Arlington Democrats Should Move to Majority Rules, Instant Runoff Voting

The practical problem with IRV in this situation... (0.00 / 0)

is that in a very-low-turnout primary like this, the candidates tend to bring out "exclusive constituencies." That is, those people show up to vote for them, and nobody else. So given the option to choose a second place, they will, rather, just stay home.

Also, on a practical note, while I don't remember the exact #'s, in '08 - the last time there was a large-field primary - both winning candidates received about 25% of the vote in a vote-for-two situation, which is pretty much a majority.

So while I certainly agree with IRV in principle, I don't think it would make much practical difference. It might also have the side-effect of creating "beholden" candidate coalitions where a strong candidate ends up making deals with "also-rans" so that they can have influence weilding their second-place votes. That might encourage more people to run in the end.

Again, IRV is positive and a good thing - works very well in Australia for national elections. But I'm not sure it helps toward your actual goal of increasing voter turnout in small, local elections.

---

by: Dave @ Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 02:56:18 AM UTC

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

If voters want to not choose more than one candidate, IRV doesn't stop them.  It just means that if their candidate is eliminated they won't have a vote on the rest.  Each voters choice, just like turning out.

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:04:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The goal of IRV isn't to increase voter turnout per se (0.00 / 0)

it's to get a majority of whatever turnout there happens to be. Increasing voter turnout is another issue, and an important one, that probably points to some sort of voting requirement (as in Australia).

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 11:39:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then what's your point? (0.00 / 0)

Ben, that's true, I'll concede that. Like I said, I support IRV in all elections, big and small. But Lowell, the point of your diary seemed to point to IRV as a way to increase voter turnout, or at least to give a majority vote to those who did vote. My point is that in the last 2 contested firehouse primaries, the winners had a majority regardless. So how does this help?

---

by: Dave @ Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 22:21:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The question is about the last caucus (0.00 / 0)

It's about this one.  Do you think any candidate will get 50%?  If not, this is a good idea.

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 23:03:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I mean the question is NOT about the last caucus! (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 23:04:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then you're proposing a solution to a non-problem (0.00 / 0)

I think that the current caucus winner will get more than 40%, which is pretty close to a majority, given the field. If you're not examining the previous caucuses for flaws, then why fix something that's not "broken"? I'm citing the '08 primary because it was very similar to this one.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, either. Just that "promoting democracy" isn't a good reason to change the caucus rules. It's not about that. Having a "loyalty oath" isn't very democratic either. The point of the caucus is to produce a candidate capable of winning the general.

And to the last commentor's point - changing the Arlington Dems rules is waaaaaay different from changing Arlington's rules.

---

by: Dave @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 15:42:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm confused (0.00 / 0)

If you think on candidate will easily get to 50% (or close enough that they go over 50% right away with IRV) why oppose using it?  What's the downside?

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 16:03:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is about the future... (0.00 / 0)

...almost certainly can't be instituted for the Democratic caucuses in a few weeks. So, let's take that one off the table. Then, this becomes a no-brainer: why WOULDN'T you want the winner of a Dem caucus, with however many candidates, get 50% of the vote? I can't even dream up a downside.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 16:19:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why can't it be used for the caucuses? (0.00 / 0)

All that would be required is having a space next to each name for numbers 1-6, instead of a box to check.

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 16:26:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It could be, theoretically. (0.00 / 0)

It's just that, based on the ACDC Steering Committee members I've run this by, there seems to be ZERO inclination to change the rules at this point, with just a few weeks left to go, and with all the candidates operating under the plurality assumption. I'm not saying I'm thrilled with this, but I don't see how we're going to get anywhere with the January 2012 caucuses, given the need for buy-in by all the candidates, the Steering Committee, etc.  However, for future caucuses, I see now problem at all or reason not to do this (or at least look seriously at doing it).

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 16:46:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Downsides (0.00 / 0)

Aside, to Ben's point, the caucus rules have to be rewritten for approval on Wed. anyway because of the changing dates. If you cared enough to push it with the Steering Committee, it could happen.

But you keep saying "no brainer" like it's a given. I'll say again that I support IRV, but there are downsides, and it's disingenuous to pretend like there's not.

First, it requires more overhead, especially in a hand-counted caucus. The vote counting, which already takes several people 2 hours would take probably three times as long. The "instant" in IRV assumes electronic voting.

Second, it's more confusing to "low-threshold" voters. There's a good reason most localities and all states do one-vote voting - it's easy. Ranking candidates is complicated. You say "how hard could it be?" Well, ask the thousands of old people who voted for Pat Robertson in Florida in 2000. When you change the voting method, it confuses people.

Third, it changes the whole dynamic of the election. As you both suggested before, it encourages candidates to make deals to seek other candidates' second-place votes. It actually might increase the number of candidates in an already-crowded field. Talk about voter confusion.

So, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I don't think these issues outweigh the positives. But I think you have to recognize and acknowledge the downsides and not throw around terms like "no brainer." If it truly were a no brainer, we'd do it everywhere.  

---

by: Dave @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 18:35:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, no, it's not about increasing turnout per se. (0.00 / 0)

It's about ensuring that we get a majority of whatever turnout there happens to be. Also, it's probably not feasible for the upcoming County Board caucus, so this is more a proposal for future caucuses.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 23:42:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As for getting a majority without IRV (0.00 / 0)

on the first ballot, that's certainly not likely with 6 candidates, but of course it's a possibility if one candidate runs away with it.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 23:43:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if someone did (0.00 / 0)

what difference would that make?  The idea that someone could get 50% is very different from demanding they do get 50% through IRV.

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 00:02:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed. (0.00 / 0)

That's the main point of IRV and a majority requirement.  It should be pretty basic in a democracy, IMHO.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 00:05:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

IRV and the Charlottesville experience (4.00 / 2)

I was chair of the Charlottesville Democratic Party in 2002, when we had 6 candidates for two City Council nominations.  The assembled caucus lasted 4.5 hours, with four separate ballots.  With speeches and all of the folderol to start, the first ballots weren't cast until about 1.5 hours into the process, and of course we had the rules that most assembled caucuses do, where you had to be registered by the beginning of the meeting, and latecomers were not permitted to vote.  We had about 550 participants.  By the time of the 4th ballot, we were down to about 300 voters.  No one was happy.  Perhaps coincidentally but perhaps not, that is the only election in the last 25 years when a Republican won a seat on the Charlottesville City Council.

In 2009, we anticipated a hot contest, and we were fresh off the Obama victory and democratic/Democratic fervor was flowing.  

We had a couple of priorities.  

First, we wanted any nominee to have been the recipient of a favorable vote from at least 50% of the voters, as would happen in an assembled caucus/convention.  We had a couple of extremely contentious issues that brought out impassioned factions, and each faction was afraid that the other would be able to nominate a candidate with less than 50% support.

Second, we did not want a marathon session, requiring people to give up an entire day just to participate.

Third, we wanted to maximize participation, both as an affirmative virtue in itself, and as a way to build the Party.  

So we used an unassembled caucus with Instant Runoff Voting.  Voters had to rank the candidates.  We did it at a centrally-located school on a Saturday.  The polls were open from 9 AM to 6 PM.   Over 1700 people cast votes.  It was a great atmosphere for politics.  We had three candidates for two City Council spots (all of our seats are at-large) and three candidates for City Sheriff.  The Sheriff's nomination was decided by use of the Instant Runoff System, because no one got 50% on the first counting.

In 2011, we had 7 candidates for 3 nominations for City Council (our seats are all at-large) and 3 candidates for City Circuit Court Clerk.  Again, we held it on a Saturday, and the polls were open all day.  This time, over 2,500 people voted.  The first two Council spots were decided on the first counting, as was the Clerk's race, but the third Council spot was the product of the IRV system.  It took many hours of manual counting and re-counting to determine the third nominee.  

On the good side, we dramatically increased participation.

On the bad side, the cost of getting the Democratic nomination increased dramatically as well.  Now candidates were having to persuade potentially thousands, rather than hundreds, of Democrats to come to the polls to vote for them.  

The counter-argument to that is that once you got the Democratic nomination, you had already had thousands of voter contacts, and you were already a good way along to a general election win.  You already had an organization, you already had yard signs and a message and campaign materials.

On balance, it has been a good switch.

If you want to keep the requirement of 50% support, IRV voting makes the process workable.

---

by: jlsnook @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 03:14:50 AM UTC

Thanks, that's very helpful! (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 11:54:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Arlington General Elections Should Also Move to IRV (4.00 / 1)

IRV is a no-brainer for the caucus. It has so few downsides...and so many upsides.  One upside includes less fratricidal attacks.  Candidates seeking the 2nd and 3rd votes from supporters of competing candidates, are much less inclined to savage the character of their opponents.  This encourages a more positive election environment and provides more unity at the conclusion. IRV also alleviates our "Lesser-of-Two-Evils" voting strategies that the "first-past-the-post" system manifests. (i.e.-nadar voters 1st choice voters would have have had their 2nd choice votes go to Gore in 2000)

A better idea still is to move to IRV/Ranked Voting/Choice Voting for Arlington General Elections. This way we could eliminate the need for caucuses entirely (saving money) and vastly increase citizen participation in our elections. Ranked Voting provides the added advantage for Arlington County to implement proportional representation for elections when we have more than 1 open seat for County Board or for School Board. This might help get a republican elected...but it also might elect more representative ideological diversity among Democratic candidates.

Fairvote.org based in Takoma Park provides marvelous resources for understanding and implementing IRV and proportional representation systems.  If Dem's want to quickly implement IRV in the Caucus, experts with practical expertise for implementation would be nearby and would certainly be helpful.

---

by: amber waves @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 14:39:05 PM UTC

Please explain ... (0.00 / 0)

1) How IRV etc in a general election would eliminate the need for a caucus or primary to choose a party nominee.
2) How the General Assembly could be persuaded to authorize any such change.
3) Why focusing on a majority vote of those who choose to come should be the primary goal of progressives, versus, for example, seeking ways to expand voter participation without driving up the cost of campaigns.

---

by: listlady @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 02:54:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

+1 (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Dave @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 03:11:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My thoughts (0.00 / 0)

I'm more of an advocate for IRV in nominating contests but also favor it in general elections.

To answer your questions- more candidates often bring higher turnout.  But minor party candidates (with a brain) are discouraged by the fact they can't win an election but can decide its outcome.

With the far, far right move of the Republican Party, I think most minor party movements would be to the left of the GOP- meaning IRV would eventually benefit the Democrat in many of these races.

In Arlington we rarely need the help, but a green party candidate who could bring out 1,000 progressives in a Fairfax race, that could then vote for the Democrat as a 2nd choice through IRV could help a lot of candidates.  Remember, 39 races in the last 10 years there have been decided by 1,000 votes or less.

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 03:26:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Progressives and IRV (0.00 / 0)

To your third point...

Expanding the number of voters, and -- more importantly -- the size of the target universe -- necessarily means driving up the cost of campaigns.  You can't have one without the other.

So is it "progressive" to insist on a 50.1% vote?  I don't know what that means.  I consider myself a progressive, and I think insisting on a 50.1% vote is a good thing, so does that make it a progressive virtue?  

There is an argument made by liberals like Lani Guinier that if you have multi-member districts, and choose the top vote-getters without a 50.1% requirement, you are more likely to get some variety and diversity of opinion -- a member of a minority can more readily be elected under such ground rules.  A detailed analysis of that argument -- and the various conditions under which it may be true -- is beyond this note, but suffice it to say that such ground rules were a part of the way in which the Byrd machine kept control of the Virginia General Assembly for decades.

---

by: jlsnook @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 03:33:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]