Instant Runoff Voting is used worldwide and in a growing number of cities and communities throughout the U.S. San Francisco has used IRV with great success in three consecutive city-wide elections. Burlington, VT uses IRV to elect its Mayor, and IRV is used statewide in Louisiana, Arkansas, and South Carolina, where overseas military voters can rank candidates on their absentee ballots, allowing them to take part in runoff elections.
IRV is used in North Carolina for judicial elections and the state has also created an IRV pilot program for broader use in ten cities and ten counties. IRV has been approved for use by a number of cities including: Ferndale, MI, Takoma Park, MD, Minneapolis, MN, and in the California cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and Davis.
IRV is also used for student body elections at colleges and universities around the United States, including Harvard, Princeton,, MIT, CalTech, UCLA, UC Berkeley, and Stanford. Many public and private organizations, including the American Political Science Association and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, use Instant Runoff Voting.
Cities and countries around the world have used ranked choice voting systems for decades. The Republic of Ireland has used IRV to elect its president since 1922. Australia has used ranked voting to elect its House of Representatives since 1949 and to elect most state and territory lower houses. Malta has used IRV to elect its president since 1921. Ranked voting is also used in London, Scotland and New Zealand.
A number of excellent studies have been conducted on the recent use of Ranked-Choice Voting in San Francisco. The below studies provide information on voter turnout, understanding, and satisfaction in San Francisco's 2004 and 2005 elections:
California faces a crater-size, $24 billion deficit - and we're about to throw away millions more on three elections we don't need. But here's the good news: If we adopt Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV, for special elections, we can save that amount and more.
With IRV, taxpayers could save nearly $2 million July 14 (fittingly, Bastille Day).
This year, California state and local governments will spend close to $10 million on at least three elections we do not need. That makes no sense amidst California’s and our nation’s brutal recession.
Madison Nguyen shouldn't be the only one breathing a sigh a relief.
When San Jose District 7 voters rejected a recall of the city councilwoman Tuesday, they spared the entire city the cost of holding two additional special elections.
What are you doing today? How would you like to be voting in runoff
elections for the Board of Supervisors? That's what many would be doing if San Francisco hadn't
voted in 2002 to replace the old December runoff system with an "instant
runoff" system known as ranked choice voting.
Whether using ranked choice voting or December runoffs, the goal is the
same: to elect officeholders with majority support from the public. But with
ranked-choice voting, you accomplish this in one November election.
San Jose
uses a two-round runoff system to elect its mayor and city council, with the
first election in June and a runoff election in November if no candidate wins a
majority of votes in June. Voter turnout in the June general election is about half
that of the November election, with turnout disproportionately lower among
traditionally disenfranchised communities.
With most elections being decided in a low turnout June election, a
small and unrepresentative segment of the community is having an oversized effect
San Francisco voters approved Proposition A in March 2002 that adopted instant runoff voting (also known as ranked choice voting) to elect local offices in San Francisco. The first election occurred in November 2004. For that election, the Board of Supervisors funded and the Department of Elections conducted a voter education and outreach campaign leading up to the first election. Approximately $750,000 was spent by the Department of Elections to educate the 440,000 registered voters in San Francisco.
The City of Los Angeles currently uses a two-round runoff system to elect its mayor, city attorney, city council and controller. One election is held in early March, and if no candidate wins a majority of the vote, a second election between the top two finishers is held in May. Voter participation is usually low, with only 10 percent of registered voters participating in the March 6, 2007 election. In addition, LA taxpayers pay millions of dollars for… more
Click here for a brief video discussion of this idea.
Americans want a more representative and responsive government capable of addressing the nation's challenges, yet our electoral system is founded on antiquated practices that inhibit voter choices and encourage a politics of polarization and paralysis. It's time to bring our electoral system into the 21st century by adopting instant runoff voting (IRV).
California’s winner-take-all electoral system is responsible for polarized politics, a balkanized legislature and declining voter turnout. Advanced electoral systems like instant runoff voting offer voters the opportunity for better choices at the ballot box, improved political debate and broader-based politics.
The Problem
Loss of Moderates. Party primaries in California empower the political extremes and discourage moderates, creating a Legislature that is unable to reach compromise and is therefore subject to gridlock. Primaries are low turnout… more
In order to be elected to office in San Jose, a candidate must secure a majority of the votes cast. Sounds simple enough, but if no candidate receives a majority, then a runoff election is held in which the top candidates must compete again. This process is not only lengthy and results in voter fatigue and low voter turnout, but can cost $500,000 per election. There must be a better way to elect our leaders.
On Monday, June 2nd, the New America Foundation's Political Reform Program held an engaging panel discussion and luncheon on instant runoff voting (IRV) in Los Angeles.
Currently, Los Angeles' local elections run on a wasteful, two-round election system. Last May, only 6 percent of voters turned out for the runoff election for the Los Angeles Community College Districts -- an election that cost taxpayers $5 million, or $40 per voter. For this reason, the LA City Council is seriously considering Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for local elections.
By combining the general and runoff election into 1 single election, IRV will save millions… more
The Alternative Voting Systems forum will look at a range of voting system methods, including the current numbered seat system used by Pasadena Unified School District as well as the geographic districts used by Pasadena City Council. Speakers will present information about alternatives such as instant runoff voting and choice voting, systems which allow voters to rank their candidates in order of preference (1,2,3). Attendees are encouraged to fill out and bring a copy of The Pasadena Weekly's more
The recent turnover in Congress, combined with a wide open presidential election cycle, creates a rare opportunity to bring new ideas into the political process. The spirit of this new era will be captured by those -- from either party or no party -- who embrace innovative yet pragmatic solutions to the foremost challenges facing our nation.
At this event, the New America Foundation released a major new report outlining Ten Big Ideas for a New America, and… more
