Click here for printable handout.

What is Instant Runoff Voting?

IRV is a ranked ballot method of voting that results in a winner chosen
by a majority of the voters. The voters rank the candidates in order
of preference. Each voter has one vote which counts for the highest preferred
candidate that can use it. The term "Instant Runoff Voting" was coined
because the method of transferring votes from defeated candidates to
continuing candidates is just like a runoff election except that it is
accomplished on one ballot. It is also known as Single Transferable Vote
(single winner version), Alternative Vote, and Majority Preferential
Vote.

Below is an example from the 1990
Irish presidential election.

Rank the candidates in order of preference your first choice and your runoff choices

	1st choice	2nd choice	3rd choice
Mary Robinson
Austin Currie
Brian Lenihan

How
are the votes counted in IRV?

First choices are counted. If no candidate receives a majority, the
candidate with the fewest votes is defeated, and those votes are transferred
to the next ranked candidate on each ballot. The votes are recounted.
The process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes
and is declared the winner.

Why should
Minnesota adopt IRV?

Majority rule is a fundamental principle of democracy. However,
in recent years, winners of elections frequently have been chosen by
less than a majority of voters. In the last three presidential elections,
the winner received less than a majority of the popular vote. In Minnesota
in 1998, not a single state-wide constitutional officer was elected
with a majority of the vote. Most notably, Jesse Ventura was elected
with 37 percent of the vote, the second lowest winning percentage in
state history. In 2000, both statewide races (for President and for
U.S. Senate) and three U.S. Representatives were elected with less
than a majority of the vote. In 2002, with four major parties competing,
four of the five statewide elections were decided by less than a majority,
and the principle of majority rule was once again not confirmed. Instant
Runoff Voting would assure that the principle of majority rule is upheld
in Minnesota elections.

When a majority of voters divides itself between two candidates, the
larger party may decry the presence of the smaller party as spoiling
the election and causing unrepresentative results by electing a third
candidate who did not receive majority backing. The smaller party is
aggrieved by the distraction of the voting system's effects and the
lost opportunity to campaign on its issues. Caught in the middle are
many voters who are conflicted over how to cast an effective vote.
The "spoiler problem" would be eliminated by Instant Runoff
Voting. With IRV, smaller parties can campaign on their issues. Larger
parties' opportunities will not be lost due to peculiar system effects.
Voters can vote their conscience without fear of not having a voice
in the final outcome.

IRV results in a more positive campaign and better
information for voters because candidates have an incentive to
appeal to their rivals' supporters to be their 2nd choices. Candidates
will be less likely to distort the differences with a rival and will
be more likely to say how they are similar to a rival.

Why not
go to a traditional two-round runoff election system?

1. A runoff election is expensive and logistically difficult to administer.
2. Voter turnout drops significantly in the second election, calling
   into question whether meaningful majority rule has actually been
   achieved.
3. A longer campaign season increases the cost of campaigning, a consequence
   at odds with current sentiment about the need for campaign finance
   reform.
4. Cutting the field to two candidates may be too abrupt, as the majority
   might prefer a candidate eliminated in the first round (The 2002
   French presidential election is an example of how this might happen.
   See http://www.fairvotemn.org/articles/archives/majority_05012002.html for
   more information.)
5. After the field is cut to two candidates, negative campaigning
   is more likely.

With IRV, a larger pool of voters can participate in choosing the
winner. It is a more sure method of discovering the wishes of the majority.
IRV promotes a positive campaign and eliminates a costly and unnecessary
second election.

Does IRV
require a constitutional amendment?

No. Cities with home rule charters can adopt IRV by incorporating
it in their charter. State and federal elections could be conducted
by IRV simply by changing state law.

How do
we get IRV in Minnesota?

There are three sensible immediate steps to move toward using IRV
in Minnesota:

1. Electronic voting equipment should be upgraded to process a ranked
   ballot. All new voting equipment purchased or certified for purchase
   should have the flexibility to process a variety of ballot types,
   including ranked ballots as well as the more familiar 'vote for one' or 'vote
   for up to x' ballots.
2. Public education is needed to understand why a change is needed
   and what the benefits are of the IRV alternative. That should include
   a state-commissioned blue ribbon panel to study our voting system
   and compare it to alternative systems. An excellent example is a
   bipartisan study done by the University of Illinois Institute on
   Government and Public Affairs. See http://www.igpa.uillinois.edu/publications/specPubs/index.html#electoralSystems.
3. Local government adoption of Instant Runoff Voting could serve
   as a laboratory for the rest of the state to observe and learn from.
   Some have questioned whether home rule cities have the authority
   to do this without state authorization. FairVote Minnesota has researched
   the legal basis for home rule cities to adopt IRV. The findings have
   been published in the October 2002 issue of Bench & Bar
   of Minnesota.