Reality: One election is better than two.

One election gives voters more choice and increases voter participation

Some IRV opponents argue that voting is more difficult when voters are offered more than two candidates two chose among. They also suggest that voters who don't show up for primaries prefer that the primary field be vetted by a small group of “informed” voters before November. Or, they assert that primaries give voters time to re-evaluate the top two choices on the November ballot.

But none of these theories hold up under even the most casual examination.  None of the exit polls conducted in cities using IRV show that voters don’t like choice or that they find it confusing or that it scares them away from voting. In fact, the studies show just the opposite: that most voters understand and like IRV, and they tend to rank two or more candidates on the ballot.

Under the current system, voters have the option to get to know as many or as few candidates as they wish in order to decide which ONE candidate they will vote for. It is no different under IRV, except that voters are able to rank more than one choice.

These arguments also gloss over a serious problem with the current system: only a small number of voters are fully participating in the current primary-and-general-election system.  The majority of voters don't and, as a result, elections are not representative of the community at large. The Saint Paul voter turnout data illustrates how this problem has grown since 1993:

These numbers demonstrate that primaries don’t foster greater voter participation. While some may prefer the winnowing that a primary provides, the barriers to participation significantly outweigh any advantages. In addition, primaries are costly and – by prematurely narrowing the field of candidates – needlessly truncate the discussion of issues of concern to voters and become a recipe for negative campaigning.

Opponents also make a three-cushion argument that primaries are necessary to winnow a candidate field to a “manageable” size for debates and candidate forums.  In support of this assertion, they point to the 2001 16-candidate mayoral race in Saint Paul but, of course, this number of candidates is the exception not the norm. In the past four election cycles, city council races in Saint Paul (and Minneapolis) typically had 3 to 6 candidates. The 2005 Saint Paul mayoral primary was a contest among 8 candidates while the 2009 primary was a contest among 4 candidates.

One election leads to less expensive elections and campaigns

Holding two elections also costs a lot more, both for taxpayers and for candidates.

Reduced election costs

• In San Francisco:  The city saves an average of $3 million each election cycle by not conducting December runoff elections for citywide municipal races, far more than the cost of IRV elections. According to Supervisor and former Election Commission member Gerard Gleason, the startup costs of new equipment and voter education are being recouped by the savings gained from the eliminated runoffs.
  

•  In Burlington: The city elections administrator estimates a net savings of $0.12 – 0.55 per registered voter or between $4,000 - $18,000 per election, depending on the need for a separate ballot card.

•  In Cary:  The chair of the Wake County Board of Elections estimated that the city saved more than $14,000 by avoiding a second round of voting in the first IRV election. A runoff election would have cost the Town of Cary approximately $24,000.

• In Aspen: The city eliminated the need to hold a runoff election, which costs roughly $10,000 in a town of about 2,500 voters. These savings were used to invest in voter education and vote counting equipment for the first election, but most of these funds will be ongoing savings in future elections.

• In Pierce County: The first-time IRV elections were held during a presidential election year in which primary elections were also held and, therefore, there were no savings to balance the startup costs of new equipment and voter education.  Opponents point to the start-up expense of the new system as a reason to repeal its use, but groups like the League of Women Voters of Pierce County believe such an action would be counterproductive and negate the opportunity to defray and recoup these costs over time and experience the other benefits this investment is intended to bring to the electoral process in terms of greater choice and voter participation. 

• In Minneapolis: The city will save approximately $225,000 each municipal election cycle by eliminating primary elections. These savings will initially fund the start up costs but will be real savings once these start-up costs are recouped. Likewise in Saint Paul, the city would save an estimated $125,000 in municipal election cycles, according to Saint Paul elections director Joe Mansky, when school board primaries are not required.

Reduced campaign costs

There is also growing evidence that IRV helps reduce the costs of campaigns and mitigates the disparity in fundraising among candidates. Using a two election system gives an added advantage to candidates with ready access to big money. IRV can reduce the influence of big money in campaigns as indicated in recent IRV mayoral elections in Burlington, VT and Aspen, CO where the winners were significantly outspent by losing candidates.

These experiences show that not only does IRV reduce campaign spending by eliminating the cost of a second election it reduces the need to spend money on negative campaign ads and has the ability to trump campaign spending as a measure for winning campaigns.