Get rid of Instant Runoff!!!

ExcelsiorMom's picture

I would like to see the instant runoff practice stopped altogether.  While it seemed like a good idea as it was a way to get rid of a second and expensive election, I think it has ended up in diluting the voting process and allowing only a small percentage of people to actually select our eventual public officials. 

Think about it.  If you don't end up selecting the eventual last two highest vote getters among your three choices, you in essence lost your vote and your say in who eventually wins the election.  Given the ridiculous numbers of people running in any given supervisoral race, this scenario is very likely.   In a proper election with a runoff election, if you voted for somebody who say came in fourth, for example, then you still have a shot in the next runoff to choose between the two finalists and have your say on who wins the elections.  In an instant runoff, if you voted for the eventual fourth place candidate, then gave your second and third votes to say the fifth and seventh place candidates, then basically your votes never transferred and you didn't get to choose between the two finalists.  Basically you lost your vote. 

km123's picture

1 person 1 vote? Nope

Seriously. If D10 is any indication of the chaos caused by Instant Run-off voting... check it out: http://www.sfelections.org/results/20101102/

It's inherently unequal, and eliminates 1 person 1 vote.

Paid for by Phil Ting for Assembly 2012. FPPC ID# 1343137