Mitch Harper at Fort Wayne Observed has a couple of must-reads on election procedures. The first talks about how, in the Fort Wayne Community Schools Board at-large race, with 10 candidates seeking two positions, the winners could have a very small percentage of the overall vote -- a little scary considering that FWCS is the largest public agency in Allen County. Shouldn't there be some kind of winnowing process, a runoff election so the winners have a litle more of a mandate? The second raises the possibility of more vitality in the public arena if the General Assembly would ease the state's ridiculously tough ballot-access requirements and make it less difficult for third parties to get on the ballot.
Combine the ideas in those two posts with another one -- IRV, or instant runoff voting, which is being debated these days in some quarters. Instead of having, as one example, just Mark Souder and Tom Hayhurst on the ballot in the 3rd District, we'd have maybe Libertarian and Socialist and Green and Anti-Immigrant and Pro-Drug Legalization candidates and who knows how many others. Voters would mark three candidates in order of preference, Nos. 1, 2 and 3. If one candidate gets a majority on the first ballot, fine, the election is over. But if not:
In an IRV election ballots are initially sorted according to their expressed first-preferences. If no candidate achieves an overall majority of first preferences (more than half of the total vote) the candidate with the fewest first preferences is eliminated. That candidate's votes are recounted and are distributed to the remaining candidates according to the second preferences expressed on each ballot paper. If there is still no candidate with an overall majority of votes then the candidate with the fewest votes is again eliminated and the votes transferred in the same way, according to the second or third preferences expressed on each ballot paper. This process of counting and eliminating continues until a candidate has obtained a majority of 'continuing ballots' -- meaning those ballots expressing preferences among candidates who have not been eliminated.
Once candidates are eliminated or 'excluded', no votes can be transferred to them. Therefore if ballots being recounted express a preference for a candidate who has already been excluded, their next 'live' preference is used. The count is intended to continue only until one candidate has a majority of 'continuing ballots', at which point they cannot be defeated.
Such a system probably would not result in a proliferation of third-party winenrs, at least not immediately, but it is at least one possible way of making the elections something more people might actually want to participate in. I can't count the number of times in the last couple of weeks I've heard heard some variation of, "Souder or Hayhurst? Those are my only two choices?"
It might at least be something to try out a time or two, say in at-large school board races.
