Stop the spin
Ketchum
reminds us of a dog that refuses to stop chasing its tail.
The Ketchum
City Council is wearing itself out arguing over which is better, a
winners-take-all system in which top vote getters in an unlimited field of
candidates net two available council seats in each election. Or, a system
in which candidates must designate the seat for which they run.
Two
different councils have spouted high-minded rhetoric for more than a year.
The answer to which system is better? Neither.
If the
council could quit spinning around in oldthink long enough to think new
thoughts, it would learn that in March San Francisco voters approved a
system called instant runoff voting.
When they
ballot, San Franciscans will rank candidates in order of preference—first,
second, third and so on. If no candidate gets more than 50 percent, the
last place finisher is dropped. Then the second-place rankings from those
ballots are distributed, and so on and so forth, until one candidate
accumulates a majority.
Think any
idea emanating from the City by the Bay might be just a little too liberal
or a little too radical for a county smack in the center of Idaho? It’s
worth noting that Utah’s Republican Party—hardly a hotbed of radical
thought—will use instant runoff voting in May at its convention to
nominate candidates for the primary election. The system will help sort
out the 40 candidates who are running for three congressional seats.
It’s true
the system would eliminate a lot of the political entertainment involved
in races with lots of candidates. Odds-making on which candidates will
split strong voting blocks and open the door to a surprise winner will
disappear. Backroom deals in which one candidate pressures another to drop
from a race to ensure victory will be unnecessary.
Instant
runoff voting could stop the tail-chasing—unless, of course, the council
likes the spin.