Record-Journal
10-30-2007, 01:22 AM
Independent and third party candidates like Lucille Trzcinski in Wallingford and those running with the We the People party for Meriden City Council have the power to alter the outcome of elections, though not always by winning.
In America’s predominantly two party system, victory does not come easy for those who are not on the Republican or Democratic tickets, and their very presence on the ballot has the chance of dividing voting blocs, throwing elections to candidates who do not necessarily represent the preference of the majority of voters.
Sick of the so-called spoiler effect of third parties, a number of municipalities around the country have adopted an old voting idea called instant runoff voting.
Mayor Bob Kiss of the Progressive Party was the first mayor to be elected in Burlington, Vt. under the instant runoff system, beating four other candidates in the 2006 election, including a Republican and a Democrat.
Instant runoff voting is a system that guarantees a majority winner in a single voting round.
Proponents say it allows citizens to vote their hopes instead of their fears by ranking candidates in order of preference without having to worry about wasting a vote on someone unlikely to win, or voting for the “least worst” candidate that has a chance.
Here’s how it works. A voter ranks candidates in order of preference on the ballot.
After votes are tallied, the candidate who receives the fewest number of first choices is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the voter’s next highest preference.
This goes on until one candidate receives a majority. This way, if a voter’s first preference does not win, the vote is never lost, but merely goes on to a second and then third choice if necessary.
“I think this is a good system,” Kiss said. “I think people had confidence that the outcome of the vote was a democratic consensus.
By having ranked voting, the system can accommodate more candidates. People feel that they can vote their first choice.”
If it existed in Meriden this year, instant runoff voting would play no role in the mayoral contest because there are only two candidates.
But with three candidates for each one of the City Council seats in play Nov. 6, the system would go into effect.
Walter P. Micowski, who is running for mayor in Meriden with the We The People party, is in favor of runoff voting.
“It’s a pretty progressive type of concept that not many people know about,” he said. “I can see it working.”
Micowski wouldn’t have wanted to adopt it this year because the public is already being introduced to new voting machines, but said it had the potential to increase a third party’s chances for success. “I’d like to see what voters think about it,” he said.
Mayor Mark Benigni isn’t interested in instant runoff voting. “I’m very comfortable with our system,” he said. “At the end of the day, it’s the person that receives the most votes that should be victorious. Our citizens’ vote should count solely for the person that they think would do the best job.”
With three candidates running for mayor in Wallingford, runoff voting, if it existed, could make a difference. The idea got a chilly reception, however, from Democratic mayoral candidate James Vumbaco.
“I don’t particularly like it,” Vumbaco said. “In America, since 300 plus years ago, you vote for the person you want to cast your ballot for.”
Lucille Trzcinski, independent candidate for mayor, also has concerns with adopting a new voting system, especially if it would cost more.
“I think people should walk into that voting booth and have the courage of their convictions and vote for the person who they think would do the best job,” Trzcinski said.
Republican Mayor Bill Dickinson, a 23-year incumbent, could not be reached for comment.
Nationally, supporters of instant runoff voting have cited the 2000 presidential election as a reason to implement it. Some Democrats blamed Green Party candidate Ralph Nader for taking away 97,000 votes from Democratic candidate Al Gore in Florida.
Had instant runoff been implemented, they say Gore would have gotten the majority of those votes after Nader’s elimination, therefore allowing Gore to carry Florida, giving him enough electoral college votes to win the presidential election.
But supporters of the system come from both sides of the political spectrum. Instant runoff could have helped George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election, when it is believed support for H. Ross Perot hurt his chances against Bill Clinton.
In Connecticut, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz is in favor of instant runoff elections for several reasons.
Bysiewicz believes the system would decrease negative campaigning because candidates hoping to receive the No. 2 spot will think twice before attacking that voter’s candidate of choice.
“I think, it is an interesting concept,” she said. “I’ve been supportive of it.”
Another element of instant runoff voting that Bysiewicz likes is that it elects politicians by more than 50 percent of the population.
She cited former Gov. John Rowland’s victory in 1994, in which he captured just 36.2 percent of the vote. It also would make voting easier and more efficient for overseas military personnel, Bysiewicz said.
In terms of feasibility and cost, Bysiewicz said the state’s new voting machines could handle instant runoff voting at minimal additional cost.
But while she has supported the concept before the General Assembly, Bysiewicz is not aware of any legislator intending to submit a bill to implement it for statewide elections. Municipalities, however, could decide to use it on their own.
San Francisco has used instant runoff voting annually to elect its Board of Supervisors and other citywide offices since 2004. Takoma Park, Md. and Cary, N.C. also use it.
About two dozen other municipalities around the country have decided to use an instant runoff system, but have not yet implemented it.
Internationally, the Federal House of Representatives of Australia is elected using runoff voting, as is the mayor of London and the president of Ireland.
Kiss said Vermont is considering instant runoff voting for its statewide and federal elections.
Steven Hill, director of the political reform program with the New America Foundation, is in favor of runoff voting. He wasn’t aware of an individual or group strictly opposed to the idea, but he has heard several misconceptions about it.
The first is that it’s expensive, though Hill said additional costs were limited to a one-time modification of voting software or equipment.
Another was that this method was somehow un-American or European. Instant runoff voting was invented around 1870 by American architect William Robert Ware, though it was originally implemented in Australia in 1893. The last objection is that it’s too complicated for people to understand.
“All the evidence shows that voters understand just fine,” Hill said.
“There’s no evidence that any of them were confused.” He said that in a recent instant runoff election in Cary, N.C., an exit poll showed 95 percent of voters understood the ballot and knew how to vote.
The only caveat to Hill’s endorsement was that cities and towns must make sure that all voters understand the process beforehand, and engage in some sort of advertising campaign.
“I think in any city where you’re facing a situation with three or more candidates,” Hill said, “instant runoff voting has a lot to offer.”
In America’s predominantly two party system, victory does not come easy for those who are not on the Republican or Democratic tickets, and their very presence on the ballot has the chance of dividing voting blocs, throwing elections to candidates who do not necessarily represent the preference of the majority of voters.
Sick of the so-called spoiler effect of third parties, a number of municipalities around the country have adopted an old voting idea called instant runoff voting.
Mayor Bob Kiss of the Progressive Party was the first mayor to be elected in Burlington, Vt. under the instant runoff system, beating four other candidates in the 2006 election, including a Republican and a Democrat.
Instant runoff voting is a system that guarantees a majority winner in a single voting round.
Proponents say it allows citizens to vote their hopes instead of their fears by ranking candidates in order of preference without having to worry about wasting a vote on someone unlikely to win, or voting for the “least worst” candidate that has a chance.
Here’s how it works. A voter ranks candidates in order of preference on the ballot.
After votes are tallied, the candidate who receives the fewest number of first choices is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the voter’s next highest preference.
This goes on until one candidate receives a majority. This way, if a voter’s first preference does not win, the vote is never lost, but merely goes on to a second and then third choice if necessary.
“I think this is a good system,” Kiss said. “I think people had confidence that the outcome of the vote was a democratic consensus.
By having ranked voting, the system can accommodate more candidates. People feel that they can vote their first choice.”
If it existed in Meriden this year, instant runoff voting would play no role in the mayoral contest because there are only two candidates.
But with three candidates for each one of the City Council seats in play Nov. 6, the system would go into effect.
Walter P. Micowski, who is running for mayor in Meriden with the We The People party, is in favor of runoff voting.
“It’s a pretty progressive type of concept that not many people know about,” he said. “I can see it working.”
Micowski wouldn’t have wanted to adopt it this year because the public is already being introduced to new voting machines, but said it had the potential to increase a third party’s chances for success. “I’d like to see what voters think about it,” he said.
Mayor Mark Benigni isn’t interested in instant runoff voting. “I’m very comfortable with our system,” he said. “At the end of the day, it’s the person that receives the most votes that should be victorious. Our citizens’ vote should count solely for the person that they think would do the best job.”
With three candidates running for mayor in Wallingford, runoff voting, if it existed, could make a difference. The idea got a chilly reception, however, from Democratic mayoral candidate James Vumbaco.
“I don’t particularly like it,” Vumbaco said. “In America, since 300 plus years ago, you vote for the person you want to cast your ballot for.”
Lucille Trzcinski, independent candidate for mayor, also has concerns with adopting a new voting system, especially if it would cost more.
“I think people should walk into that voting booth and have the courage of their convictions and vote for the person who they think would do the best job,” Trzcinski said.
Republican Mayor Bill Dickinson, a 23-year incumbent, could not be reached for comment.
Nationally, supporters of instant runoff voting have cited the 2000 presidential election as a reason to implement it. Some Democrats blamed Green Party candidate Ralph Nader for taking away 97,000 votes from Democratic candidate Al Gore in Florida.
Had instant runoff been implemented, they say Gore would have gotten the majority of those votes after Nader’s elimination, therefore allowing Gore to carry Florida, giving him enough electoral college votes to win the presidential election.
But supporters of the system come from both sides of the political spectrum. Instant runoff could have helped George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election, when it is believed support for H. Ross Perot hurt his chances against Bill Clinton.
In Connecticut, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz is in favor of instant runoff elections for several reasons.
Bysiewicz believes the system would decrease negative campaigning because candidates hoping to receive the No. 2 spot will think twice before attacking that voter’s candidate of choice.
“I think, it is an interesting concept,” she said. “I’ve been supportive of it.”
Another element of instant runoff voting that Bysiewicz likes is that it elects politicians by more than 50 percent of the population.
She cited former Gov. John Rowland’s victory in 1994, in which he captured just 36.2 percent of the vote. It also would make voting easier and more efficient for overseas military personnel, Bysiewicz said.
In terms of feasibility and cost, Bysiewicz said the state’s new voting machines could handle instant runoff voting at minimal additional cost.
But while she has supported the concept before the General Assembly, Bysiewicz is not aware of any legislator intending to submit a bill to implement it for statewide elections. Municipalities, however, could decide to use it on their own.
San Francisco has used instant runoff voting annually to elect its Board of Supervisors and other citywide offices since 2004. Takoma Park, Md. and Cary, N.C. also use it.
About two dozen other municipalities around the country have decided to use an instant runoff system, but have not yet implemented it.
Internationally, the Federal House of Representatives of Australia is elected using runoff voting, as is the mayor of London and the president of Ireland.
Kiss said Vermont is considering instant runoff voting for its statewide and federal elections.
Steven Hill, director of the political reform program with the New America Foundation, is in favor of runoff voting. He wasn’t aware of an individual or group strictly opposed to the idea, but he has heard several misconceptions about it.
The first is that it’s expensive, though Hill said additional costs were limited to a one-time modification of voting software or equipment.
Another was that this method was somehow un-American or European. Instant runoff voting was invented around 1870 by American architect William Robert Ware, though it was originally implemented in Australia in 1893. The last objection is that it’s too complicated for people to understand.
“All the evidence shows that voters understand just fine,” Hill said.
“There’s no evidence that any of them were confused.” He said that in a recent instant runoff election in Cary, N.C., an exit poll showed 95 percent of voters understood the ballot and knew how to vote.
The only caveat to Hill’s endorsement was that cities and towns must make sure that all voters understand the process beforehand, and engage in some sort of advertising campaign.
“I think in any city where you’re facing a situation with three or more candidates,” Hill said, “instant runoff voting has a lot to offer.”