Most U.S elections are held under plurality voting rules in which the candidate with the most votes wins. If three or more candidates run in the race then the winner can have less than a majority of the vote. But the question always arises: was that winning candidate really preferred by most voters?

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a sensible reform for elections where one person wins. Examples include elections for governors, mayors, US Senators, and President. Instant Runoff Voting is better than plurality elections because:

• it ensures the election of the candidate preferred by most voters
• it eliminates the problem of spoiler candidates knocking off major candidates
• it frees communities of voters (e.g., moderates, pro-lifers, African-Americans) from splitting their vote among their own candidates
• it promotes coalition-building and more positive campaigns

IRV is also better than "two-round" runoff or primary elections, which can result in a drop-off in voter turnout between the two rounds. IRV just requires a single election, which means that

• election officials and taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for a second election
• candidates don't have to raise money for two races, providing some capPaigm finance reform
• the decisive election occurs when voter turnout is highest

How IRV Works: Each voter has one vote, and ranks candidates in order of choice (1, 2, 3, etc.). The counting of ballots simulates a series of run-off elections. All first choices are counted, and if no candidate wins a majority of first choices, then the last place candidate (candidate with the least first choices) is eliminated. Ballots of voters who ranked the eliminated candidate first then are redistributed to their next-choice candidates, as indicated on each voter's ballot. Last place candidates are successively eliminated and ballots are redistributed to their next choices until one candidate has over 50% of votes or is the last candidate remaining.

Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish--their favorite candidate first, their next favorite second and so on. Voters have every incentive to vote for their favorite candidate rather than the "lesser of ~two evils" because their ballot can still count toward a winner even if their first choice loses. There also is every reason for a voter to rank as many candidates as they want, since a voter's lower choice will never help defeat one of their higher choices.

IRV is used to elect the parliament in Australia and the Presidents of the Republic of Ireland and the American Political Science Association. A related method is used in Cambridge (MA) to elect its city council.

Hypothetical example: In 1997, Bill Redmond was elected to represent the 3rd Congressional District with only 43% of the vote. IRV could been used to elect a majority-winner. Here's how it could have worked.

Assume that, of the 17 percent of voters who ranked the Green Party's Carol Miller first, most of them (e.g. 14% of all voters) would have preferred Democrat Serna over Republican Redmond, and ranked Sema second on their ballots. When Carol Miller is eliminated her first choice votes are redistributed according to her supporters' preferences. Eric Serna ends up with 54 percent of the overall vote, a clear majority, and is declared the winner. This is in contrast to the present system where Miller's supporters would have no say in the contest between Redmond and Serna, and Redmond would win.

The ballot of a Miller supporter whose second choice was Serna would look like this:

This explanation is adapted from a document prepared by The Center for Voting and Democracy, PO Box 60037, Washington DC 20039, 301-270-4616, fairvote@compuserve.com