|
In an election like our Associated Student Government presidential
election, with eight candidates running, it is unlikely that
any candidate can get a majority of the vote. It is quite
likely that none of the candidates will even come close. 
Holding a run-off solves this problem, but there is another,
arguably better, way.
This system is usually called instant run-off. In it, voters
rank the candidates, marking a one by their first choice,
a two by their second, and so on.
Eliminating the candidate who received the lowest number of
first choice votes then simulates a run-off and transferring
their ballots to the candidates marked as second choice. If
still no one has a majority, the process is repeated until
someone does have a majority.
The preferential nature of instant run-off is, I think, one
of the system's greatest advantages for an election like the
university's ASG elections, in which many of the voters know
several candidates. Some voters may prefer to vote for more
than one, and, through an instant run-off, they could.
Another term used for instant run-off is preferential voting,
called so because the system does not simulate one run-off,
but a series of them. This is one of the system's advantages.
A series of run-offs could better reflect the will of the
people than one run-off does.
For example, if there were three candidates on the left and
two on the right in an election, the leftist vote would likely
be split, causing the right wing candidates to finish in first
and second place. The run off would then be between the two
right wing candidates, ensuring a right wing victory.
A
Ben de Miranda campaign sign hangs froma tree in front
of Old Main. Campaign signs have ben all too common
sight on campus these last few weeks.
(Photo:
Adam
Wallworth)
|
Under a preferential voting system, this would not be the
case. If all the votes of the two weaker left wing candidates
transferred to the stronger of the three, and all the votes
of the weaker right wing candidate to the stronger of those
two, the winner would depend on whether the left or the right
was stronger in that election, not on how the votes split,
as it would in a single run off.
Run-off elections can also be flawed because voter turn out
is often quite low. They are held on days when there aren't
as many elections taking place, and by then, many voters have
lost interest. Instant run-offs have the advantage of being
a one-day procedure.
Run-offs also add to the cost of an election campaign. The
candidates for ASG president have already spent a great amount
of money. With a run off campaign, two of them will spend
even more. That extra money would be unnecessary with the
simple change in ballot structure that would allow voters
to rank candidates, rather than voting for just one.
Instant run-offs also ensure that fewer votes are wasted.
A vote for a third party is often considered a wasted vote.
In the last U.S. presidential election, a first choice vote
for Nader would not have been a wasted vote when combined
with a second choice vote for Gore (or Bush).
Instant run-offs have been adopted in Australia, and are being
considered in many parts of the world. Vermont's legislature
has been considering the system for some time. It would be
good of the UA to set an example by adopting this more democratic
alternative, a system where the voters are allowed to more
fully express their opinion. 
|
