Alternative Voting Processes

Is 33% of the vote adequate for "winning" an election?

Alternative Voting Processes

We are asking all League members to join in reaching consensus on this issue at the November Hot Topics Luncheon. We will have discussion and questions on all the voting measures described in this article.

Included in this article are a brief overview of the reasons for this study, background information, a history in Florida, and the consensus questions. For more detailed background information and descriptions of each voting process, please access the League of Women Voters of Florida website at http://www.lwvfla.org click on for members and then click Alternative Voting Study.
If, after studying all the information here and on the website you have more questions, please bring them to the Hot Topics Lunch on 11/15/06 or contact a committee member.
Study committee members are Carol Weissert, Ben Wilcox, Marilynn Wills and Charlene Walker, Chair. Special appreciation goes to the League of Women Voters of the St. Petersburg Area and the League of Women Voters of Minnesota.

Background Information Introduction The purpose of this study is to provide background material about the most frequently discussed alternative voting systems for reference, discussion, and debate. For this study, a voting system is defined as a collection of rules and procedures that establishes how an election will be conducted, including how the ballots are marked, how the votes are tabulated, how many votes are necessary to win, and other election administration procedures. The scope of this study is limited to single-seat Florida elections. Voting systems being studied include plurality, approval voting, instant runoff voting (IRV), Borda count, and Condorcet.

Plurality Voting System Concerns The only voting system used in Florida at this time is the Plurality Voting System, in which the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether or not he or she received a majority of the votes cast. If only two candidates are running, plurality is also a majority, but if multiple candidates are running, the plurality outcome could be far less than a majority. Recent changes to Florida election rules have heightened concerns as to whether plurality voting is adequate under all circumstances. In 2005 the Florida Legislature permanently eliminated second, or runoff, primaries because it was too costly. Keep in mind that four of Florida's most renowned legislators, LeRoy Collins, Reubin Askew, Lawton Chiles and Bob Graham, came in second in primaries during their political careers. Thanks to run-off primaries, we didn't lose these outstanding politicians. Now that run-off primaries are a thing of the past, do we need an alternative method of ensuring majority or near majority winners? In 1998 the Constitution Revision Commission placed an amendment on the ballot that would make it easier for minor party and independent candidates to get on the ballot. The amendment passed. According to Art. VI § 1 of the Florida Constitution, "Registration and elections shall, and political party functions may, be regulated by law; however, the requirements for a candidate with no party affiliation or for a candidate of a minor party for placement of the candidate's name on the ballot shall be no greater than the requirements for a candidate of the party having the largest number of registered voters." Voter registration statistics show an increase in the percent of Florida voters registered as "no party" or in a minor party. In 1994, 8.64 percent of the voters were registered "no party" or in a minor party. In 2004, just ten years later, the figure was 20.85 percent. If this trend continues, along with the possibility of more minor party candidates running in the future, the problems of plurality voting might become more apparent.

Florida History of Alternative Voting Systems and Runoff Primaries In a Nov. 6, 2000, editorial the St. Petersburg Times reported that Florida used a version of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), also known as Single Transferable Vote, for party primaries from 1916 through 1928. According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, instead of using the standard IRV sequential elimination of the candidate with the least number of votes, Florida used batch elimination of all but the top two candidates. (See Appendix A.) In both methods, the votes cast for the eliminated candidate(s) are transferred (or moved) to the next choice listed on each of those ballots. According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, IRV was dropped after a series of primary elections in which alternate preference votes happened to play no role in determining the winner. The St. Petersburg Times editorial says IRV was dropped because of "the massive problem of managing a statewide recount that depended on paper ballots." Because optical scanners and computers are widely available to count votes today, this latter concern is no longer relevant. According to Bob West, research librarian for the State Library of Florida in Tallahassee, the first statute mandating the use of a second, or runoff primary election in the event of a non-majority outcome was passed in 1937. (See Appendix B.) It is interesting to note that in 1936, according to the Times, 14 Democrats ran for governor, and the leader in the primary, who later lost the general election, polled only 15.7 percent of the vote. Can we conjecture that this had something to do with this particular election reform in 1937? A number of amendments pertaining to runoff elections were passed over the years, culminating in the permanent elimination of runoff primary elections in 2005.

Legality This section is based on legal analysis by Jeff O'Neill, Cornell Law School legal intern with the Center for Voting and Democracy in the summer of 2003. His report is entitled "Fair Elections and the Law for the State of Florida: A Project of the Center for Voting and Democracy." Plurality Requirement for General Elections The Florida Constitution Art. VI § 1 (2002) states that, "General elections shall be determined by a plurality of votes cast." Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is the only one of the voting systems we are studying that explicitly uses the term majority in specifying the tabulation process to determine the winner of an election. Because the Florida Constitution specifies a plurality, which may be less than a majority, a constitutional amendment may be needed to allow implementing IRV for general elections, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy. This applies to all general elections at all levels of Florida government. Plurality Requirement for Primary Elections According to Florida Statutes § 100.061 (2005), "In each year in which a general election is held, a primary election for nomination of candidates of political parties shall be held on the Tuesday nine weeks prior to the general election. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast in each contest in the primary election shall be declared nominated for such office. If two or more candidates receive an equal and highest number of votes for the same office, such candidates shall draw lots to determine which candidate is nominated." Because the conduct of primary elections is specified in Florida Statutes rather than the Florida Constitution, implementing IRV would only require modifying state law, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy. Exception for Municipal Primary Elections Florida Statutes § 100.3605 (2002) states that, "The Florida Election Code, Chapters 97-106, shall govern the conduct of a municipality's election in the absence of an applicable special act, charter, or ordinance provision. No charter or ordinance provision shall be adopted which conflicts with or exempts a municipality from any provision in the Florida Election Code that expressly applies to municipalities." According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, "since the state law regarding primaries does not expressly apply to municipalities, cities can pass an ordinance to change the manner in which primaries are conducted. Thus, a city could use IRV for a primary election."

Voting Systems Each of the voting systems in the study raises issues that vary depending on what people value and what they want to accomplish. This list summarizes the most frequently cited pro and con statements made regarding each system.

Plurality Voting System (current) (Voters select one candidate: candidate with most votes wins)

• Is easy for voters to understand.
• Preserves tradition.
• Requires no legislative change.
• Does not ensure majority rule when more than two candidates are running.
• Votes for third party candidates may be "wasted."
• Is vulnerable to "spoiler" candidates.
• Is vulnerable to manipulation.

Approval Voting System (Voters select as many candidates as they wish; candidate with most votes wins)

• Is easy for voters to understand.
• Expands voters' choices because they can vote for more than one candidate.
• Might eliminate "wasted" votes, "spoiler" candidates in some cases.
• Measures only whether or not a candidate is acceptable; does not distinguish between intense and weak approval.
• Could lead to defeat of a candidate whom a majority supports as their first choice
• Is vulnerable to manipulation.

• Allows voters to express preferences among candidates.
• Considered by some mathematicians to best identify winner in three-way race.
• Is vulnerable to manipulation (may require honesty for best performance).
• Voting for one's second choice can defeat one's first choice. 2 LWV St. Petersburg Area

• Allows voters to express preferences among candidates.
• Considered by some mathematicians to best identity winner in three-way race.
• May result in a tie that requires pre-election decision on how to break tie.
• Is vulnerable to manipulation.
• May be difficult for voters to understand.

• Ensures majority rule.
• Allows voters to express preferences among candidates.
• Eliminates problems of spoiler candidates knocking off major candidates.
• Eliminates need for run-off elections.
• Does not meet mathematical requirement for monotonicity.

• This consensus process allows for supporting more than one voting method.
• The State Board will develop a position statement regarding the outcome.
• Please check if the preponderance of your group agrees -- either Support or Oppose. If no agreement can be reached or if the group is sharply divided, check No Consensus.

QUESTION: Is the current method of plurality voting adequate under all circumstances, or should alternate options be recommended? The methods under consideration are the following.

1. Plurality Voting + Current voting system in Florida; the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether or not he or she received a majority of the votes cast. Support ___ Oppose ___ No consensus ___ Why or why not?

2. Approval Voting: Voters cast votes for all the candidates they approve. The candidate with the most votes wins. Support ___ Oppose ___ No consensus ___ Why or why not?

3. Borda Count: Voters rank the candidates, and a pre-determined number of points are assigned to each ranked choice, with a first choice receiving the highest number of points, a second choice less, and so on. The candidate with the most points wins. Support ___ Oppose ___ No consensus ___ Why or why not?

4. Condorcet: Voters rank the candidates, and the winning candidate is the person who can top each of the others in a "pair-wise comparison." Support ___ Oppose ___ No consensus ___

Why or why not?

5. Instant Runoff Voting: Voters rank the candidates. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and the votes cast for the eliminated candidate are transferred (or moved) to the next choice listed on each ballot. This process of elimination continues until a majority winner is declared. Support ___ Oppose ___ No consensus ___ Why or why not?

The LWVF study was adopted in May 2005. Parts 1 through 6 are from the LWV of Minnesota study of 2004 when they adopted a position on the subject. Subsequent parts will deal with Florida's voting systems. We thank LWVMN Education Fund for permission to reprint this report. We thank LWVSPA Education Fund for permission to reprint this report.