IRV implementations in United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since 2002, Instant Runoff Voting has been adopted in a number of U.S. cities. Most of these adoptions are pending implementation; however, as of November, 2007, 33 elections have been held in four cities or towns: San Francisco, California, Burlington, Vermont, Takoma Park, Maryland, and for a pilot program in Cary, North Carolina.

This article lists the cities in the order of year adopted, the status of implementation, and the results of elections held.

Contents

[edit] 2002

[edit] San Francisco, California

In March 2002, an initiative backed by the FairVote passed by referendum making instant runoff voting the means of electing candidates for the Board of Supervisors and most citywide offices in San Francisco. It was first used in that city in October 2004 for YouthVOTE, an election held throughout San Francisco’s public schools which elected the SF school board's student delegate, [2] after that it was used in the November 2004 supervisoral races. Instant runoff voting played a decisive role in at least one city election in 2004, 2005 and 2006 ([3]). Exit polls [4] by San Francisco State University have shown strong support for the new system from all groupings of voters.

Note: The San Francisco Department of Elections prefers the term Ranked Choice Votingbecause "the word instant might create an expectation that final results will be available immediately after the polls close on election night. The Department instead chooses to wait until most absentee ballots have arrived before running instant runoff ballot counts.)

[edit] Results

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) has been used since 2004 to elect its Board of Supervisors and major citywide offices. This implementation allows the voter to rank three candidates and uses the IRV method of candidate elimination.[1]

As of November, 2007, there have been 20 elections using the RCV ballot.

[edit] 2004 San Francisco results

There were four elections that used the Instant runoff process; Districts 1,5,7, and 11.

  • District 1: There were 7 candidates, reduced to 2 candidates in 4 rounds. The winner finishes with 48.67% of the total first-round votes, runner up with 41.44%, and 9.89% of the ballots were exhausted by the final round.
  • District 5: There were 22 candidates, reduced to 3 in 19 rounds, when the winner had a majority of active ballots. The winner finished with 37.63% of the first-round vote, and two runners up with a combined 36.74% of the vote, with 25.63% of the ballots exhausted.
  • District 7: There were 13 candidates, reduced to 2 in 11 rounds. The winner finished with 43.72% of the first-round vote, to 33.19% for the runner up and 23.12% exhausted ballots.
  • District 11: There were 8 candidates, reduced to 2 in 6 rounds. The winner finished with 46.08% of the total first-round votes, to 32.91% for the runner up, and 21.01% of the ballots were exhausted.

The District 5 results are included below as the largest election from 2004 and most round of counting. The elimination table shows the candidates reordered by their elimination. The elimination process was stable for the highest 5 candidates, holding their same plurality ranking each round despite the 19 rounds of elimination and transfer votes.

The IRV elimination process was halted when candidate Mirkarimi reached more than 50% of the active ballots, but only 37.6% of the total first-round ballots. This stopping point is pragmatic for picking a winner, BUT fails to show how many votes the winner had compared to only the strongest runner up candidate.

2004 San Francisco District 5 - Ranked-Choice Voting [5]
Candidate Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4 Pass 5 Pass 6 Pass 7 Pass 8 Pass 9 Pass 10 Pass 11 Pass 12 Pass 13 Pass 14 Pass 15 Pass 16 Pass 17 Pass 18 Pass 19
ROSS MIRKARIMI 9947 9950 9952 9969 9996 10034 10094 10158 10261 10387 10472 10635 10766 10946 11262 11659 11921 12287 13211
ROBERT HAALAND 5124 5126 5130 5146 5180 5192 5226 5254 5318 5384 5461 5538 5628 5740 5956 6319 6409 6636 7272
LISA FELDSTEIN 3257 3265 3274 3289 3309 3323 3381 3430 3484 3566 3671 3765 3851 4070 4313 4636 4759 5064 5628
NICK WAUGH 3025 3025 3027 3035 3053 3070 3090 3118 3187 3243 3296 3391 3441 3540 3732 3900 4063 5041
ANDREW SULLIVAN 2477 2478 2479 2494 2501 2550 2570 2580 2639 2663 2716 2771 2831 2870 2982 3068 3601  
JIM SIEGEL 1540 1542 1543 1551 1565 1608 1639 1657 1743 1763 1820 1866 2053 2111 2184 2242    
BILL BARNES 1664 1670 1671 1680 1690 1709 1719 1731 1751 1804 1871 1945 1977 2018 2142      
DAN KALB 1398 1400 1400 1412 1430 1449 1466 1493 1540 1582 1610 1698 1739 1867        
SUSAN C. KING 977 980 984 1007 1034 1051 1072 1116 1147 1206 1237 1293 1371          
MICHAEL E. O'CONNOR 868 870 873 882 906 930 944 973 1012 1036 1079 1127            
BRETT WHEELER 832 833 835 845 871 881 896 929 951 995 1026              
JOSEPH BLUE 802 805 807 814 819 842 851 860 876 908                
PHOENIX STREETS 657 658 660 673 699 714 731 752 771                  
TYS SNIFFEN 686 687 688 692 707 719 730 746                    
JULIAN DAVIS 418 422 429 443 462 467 481                      
EMMETT GILMAN 393 394 398 405 407 423                        
FRANCIS SOMSEL 368 368 370 379 381                          
ROB ANDERSON 336 341 342 346                            
VIVIAN WILDER 130 134 135                              
PATRICK M. CIOCCA 91 91 91                              
PHILLIP HOUSE 62 62                                
H. BROWN 57                                  
Eligible Ballots 35109 35101 35088 35062 35010 34962 34890 34797 34680 34537 34259 34029 33657 33162 32571 31824 30753 29028 26111
Exhausted Ballots (-4146 no marks)   8 21 47 99 147 219 312 429 572 850 1080 1452 1947 2538 3285 4356 6081 8998
Total Ballots 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109 35109
Plurality candidate % 28.33% 28.34% 28.35% 28.39% 28.47% 28.58% 28.75% 28.93% 29.23% 29.59% 29.83% 30.29% 30.66% 31.18% 32.08% 33.21% 33.95% 35.00% 37.63%

Notes:

  • The source summary listed Eligible ballots each round as nonexhausted ballots. This is shown here.
  • The source summary listed Exhausted ballots as ALL exhausted ballots, including ballots with no marks at all on the election. This table subtracts exhausted the 4146 ballots that supported no candidates to be consistent with other tables in this article.
  • Similarly the source listed Total ballots to include eligible and exhausted ballots. Here the no-mark ballots were also removed from the total.
  • The final column "Plurality candidate %" is based on votes for the top candidate divided by this adjusted total ballots.

[edit] 2005 San Francisco results

There was only one election requiring the Instant runoff process to be performed, with 4 candidates and finding a 55% majority winner in two rounds.

November 8, 2005: RCV Assessor-Recorder[2]
Candidate Pass 1 Pass 2
PHIL TING 94062 47.21% 110053 55.24%
GERARDO SANDOVAL 71850 36.06% 79261 39.78%
RONALD CHUN 33294 16.71%
ANTHONY FABER 18 0.01%
Eligible Ballots 199224 100% 189314 95.03%
Exhausted Ballots
(-26146 no marks)		 0 0.00% 9910 4.97%
Total Ballots 199224 199224

[edit] 2006 San Francisco results

There were two elections that required the Instant runoff process, districts 4 and 6:

  • District 4: There were 6 candidates which were reduced to 2 in 4 rounds. The winner ended with 42.33% of the first-round vote, to 38.29% for the runner up, and 19.38% exhausted ballots.
  • District 6: There were 8 candidates and was stopped on the second round with 4 candidates remaining. The winner had 49.99% of the total first-round votes, with 48.37% divided among the 3 runners up, and 1.64% exhausted ballots.

The detailed runoff results for district 4 are:

San Francisco 2006 MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST. 4 [3]
Race and Candidate Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4
ED JEW 5184 26.16% 5441 27.46% 6455 32.58% 8388 42.33%
RON DUDUM 5134 25.91% 5521 27.86% 6305 31.82% 7587 38.29%
JAYNRY MAK 4569 23.06% 5012 25.30% 5851 29.53%
DOUG CHAN 3236 16.33% 3414 17.23%
DAVID FERGUSON 1455 7.34%
HOUSTON ZHENG 234 1.18%
WRITE-IN 2 0.01%
Eligible Ballots
(-2171 no marks)		 19814 100.00% 19388 97.85% 18611 93.93% 15975 80.62%
Exhausted Ballots 0 0.00% 426 2.15% 1203 6.07% 3839 19.38%
Total Ballots 19814 100% 19814 100% 19814 100% 19814 100%

[edit] Basalt, Colorado

The city of Basalt, Colorado adopted instant runoff voting in 2002 for mayoral elections in which there are at least three candidates.[4] The city is ready to run instant runoff elections, but the 2004 and 2008 elections did not have more than two candidates file for the mayor's office.[5]

[edit] 2004

[edit] Ferndale, Michigan

The city of Ferndale, Michigan passed (68%) instant runoff voting in 2004 pending implementation.[6]

[edit] Berkeley, California

The city of Berkeley, California passed (72%) instant runoff voting in 2004 pending implementation.[7]

[edit] 2005

[edit] Burlington, Vermont

The city of Burlington, Vermont approved IRV with a 64% vote in 2005.[8]

[edit] Burlington results 2006

In 2006 it held its first mayoral election using IRV. Progressive Bob Kiss won in two rounds with 48.6% of the ballots over Hinda Miller with 40.7%, and 10.6% offered no preference between these final two.[9]

Candidate Round 1 Round 2
Bob Kiss (Progressive) 3809 (38.9%) 4761 (48.6%)
Hinda Miller (Democrat) 3106 (31.7%) 3986 (40.7%)
Kevin Curley (Republican) 2609 (26.7%) --
Other 254 (2.6%) --
Exhausted ballots
(-10 with no marks)		 -- 1031 (10.5%)
Total 9778 (100%) 9778 (100%)

[edit] 2006

[edit] Minneapolis, Minnesota

The city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, passed (65%) instant runoff voting in November 2006. Implementation is scheduled for the 2009 municipal elections.[10] A citizen group filed a lawsuit on December 20, 2007 challenging the constitutionality of the system and to block its implementation.[11]

[edit] Pierce County, Washington

Pierce County, Washington passed (53%) instant runoff voting in November 2006 for implementation for most of its county offices in 2008.[12] Voters upheld the 2008 implementation timing with a vote of 67% in 2007 and made minor adjustments to the charter language involving ballot access and numbers of rankings.[13].

[edit] Takoma Park, Maryland

The city of Takoma Park, Maryland adopted instant runoff voting for city council and mayoral elections in 2006.[citation needed]

[edit] Takoma Park results 2007

In January 2007 the first IRV election was help to fill a city council vacancy in a 3-way race with a majority winner in the first round. Voters selected Reuben Snipper with 107 votes (52.7%), defeating Eric Hensal with 72 votes (35.5%) and Alexandra Quéré Barrionuevo with 23 votes (11.3%) and one write-in.)

Snipper said the possibility of using the IRV system changed the race's dynamics. "I had every reason to believe this was going to be a close race," he said. "It meant that when I knocked on a door, if a person indicated they were going to vote for another candidate, I didn't just leave right away. I tried to persuade them I would be a good second choice." [14]

In November 2007 the mayor ran unopposed, and, out of six ward seats on the ballot, one was contested. Runoff provisions were not exercised.[15]

[edit] Oakland, California

The city of Oakland, California voters passed (69%) a measure in November 2006 to adopt IRV for its city offices, pending implementation.[16]

[edit] North Carolina

North Carolina, in July, 2006, adopted a pilot program for instant runoff voting for up to 10 cities in 2007 and up to 10 counties for 2008; to be monitored and reported to the 2007-2008 General Assembly.[17] I

Several municipalities considered participating in the IRV pilot in 2007. Cary, Hendersonville and Kinston voted to participate; Kinston dropped out because there were not enough candidates running to use IRV. There is some disagreement about the amount of advance knowledge that Cary and Hendersonville voters had about IRV before their governing bodies voted to participate in the pilot. Other cities like Asheville, Atlantic Beach, Raleigh and Rocky Mount either declined to participate in the pilot, or voted against participating in the pilot. IRV will not be used in any county elections in 2008.

[edit] Results (Cary, North Carolina)

In October 2007 the city of Cary, North Carolina used batch-elimination IRV for municipal elections involving the Mayor and three council seats. The mayoral election had only two candidates on the ballot and two of the council seats (with four and three candidates on the ballot) were won with a majority in the first round. The remaining council seat, with three candidates, went to a second round of counting under the instant runoff system; the plurality winner in the first round went on to win with 46.4% of ballots cast, and 8.9% of the ballots offering no preference between the top two candidates.[18]

COUNCIL MEMBER C-B 1
CARY MUNICIPAL DISTRICT B:
Candidate Round 1 Round 2
Don Frantz 1151 (38.1%) 1401 (46.4%)
Vickie Maxwell 1075 (35.6%) 1353 44.8%)
Nels Roseland 793 (26.2%) --
Other 3 (0.0%) --
Exhausted ballots -- 268 (8.9%)
Total 3022 (100%) 3022 (100%)

Cary used hand or machine-marked paper ballots that are read on optical scanners manufactured by ES&S. First column choices were tallied at the precinct. The second and third column choices were counted at a central location.

[edit] 2007

[edit] Aspen, Colorado

Aspen, Colorado passed IRV (77%) in November 2007.[19]

[edit] Sarasota, Florida

The city of Sarasota, Florida passed IRV (78%) in November 2007.[20] [21] [22] [23]

[edit] 2008

[edit] Santa Fe, New Mexico

On March 4, 2008, the city of Santa Fe, New Mexico, passed a referundum for IRV (Called Ranked Choice voting) by a vote of 5659 to 3044 (65% for).[24]

  • Charter Amendment 5 – RANKED CHOICE VOTING: Proposing to amend the Santa Fe Municipal Charter, Article IV, to create a new Section 4.06 to require that candidates for municipal office be elected by a majority of voters through a ranked choice voting system that combines the initial vote with an “instant” runoff in a single election. The instant runoff is achieved by allowing voters to rank, in order of their preference, each candidate for mayor, city councilor and municipal judge. If, after counting all voters’ first choices listed on their ballots for an office, no candidate has received a majority of votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Each ballot listing the eliminated candidate as first choice is then recounted using that ballot’s second choice. If still no candidate for the office has received a majority, the process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority of votes for that office.
  • Ranked choice voting would go into effect commencing with the regular municipal election in March 2010 or as soon thereafter when equipment and software for tabulating the votes and allowing correction of incorrectly marked, in-person ballots are available at a reasonable price. [25]

[edit] Political party usage

[edit] Independence Party of Minnesota (2004 Presidential poll)

In part to increase awareness of the voting method and to demonstrate it in a real-world situation, the Independence Party of Minnesota tested IRV by using it in a straw poll during the 2004 Minnesota caucuses.[26]

The poll allowed a none of the above option which could not be eliminated. Their rules eliminated one weakest candidate at a time, or all candidates in a tie at the bottom. They continued the elimination until only one candidate remained to confirm that this candidate had more support than NOTA.

This summary table shows the first round, and final five rounds, excluding five rounds during which 18 weak candidates were eliminated.

Candidate/Round 1 … 7 8 9 10 11
John Edwards
(Democrat)		 94
(20.75%)		   106
(23.40%)		 131
(28.92%)		 166
(36.64%)		 210
(46.36%)		 335
(73.95%)
John F. Kerry
(Democrat)		 100
(22.08%)		   110
(24.28%)		 117
(25.83%)		 132
(29.14%)		 149
(32.89%)		 0
(0.00%)
George W. Bush
(Republican)		 77
(17.00%)		   84
(18.54%)		 85
(18.76%)		 94
(20.75%)		 0
(0.00%)		  
Ralph Nader
(none)		 70
(15.45%)		   73
(16.11%)		 78
(17.22%)		 0
(0.00%)		    
Dennis Kucinich
(Democrat)		 32
(7.06%)		   40
(8.83%)		 0
(0.00%)		      
18 others
(<10 votes each)		 48
(10.60%)		   0
(0.00%)		  
 		      
None of the above 32
(7.06%)		   39
(8.61%)		 40
(8.83%)		 50
(11.04%)		 61
(13.47%)		 66
(14.57%)
Exhausted ballots 0
(0.00%)		   1
(0.22%)		 2
(0.44%)		 11
(2.43%)		 33
(7.28%)		 52
(11.48%)
Total 453 453 453 453 453 453

Also, the Green Party of Minnesota conducts an annual poll of Minnesota State Fair attendees, where each person ranks their preferences for fair food to better understand how IRV works in a real-world situation.[citation needed]

[edit] Historical usage of IRV

[edit] 1912 Florida, Indiana, Maryland, and Minnesota: for party primaries

In the United States, IRV election laws were first adopted in 1912. Five states (Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Wisconsin and Minnesota) used versions of IRV for party primaries. Of the four states with IRV, only the Minnesota and Maryland law used the standard IRV sequential elimination of bottom candidates, while the others used batch elimination of all but the top two candidates.

After a series of primary elections in which alternate preference votes happened to play no role in determining the winner, this voting procedure was eclipsed in all five states.

By the 1930's all of these preference voting systems had been replaced by other primary election reforms, including the use of a second, or runoff primary in the event of a non-majority outcome. [27] [28][29]

[edit] 1974, Ann Arbor, Michigan: city mayor

IRV (called Preferential voting or PV) was adopted for mayoral races in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1974 after a successful ballot initiative sponsored by the local Human Rights Party; the process was used in the 1975 mayoral election. In April 1976 62% of voters voted to repeal PV.[30]

[edit] Implementations rejected

According to FairVote, an organization advocating IRV, dozens of states ([6]) have entertained instant runoff voting legislation in recent years. For example, in 2008, Vermont governor Jim Douglas vetoed legislation to establishing instant runoff voting for that state's congressional elections starting that year, while in 2003, an amendment to the California State Constitution was proposed (SCA 14) with wide-ranging goals of election reform, including instant runoff voting for statewide offices. In the state of Washington, an initiative seeking to adopt instant runoff voting in 2005 failed to garner enough signatures. The city of Vancouver, Washington voted in 1999 to adopt instant runoff voting and the state legislature enacted enabling legislation in 2004, but the city in 2006 chose not to exercise its option. Instant runoff voting for all state and federal elections was on Alaska's statewide ballot in August 2002, when it was defeated.

In the U.S. Congress, the "Voter Choice Act of 2005" H.R.2690 sought to require the use of instant runoff voting for general elections for federal office.

[edit] References

  1. ^ San Francisco Adopts Instant Runoff Elections, Richard Gonzales, National Public Radio
  2. ^ Department of Elections: Election Results 2005
  3. ^ Department of Elections: Results Summary Nov 2006
  4. ^ http://www.colocode.com/basalt/basalt_00a.pdf
  5. ^ Aspen Times News for Aspen Colorado - News
  6. ^ Daily Tribune : Results at a glance 11/03/04
  7. ^ Instant Runoff Voting Makes Advances November 2, Howard Ditkoff, Independent Progressive Politics Network
  8. ^ 4. How did this change to IRV come about? Over 64% of Burlington voters voted in favor of the IRV Charter amendment in March, 2005, and it went into effect on May 12, 2005, when the governor signed the ratification bill, H.505, which had been passed by both the House and Senate.
  9. ^ Burlington IRV election results
  10. ^ Measure to overhaul municipal races passes, Terry Collins, Star Tribune, November 8, 2006.
  11. ^ Lawsuit challenges Minneapolis instant runoff voting system, 12/20/07 (Group filing lawsuit: Minnesota Voters Alliance)
  12. ^ Pierce County Auditor.
  13. ^ March 11, 2008 Special Election - Unofficial Results
  14. ^ Takoma Park's New Vote System Makes Debut, Miranda S. Spivack, Washington Post, Feb. 8, 2007.
  15. ^ Official Results
  16. ^ Offbeat and practical issues taken up around Bay Area, Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 8, 2006.
  17. ^ House Bill 1024, General Assembly of North Carolina, Session 2005.
  18. ^ WakeGOV.com - Election Results
  19. ^ Aspen Times Weekly
  20. ^ Sarasota ordinance
  21. ^ http://www.sarasotagov.com/insidecitygovernment/content/cac/Elections/Election%20Results%2011-6-07%20IRV.mht
  22. ^ Votes could make Sarasota a model of election reform
  23. ^ HeraldTribune.com - Breaking news - Full Story - - HeraldTribune.com
  24. ^ Santa Fe, NM - Official Website - Unofficial Election Results
  25. ^ http://www.santafenm.gov/index.asp?nid=1204 Charter Ammendment 5
  26. ^ http://www.mnip.org/caucusresults.shtml March 2004 Caucus Results: Instant Runoff Presidential Preference Poll Results" Winner: John Edwards (D)
  27. ^ The History of IRV
  28. ^ Microsoft Word - Bench and Bar of MN article formatted.doc
  29. ^ [1] Page 145
  30. ^ Instant Runoff Voting: History in Ann Arbor, Michigan