July 29, 2007
Let’s try instant runoff voting before we send it packing
JAMES WALTON AND KELLY HAUGHTON Published: July 29th, 2007 01:00 AM
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/othervoices/story/120984.html
Last fall we were among a clear majority of Pierce County voters who supported an amendment to the charter enacting instant runoff voting (or ranked choice voting) for most county offices.
We believe the voters’ choice should be respected. We believe in majority rule instead of spoiler-ridden elections. We believe that November elections should present us with a full field of candidates rather than one reduced in low-turnout primaries where voters must choose among candidates in only one party. We believe independent voters deserve more choices, too.
We are dismayed that some county politicians are now trying to restore the pick-a-party primary and gut ranked choice voting before it’s even been implemented. They are ignoring the overwhelming success and popularity of ranked choice voting in other areas and apparently are ready to put their political interests over the public good.
Since our vote last November, Pierce County Auditor Pat McCarthy convened a task force to study how best to implement the system. The task force recommended that the County Council use its authority to enact some enabling ordinances and put a clarifying charter amendment on the ballot. This was envisioned by the original charter amendment and allows for efficient implementation.
Pierce County will use exactly the same equipment and software that will also be used for the first time next year in Oakland, Calif. Implementation has not been wrinkle-free, but it’s in line with what voters wanted: a ballot with choices in November rather than the pick-a-party primary.
The stated case against moving forward is pitifully weak. Opponents are complaining loudest about a feature of almost comic insignificance: that the new software limits voters to ranking three candidates rather than all. In races with five or more candidates, they say, a voter might want to rank more than three candidates.
Our campaign was never about how many candidates could be ranked – it was about establishing a voting method that accommodates voter choice when it really matters (in November) and not eliminating most candidates in August pick-a-party primaries.
San Francisco’s limitation of three rankings has not been remotely controversial, even though one election had 22 candidates. Opponents suggest that San Francisco is having problems, but they ignore that San Francisco’s problems have nothing to do with ranked choice voting and the system has delivered everything that was promised and won overwhelming popularity in exit polls.
After San Francisco’s first citywide election with ranked choice voting in 2005, for example, San Francisco State University found that voters preferred the new system by a whopping 5-to-1 margin over their old one. That support rises to a remarkable 8 to 1 among young voters.
This is in stark contrast to the most-hated election system in Washington: the pick-a-party primary.
Perhaps one reason why our partisan officials are concerned is that the winning candidate in Burlington, Vt.’s first mayoral election using ranked choice voting was not the candidate with the most money.
Expensive negative attacks are less effective with ranked choice voting. Money will always matter in politics, but it doesn’t necessarily earn you first choice support when voters have real choices.
News Tribune columnist Peter Callaghan asks why county politicians are considering delay or repeal. “Could it be because (they) … don’t want to be subjected to a voting system they can’t control or predict? And could it be that they didn’t like it in the first place and resent that the voters don’t listen to their leaders?”
There is no legitimate reason to force a revote on ranked choice voting and make a mockery of our charter-revision process and the people’s vote. Let’s move forward on the county auditor’s plan to implement the system in 2008.
We’re confident that like other areas adopting this majority vote system, voters will like it. They deserve a chance to find out. We believe the County Council has all the tools to make it work. We believe the voters should be respected.
Former Tacoma City Manager James Walton and Kelly Haughton, a financial industry executive and advocate of instant-runoff voting, served on the Pierce County Charter Review Commission in 2006.