The fact that IRV had more support during the Comssion’s pubic hearings than any other issue by far was recognized in their discussion last night; clearly it was what turned the tide in favor of the commission voting to give IRV more specific consideration. About 30 people testified during the 4 public hearings, including a large number of young people, and dozens wrote letters as well. Thanks much to all of you who participated!
There is much more work to be done, including educating the members of the King County Council about the merits of IRV. We gained a lot of support and educated a lot of people during the public hearing process. Let’s savor this small but significant victory and keep our poitive momentum going to have an effective citizen’s advisory group that will recommend putting IRV on the ballot in King County.
Thanks
Joe Szwaja
Vice President Instant Runoff Voting of Washignton
No chance to actually discuss resolutions this time around, but you can go here and help out writing a resolution in support of IRV. Then you can submit to a precinct caucus (Dem or other) on February 9. After that it goes to your local county platform committee for hashing out.
Instant Runoff Voting is on a roll in Washington. Approved by voters in Pierce County two elections ago, it was defending from watering-down last November. Depending on how things go with the Supreme Court and with Pierce County’s maiden IRV voyage next fall, IRV could be seen as a nice compromise between a closed primary and a non-partisan primary.
Which makes sense that an initiative was filed to enact an IRV system statewide. It probably won’t get on the ballot, but at least one active initiative huckster has taken notice. From email:
I have sponsored an initiative for implementing Instant Runoff Voting. It is in its first form at the moment, at the code reviewer’s office. The present incarnation of the text is posted below. I’ve already been approached by Eyman’s henchmen, but I want to keep this as grass-roots as possible.
Probably the worst thing that could happen to an IRV initiative would be a connection with Tim Eyman. I could see a scenerio in which the initiative would still pass, but attaching Eyman’s name to the campaign would mean that at least one party in the state would fight it tooth and nail.
On the other hand, sans Eyman, I’m pretty sure that party activists that have already shown a liking to IRV could lead the way and build trust. I know of at least two local party platforms that include IRV (Whatcom and Thurston).
In case you’re wondering, here is the description of the initiative:
Concerning an update to the ballot in the electoral process by which state and national representatives are decided. Implementation of instant runoff voting.
In the case of candidacy elections, where and when more than two candidates are running, the electorate shall be provided a ranked ballot. Next to each candidate’s name, there shall be an option of consecutive numerical ranks equal to the number of candidates running, up to and including four positions. The voter may chose to vote for one candidate by selecting only one spot on the ballot concurrent with said candidate’s name. Or, the voter may rank up to four candidates in order of preference. If, as in the current system, one candidate wins a majority of the first-preference votes cast, that candidate is victorious. If there is no candidate with a majority (over 50%) of first-preference votes, an instant runoff will occur. The candidate with the least first-preference votes (or a number of least viable candidates determined by the legislature) will be eliminated, with his/her ballots redistributed to whom they indicate is their second preference candidate. This process will be repeated as necessary until one candidate receives a majority vote.
Depending on how the Supreme Court rules in the next few months, we might have a Top Two primary back in Washington. This could take the power away from local parties as to who actually carries their label, who gets considered a Democrat or Republican on the ballot.
Right now, that label is determined by a primary election choosing the parties’ nominees. But, in a system where two Dems could advance to the general, we could see parties using lawsuits and party conventions to enforce their label.
Side note: even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision throwing out the Top Two, the Grange has said they’d consider a statewide non-partisan election initiative.
Anyway, the recent decisions by the Pierce County Democratic and Republican parties relating to how candidates will appear on the IRV ballot next year could give an indication how the parties could live in a Top Two or non-partisan world. Both parties are allowing more than one candidate to appear on the IRV ballot, the Democrats allowing three, Republicans two.
Letter to the TNT (hat tip to Ranked Choice Voting Washington):
Republicans decided to allow anyone who garners 40 percent-plus of delegate votes at the party’s county convention to run with their brand name. In theory, the party will have a maximum of two candidates for any of the countywide seats. In practice, it will propose one GOP candidate for each race.
The Democratic Party, in contrast, decided to allow an inclusive measure that would allow up to three party candidates per race. In practice, this means that voters will have a chance to decide, based on the merits of each candidate, to actually rank candidates based on their own values and agendas.
IRV is essentially a non-partisan system, as it relates to local parties. Each of them will allow more than one candidate to leave an internal party event (caucuses or a convention) with a nod and a label.
So, who’s to say that the two parties can’t live with Top Two?
Over a few days and about a dozen emails, I’ve put together a short piece on the three way race for chair of the Pierce County Democrats over at Washblog. I suspect a lot of subtext going on between the candidates, they seem to say the same things, but there are differences.
In the comments, there is a start to a great conversation on IRV.
