Reality: IRV does work; those who want it repealed may not like how it works, but voters do.

Challenges to IRV – in the courts or on the ballot – are not new and are mounted because IRV does work. Repeal efforts are typically led by a losing candidate or their supporters who prefer the old status quo. IRV was repealed, for example, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, after it resulted in the election of the city’s first African-American Mayor in 1974. The system worked the way it was supposed to – electing the candidate preferred by the majority of voters. The race unseated an entrenched base of power, which first challenged the system in the courts. When it lost, it sought to repeal it and succeeded in low turnout election.

So, what are the current repeal efforts about?

Cary, North Carolina

Cary was not the site of a repeal effort but rather a decision by the city council to opt out of the pilot program this year due to uncertainty about how the ballots would be tallied. IRV worked well in Cary and is preferred by the voters: the exit poll taken at election time showed that 72 percent of the voters liked IRV and a 2008 town survey affirmed this support, showing that 69 percent of residents favored IRV, and 51 percent strongly favored IRV. Hendersonville joined Cary in being the initial cities to try IRV under North Carolina’s IRV pilot program and is continuing to use it.

Aspen, Colorado

Despite the success of the first IRV election in Aspen, advocates of the old status quo runoff elections – led by a defeated mayoral candidate in the recent election – are seeking to repeal the new system. The city council has voted to put an advisory measure on the ballot about whether to keep IRV. If this measure passes, it will require another vote of the people to revert back to the traditional two-round runoff system.

The opponents are boosted in their efforts by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, the organization that failed in its legal challenge against IRV in Minneapolis when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously that IRV is constitutional. 

The Aspen IRV election was very successful overall. Voter turnout was high, the cost was low and majority winners were elected without a second runoff election. It was also an example of transparency and verifiability in the way IRV ballots are counted.

While there seems to have been some voter confusion in the novel multiple seat races, this issue can be easily addressed through voter education and ballot design for future elections.

Burlington, Vermont

As in Ann Arbor in 1974, the defeated candidate for mayor who lost in the 2009 mayoral election has been the inspiration for efforts to repeal IRV there. Read full story at http://www.fairvote.org/lessons-from-burlington.

Pierce County, Washington

In an editorial, the Seattle Times called the IRV repeal effort in Pierce County a "reflex action by politicians who didn't like it responding to voters who weren't used to it." It went on to say that opponents "can't say it didn't work" and that it's a "new and promising system, and it has hardly had a chance to prove itself”.

 Political opponents in Pierce County are working to overturn IRV despite its overall successful first-time used.

In a recent commentary, IRV expert Professor Richard Connolly, observed: "Whose interests will be served if they succeed in fooling voters into overturning our voting reform? Behind all the false rhetoric is their fear of an unstated truth: IRV elections are simply too fair and too competitive for the incumbents in the two parties?"

The 2008 implementation of IRV in Pierce County was more challenging than some of the other implementations due to the overall size of the election during a presidential election year.  Despite these challenges, however, the elections were successful and the system had the potential to save the county a significant amount of money once the start-up costs are recouped and if it is expanded to other county elections. Click here to see the independent evaluation report.

Those working to repeal the system – including the newly elected county executive who was responsible for implementing the new system as county auditor – and who was elected under IRV – point to the cost, delays and voter confusion caused by IRV.

Proponents of IRV – in particular the local League of Women Voters –  have refuted these claims and point to the various ways that the election officials have incorrectly inflated the cost of IRV implementation, including: 1) attributing the upfront investment in voting equipment to the first year of use instead of properly amortizing this cost over the life of the equipment; 2) assigning costs to IRV that would have occurred without the new system; and 3) not factoring in future savings gained from eliminated primary elections. 

There were delays in counting ballots and reporting results in the 2008 election, but these had nothing to do with IRV. They were due primarily to the large volume of mailed in ballots, which were still arriving days following the election because Pierce County, where most voters vote by mail, allows ballots to be postmarked on election day.