Should the USA switch to Instant Runoff Voting?
Debate Rounds (3)
But wait, there's more... Since I have not used up the allowable 8,000 characters, I will continue.... After further discovery, I have found Instant Runoff Voting disenfranchises huge segments of voters; the elderly, english as a second language, african americans, immigrants, those less educated, those of lower income. Why would we want Instant Runoff Voting; a voting system that throws out the voices of these people? In the past few years, some municipalities have tried instant Runoff Voting for their local elections. Several immediately repealed Instant Runoff Voting because of the voter confusion, huge costs, and high spoiled ballot rate. It's such a bad idea, I don't need to take 8,000 characters. I will accept your surrender.
Now to his points. He claims that IRV "disenfranchises" the elderly, ESL, African-Americans, immigrants, lower-educated people, and low-income people, yet this is laughable. A ballot is sent to everyone registered, just like in single-vote systems. There are problems with disenfranchisement in the USA, but they are not caused by IRV. My opponent claims to have "found" it through "discovery"; I assume he made it up, similarly to the way George W. Bush "discovered" WMDs in Iraq.
He further claims (I have more respect for this) that IRV is too expensive and doesn't work, yet this study (3) says otherwise. Not only did it almost eliminate negative ads (since not looking bad to some voters is as important as looking good to others), people were more satisfied with the election overall, and a majority of voters wanted to keep IRV (contrary to what my opponent says).
I hope this helps with any misunderstanding. Stay confident, friend; it will serve you well.
WHEREAS, the IRV portion of the 2008 General Election provided to be expensive, complicated and confusing, and the results of the IRV races were not available for weeks following the election date; and
WHEREAS, 66 percent of the 90,738 voters responding to the Auditor"s survey indicated that they did not like IRV; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that amendments to the Charter to eliminates instant runoff voting and to restore the primary election for county elected offices will serve the needs and best interests of the citizens of Pierce County
This was the verbiage of Pierce County"s Repeal ordinance. It was repealed with a 72% to 29% margin.
WHEREAS, for the first time in decades, the Mayor of Oakland was elected without the support of the majority that voted; and
WHEREAS, winning by a majority provides the mandates elected leaders need to govern effectively; and
WHEREAS, the controversial Ranked Choice Voter System has disenfranchised and confused many Oakland voters even after spending hundreds of thousand of dollars on voter education; and
WHEREAS, Ranked Choice Voting has resulted in increased negative campaigning and gaming of the election system; and
WHEREAS, studies indicate that the voters most likely to be disenfranchised and make voting mistakes are the poor, elderly, non-English speaking and minority voters; and
WHEREAS, in Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2011,), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has described Ranked Choice Voting as a plurality system, not a majority system; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council desires to submit to the qualified electors of the City of Oakland at the next special or general municipal election, a proposed Charter amendment repealing rank choice voting.
This was the Charter amendment proposed to repeal IRV in Oakland by the Oakland Council President Pro tem.
Cities that tried IRV (also known as Ranked Choice Voting) have found it so bad, they have repealed it, after spending millions of dollars on implementing this flawed system.
There have been so many scientific, peer reviewed papers that detail the disenfranchisement of minorities, ELS, elderly, less educated. Prof. Jason McDaniel"s paper entitled WRITING THE RULES TO RANK THE CANDIDATES: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING ON RACIAL GROUP TURNOUT IN SAN FRANCISCO, published in the prestigious Journal of Urban Affair. His paper shows how IRV (RCV) drove voters AWAY from the polls, particularly Blacks, elderly and less educated.
Professors Craig Burnett or University of North Carolina and Prof. Vladimir Kogan of Ohio State University studied BALLOT (AND VOTER) "EXHAUSTION" UNDER INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING - AN EXAMINATION OF FOUR RANKED-CHOICE ELECTIONS. They analyzed over 600,000 ballots and found a substantial number of votes being discarded. They go point by point to the claims made by proponents of IRV and show that they are just not true.
Even Minneapolis" Charter Commission Members spoke out about the high spoiled ballot rate in minority communities:
Professors Jacobs and Miller from the Univ. Minnesota review the election data to show the same disparity:
Here"s graphic example of the disparity in the Spoiled Ballot Rates in Minneapolis from the elections department"s own numbers. The "affluent" section of town had low spoiled ballots rates of 1.96% while minority areas, and low income areas had as high as 12.68%.
San Francisco has experienced the same problems in it"s IRV/RCV elections. Prof. Cook, a renewed elections expert details the problems in front of the Board of Supervisors:
Over the years, IRV has gotten such a bad rap that many communities have repealed or voting the proposals down. In the UK, over 10 million voters rejected IRV by an astounding 71% to 29%. Burlington, VT, Pierce County WA, Aspen CO, Ann Arbor MI have all recently repealed IRV. Fort Collins, CO rejected IRV. Just last month in the very small town of Duluth, MN, voters rejected IRV by 75%(NO) to 25%(YES). What is interesting to note, FairVote funded the YES campaign to the tune of OVER $170,000, just to get 5,271 votes. That"s over $30 per vote! The Grass-roots NO to IRV campaign spent just about $6,000 and received 15,564 votes.
The use of the IRV lobby group FairVote as your source of evidence is interesting. It"s like researchers for the oil companies saying global warming is a myth. This highly discredited organization had violated state election laws to get IRV introduced in St. Paul, and was fined the maximum amount. Then, unbelievably, they cont the lucrative contract to help with the IRV election.
Therefore, with a fuller understanding of the true implications of using IRV in small localities, the fact it has not lived up to the many promises, the fact that minorities, elderly, ESL, and less educated are disenfranchised, it would be unwise to adopt it in national elections.
Your new proposal is called Approval Voting, and it gaining steam across America actually. Both Oregon and Arizona was working on introducing legislation to allow Approval Voting. You may want to look closer into it. A quick search finds this info:
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.