IRV implementations in United States

Since 2002, Instant Runoff Voting has been adopted in a number of U.S. cities, however most of these adoptions are pending implementation. as of|2007|November, 32 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.

2002

San Francisco, California

In March 2002, an initiative backed by a broad coalition of civic organizations [ [http://www.sfrcv.org/articles/fulfillthewill.htm Ranked Choice Voting in San Francisco ] ] won 55% of the vote in 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, [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00013.htm] 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 ( [http://www.sfrcv.com] ). Exit polls [http://pri.sfsu.edu/reports/SFSU-PRI_RCV_final_report_July_17_2006.pdf] by San Francisco State University have shown strong support for the new system from all groupings of voters.

"Note: The [http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/election_page.asp?id=24269 San Francisco Department of Elections] prefers the term Ranked Choice Voting because "the word instant might create an expectation that final results will be available immediately after the polls close on election night. The Department release first choice totals immediately, but chooses to wait until most absentee ballots have arrived before running instant runoff ballot counts.)"

The November 2008 ballot will also include ranked choice voting for local elections. In July 2008 the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury made recommendations for the San Francisco Department of Elections [ [http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/courts/divisions/Civil_Grand_Jury/year-of-five-elections-for-sf.pdf] .]

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 sequential candidate elimination until one candidate earns a majority of votes cast for remaining candidates. [ [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3864851 San Francisco Adopts Instant Runoff Elections] , Richard Gonzales, National Public Radio]

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

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 won 54% of the final round count, which amounted to 48.67% of the total first-round votes, with 9.89% of the ballots 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 50.6% of the final round vote against two runners up, which amounted to 37.63% of the first-round vote with 25.63% of the ballots exhausted.
* District 7: There were 13 candidates, reduced to 2 in 11 rounds. The winner finished with 57% of the votes cast for the two active candidates in the final round. Of first round votes, this amounted to 43.72% of the first-round vote, with 23.12% exhausted ballots.
* District 11: There were 8 candidates, reduced to 2 in 6 rounds. The winner finished with 58% of the final round vote, which amounted to 46.08% of the total first-round vote, with 21.01% of the ballots 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.

Basalt, Colorado

The city of Basalt, Colorado adopted instant runoff voting in 2002 for mayoral elections in which there are at least three candidates. [http://www.colocode.com/basalt/basalt_00a.pdf] 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. [ [http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080301/NEWS/299002697/0/FRONTPAGE Aspen Times News for Aspen Colorado - News ] ]

2004

Ferndale, Michigan

The city of Ferndale, Michigan passed (68%) instant runoff voting in 2004 pending implementation. [ [http://dailytribune.com/stories/110304/loc_electbox03001.shtml Daily Tribune : Results at a glance 11/03/04 ] ]

Berkeley, California

The city of Berkeley, California passed (72%) instant runoff voting in 2004 pending implementation. [ [http://www.ippn.org/article.php?ID=winternews05c.html Instant Runoff Voting Makes Advances November 2] , Howard Ditkoff, Independent Progressive Politics Network]

2005

Burlington, Vermont

The city of Burlington, Vermont approved IRV with a 64% vote in 2005. [ [http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/faq 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."]

Burlington results 2006

In 2006 it held its first mayoral election using IRV. Progressive Bob Kiss won in two rounds with 54.4% of the final round vote over Hinda Miller, which amounted to 48.6% of the first-round vote, with 10.6% offering no preference between the two finalists. [ [http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/20060307/IRV_TALLY.pdf Burlington IRV election results] ]

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. Fact|date=January 2008

Historical usage of IRV

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. [ [http://www.fairvote.org/irv/vt_lite/history.htm The History of IRV ] ] [ [http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/Municipal%20Voting%20System%20Reform%20article.pdf Microsoft Word - Bench and Bar of MN article formatted.doc ] ] [ [http://books.google.com/books?id=CHLvGawRmEwC&pg] Page 145]

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. [ [http://www.migreens.org/hvgreens/aa-irv01.htm Instant Runoff Voting: History in Ann Arbor, Michigan ] ]

Implementations rejected

According to FairVote, an organization advocating IRV, dozens of states ( [http://fairvote.org/?page=1439] ) 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 ( [http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_14_bill_20030912_introduced.html 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" [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-2690 H.R.2690] sought to require the use of instant runoff voting for general elections for federal office.

References