February 14, 2005
IRV makes too much sense for FL legislative backing
Instant runoff voting in Florida? A reform passed by the GOP dominated legislature that isn’t guaranteed to benefit Republicans? A system that most everyone agrees would be fairer and result in more of the population having their voices heard? It’s a great idea whose time has come, but I’m not expecting to see it in Florida real soon.
The benefits are self-evident: November voters would choose among nominees who are more moderate than they can expect now. The nominees would more likely represent the majorities rather than the extremes of their parties. They would have had to run clean campaigns so as not to offend the supporters of other candidates from whom they might need second-choice votes.Posted by Norwood at February 14, 2005 07:30 AM"There's no question that the civility of campaigns might be dramatically altered by this idea," says Sen. Rod Smith, one of the Democrats running for governor. "I think the absence of a runoff has hurt the civility."
That benefit is accessible without the expensive, time-consuming, inconvenient and low-turnout traditional runoff which - listen up, you legislators - comes back to the ballot in the fall of 2006 as the law stands now.
......Instant-runoff voting is not rocket science. It is common overseas and had a successful debut three months ago in San Francisco. Easy-to-read information, including a PowerPoint slide show by Vermont's secretary of state, is available on the Web site of the Center for Voting and Democracy: www.fairvote.org
The Legislature shelved the runoff three years ago ostensibly for the sake of the election supervisors but there was also some political intrigue afoot. The Republicans, having a strong incumbent governor, thought the absence of a runoff would produce a weaker Democratic nominee. They may have been right, though the opponent they got - Bill McBride - was not the one they and some of us in the press expected. Mea culpa.
There was also concern over the potential of some well-mobilized extremist group on the right or left to monopolize low-turnout legislative runoffs. But the risk is even greater in a multicandidate primary without a runoff.
The political motives this time are harder to figure with so many candidates suiting up in both parties. It is widely assumed here that those who seem to be trailing this time next year will be the ones who most want a runoff. Should those include Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings, Gov. Jeb Bush could help her by vetoing the legislation to permanently eliminate the runoff.
But that ought not to be the only choice. For the voters, instant-runoff voting is the best of all the possible scenarios. Your Legislature owes you the duty of giving it a fair hearing.
