Instant-runoff voting in the United States
Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is used for state and congressional elections in Maine and for local elections in 11 cities, where it is often called "ranked-choice voting." Those cities include San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Berkeley, California; San Leandro, California; Takoma Park, Maryland; Basalt, Colorado; Telluride, Colorado; St. Paul, Minnesota; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Portland, Maine. It is pending implementation in several cities. IRV is commonly used for student government and other non-governmental elections.
In 2016, voters in Maine approved an initiative to become the first state to use IRV statewide in elections for governor, state legislature, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House. Despite efforts by the state legislature and state supreme court to delay the implementation of IRV, the court eventually reversed and ruled that IRV would be introduced for the primary on June 12, 2018. In that election, Maine voters re-affirmed implementation of IRV by popular referendum while using IRV for the first time in primaries for the offices of governor, U.S. House, and state legislator.
Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of IRV (typically with only two rankings) were implemented and subsequently repealed in the states of Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In the 1970s, it was implemented and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan. More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington (2006-2009); Burlington, Vermont (2005-2010); Aspen, Colorado (2007-2010); and in North Carolina, which allowed its use in elections between 2006 and 2013.
- 1 Use at state and federal levels
- 2 Use at local and city level
- 2.1 California
- 2.2 Colorado
- 2.3 Florida
- 2.4 Maine
- 2.5 Maryland
- 2.6 Michigan
- 2.7 Minnesota
- 2.8 New Mexico
- 2.9 North Carolina
- 2.10 Oregon
- 2.11 Tennessee
- 2.12 Vermont
- 2.13 Washington
- 3 Absentee use
- 4 Implementations rejected
- 5 References
- 6 External links
Use at state and federal levels
Maine Question 5, 2016 asked Maine voters whether or not to implement instant-runoff voting for primary and general elections for governor, U.S. Senate, U.S. House and state legislature, starting in 2018. It was approved by 52% to 48%, making Maine the first state to use instant-runoff voting for all such elections. However, on May 23, 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion stating that the state constitution specified that for general elections for governor and the state legislature only a plurality was required to win, which is not consistent with the use of instant-runoff voting and its multi-round vote transfers to ensure majority support. In April 2018, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reversed this position and ruled that Instant Runoff will be used in the state's elections starting in June 2018.
The legislature in June debated legislation to propose a constitutional amendment, to repeal the measure entirely, and to keep instant-runoff voting in place for elections for U.S. Senate, U.S. House and primaries. All bills failed to pass in the regularly scheduled legislative sessions filed to pass, but the legislature voted in October 2017 to delay implementation until 2021, by which time either a constitutional amendment must be adopted or the entire law would be considered repealed. Maine voters then collected enough signatures to force a "people's veto" of the parts of the new law that blocked use of instant-runoff voting for primary and congressional elections. The people's veto, Question 1, passed in the June 12, 2018 election, which was also the first election that used IRV for state and federal offices, including Republican and Democratic primaries for governor, Democratic primary for the 2nd Congressional District, and Republican primary for House District 75.
North Carolina, 2006-2013
A 2006 law had established that IRV would be used when judicial vacancies were created between a primary election and sixty days before a general election. In November 2010, North Carolina had three IRV elections for local-level superior court judges, each with three candidates, and a statewide IRV election for a North Carolina Court of Appeals seat (with 13 candidates). The Court of Appeals race is believed to be the first time IRV has been used in any statewide general election in the United States.
The statewide IRV law was repealed by the General Assembly in 2013 as part of a sweeping voter ID bill, meaning that special judicial elections with more than two candidates would once again be decided by a simple plurality.
Party primaries, caucuses, and conventions
Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, 1912-1930
In the United States, IRV election laws were first adopted in 1912. Five states (Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) used versions of IRV for party primaries, typically with each voter having two rankings and candidates needing to finish in the top two to advance to the instant runoff. By 1930 each jurisdiction had replaced IRV.
Republican Party of Utah
After voting to authorize its use, the Republican Party of Utah used instant runoff voting in 2002, 2003 and 2004 at its statewide convention, including in a contested race to nominate a governor in 2004. In 2005, Republicans used repeated balloting for its statewide convention and has done so in subsequent years. Some county Republican parties like Cache County continue to use instant runoff voting at their conventions, and IRV was used by Republicans to fill several state legislative vacancies in 2009-2011.
Democratic Party of Virginia
In 2014, the Democratic Party of Arlington, Virginia used IRV in two "firehouse primaries" for countywide office that each drew several thousand voters, and it joined with the Democratic Party of Fairfax county that year to use IRV in a seven-candidate primary election for a special election for the House of Delegates. Arlington Democrats also used the system in 2016.
IRV was also used in 2014 by leaders of the Henrico County Democrats in a three-candidate special election nomination contest for the House of Delegates in December 2014 
In May 2009, the Democratic Party of Charlottesville, Virginia, held its first "open caucus" to select its nominees for city council and sheriff, using instant runoff voting. Voter turnout was close 1,600 voters. There were two incumbents and one challenger running for two nominations in the city council race. One incumbent was renominated and another defeated without the need for an instant runoff. Three candidates ran in the sheriff's race. No candidate won an initial majority. In the instant runoff, James E. Brown III defeated Mike Baird.
In August 2011, the Party again used to nominate candidates. Voter turnout rose to 2,582 in the city council race for three nominations. Two candidates were nominated with a majority of the first round vote. The final nomination was determined by IRV.
Independence Party of Minnesota (2004 Presidential poll)
In part to increase awareness of the voting method and to demonstrate it in a real-world situation, the Independence Party of Minnesota tested IRV by using it in a straw poll during the 2004 Minnesota caucuses.
The poll allowed a none of the above option which could not be eliminated. Their rules eliminated one weakest candidate at a time, or all candidates in a tie at the bottom. They continued the elimination until only one candidate remained to confirm that this candidate had more support than NOTA.
This summary table shows the first round, and final five rounds, excluding five rounds during which 18 weak candidates were eliminated.
|John F. Kerry
|George W. Bush
(<10 votes each)
|None of the above||32
Use at local and city level
The city of Berkeley, California passed (72%) instant runoff voting in 2005 to use RCV to elect the mayor, auditor and city council. The city used IRV for the first time in November 2010 for elections for four city council seats and the city auditor. Berkeley used IRV for electing its mayor and four city council seats in November 2012. The city continues to use IRV, including in city elections in November 2014 and November 2016.
The city of Oakland, California, passed (69%) a measure in November 2006 to adopt IRV for 18 city offices. In November 2010, Oakland used IRV to elect its mayor, three city council races and four other local offices, with elections for mayor and council district four requiring multiple rounds of counting. It used IRV in the city's remaining elected offices in 2012. IRV was again used in 2014 and 2016, including in the 2014 mayoral election in which incumbent Jean Quan was defeated by Libby Schaaf.
2010 mayoral election
Oakland's 2010 mayoral election was an open-seat election in which no candidate earned more than 34% of votes in the first round. In the tally, candidates were eliminated sequentially, with three candidates far ahead in first choices. After the count of first choices, Don Perata was in first place, Jean Quan in second place, and Rebecca Kaplan in third place. They remained in that order of votes after all other candidates were eliminated and their votes re-allocated. When Kaplan was then eliminated, Quan picked up 18,864 votes from Kaplan backers while Perata was the next choice of only 6,407 Kaplan backers. As a result, Quan won a final round majority when matched against Perata, which means she was ranked ahead of Perata on a majority of ballots in which one of them received a ranking.(11% of voters did not rank either of them, making their votes "exhausted" by the time of the final round.)
|Candidate||Round 1||Round 2||Round 3|
|LARRY LIONEL LL YOUNG JR.||933||0.76%||-933|
|Exhausted by Over Votes||355||0.29%||+106||461||0.38%||+65||526||0.44%|
- (*) Percentages in rounds one and two are computed from the total ballots (122,268), including voters who did not participate in the election.
Oakland used IRV for several elections in 2012, including a citywide election for city attorney and for several seats on the city council and school board. Several races were decided in an instant runoff, including the District 3 city council race where the winner trailed in first choices. Of the 18 Oakland offices elected by IRV in 2010 and 2012, sixteen of the IRV winners received more votes than the previous winner had won before adoption in the last non-IRV election 
San Francisco has used IRV for its Board of Supervisors and most citywide offices nearly every November since 2004. In March 2002, an initiative backed by a broad coalition of civic organizations won 55% of the vote to adopt instant runoff voting. This implementation allows the voter to rank three candidates and uses sequential candidate elimination until one candidate earns a majority of votes cast for remaining candidates. A unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld San Francisco's IRV law as constitutional.
IRV was first used in October 2004 for YouthVOTE, an election held throughout San Francisco's public schools which elected the San Francisco school board's student delegate; after that, it was used in the November 2004 supervisoral races and every November since that time for at least one election in the city. IRV has played a decisive role in at least one city election in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014. Exit polls by San Francisco State University have shown support for the new system from all groupings of voters.
The San Francisco Department of Elections prefers the term Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) because "the word 'instant' might create an expectation that final results will be available immediately after the polls close on election night." The department releases first choice totals immediately, but used to wait until more absentee ballots have arrived before running instant runoff ballot counts. That practice has since changed.
San Francisco continues to hold IRV elections as of 2017, several of which have gone to multiple rounds of counting. In 2010, for example, two candidates won who were not the leaders in first choice rankings. In 2011, all three citywide elections up for election - mayor, sheriff and district attorney—were decided in IRV tallies. In the wake of the November 2012 elections, sixteen of eighteen offices elected by IRV were held by people of color.
Election results for 2004, 2005, and 2006 are provided in greater detail below.
There were four elections that used the instant runoff process after no majority winner in the first round: Districts 1,5,7, and 11.
- District 1: There were 7 candidates, reduced to 2 candidates in 4 rounds. The winner won 54% of the final round count, which amounted to 48.67% of the total first-round votes, with 9.89% of the ballots exhausted by the final round.
- District 5: There were 22 candidates, reduced to 3 in 19 rounds, when the winner had a majority of active ballots. The winner finished with 50.6% of the final round vote against two runners up, which amounted to 37.63% of the first-round vote with 25.63% of the ballots exhausted.
- District 7: There were 13 candidates, reduced to 2 in 11 rounds. The winner finished with 57% of the votes cast for the two active candidates in the final round. Of first round votes, this amounted to 43.72% of the first-round vote, with 23.12% exhausted ballots.
- District 11: There were 8 candidates, reduced to 2 in 6 rounds. The winner finished with 58% of the final round vote, which amounted to 46.08% of the total first-round vote, with 21.01% of the ballots exhausted.
The District 5 results are included below as the largest election from 2004 and most round of counting. The elimination table shows the candidates reordered by their elimination. The elimination process was stable for the highest 5 candidates, holding their same plurality ranking each round despite the 19 rounds of elimination and transfer votes.
The IRV elimination process was halted when candidate Mirkarimi reached more than 50% of the active ballots, but only 37.6% of the total first-round ballots. This stopping point is pragmatic for picking a winner, but fails to show how many votes the winner had compared to only the strongest runner up candidate.
|Candidate||Pass 1||Pass 2||Pass 3||Pass 4||Pass 5||Pass 6||Pass 7||Pass 8||Pass 9||Pass 10||Pass 11||Pass 12||Pass 13||Pass 14||Pass 15||Pass 16||Pass 17||Pass 18||Pass 19|
|SUSAN C. KING||977||980||984||1007||1034||1051||1072||1116||1147||1206||1237||1293||1371|
|MICHAEL E. O'CONNOR||868||870||873||882||906||930||944||973||1012||1036||1079||1127|
|PATRICK M. CIOCCA||91||91||91|
|Exhausted Ballots (-4146 no marks)||8||21||47||99||147||219||312||429||572||850||1080||1452||1947||2538||3285||4356||6081||8998|
|Plurality candidate %||28.33%||28.34%||28.35%||28.39%||28.47%||28.58%||28.75%||28.93%||29.23%||29.59%||29.83%||30.29%||30.66%||31.18%||32.08%||33.21%||33.95%||35.00%||37.63%|
- The source summary listed Eligible ballots each round as nonexhausted ballots. This is shown here.
- The source summary listed Exhausted ballots as ALL exhausted ballots, including ballots with no marks at all on the election. This table subtracts exhausted the 4146 ballots that supported no candidates to be consistent with other tables in this article.
- Similarly the source listed Total ballots to include eligible and exhausted ballots. Here the no-mark ballots were also removed from the total.
- The final column "Plurality candidate %" is based on votes for the top candidate divided by this adjusted total ballots.
There was one election requiring the instant runoff process to be performed, with 4 candidates and finding a 55% majority winner in two rounds.
|Candidate||Pass 1||Pass 2|
(-26146 no marks)
There were two elections that required the instant runoff process, districts 4 and 6:
- District 4: There were 6 candidates which were reduced to 2 in 4 rounds. The winner ended with 52.5% of the final round vote for active candidates, which amounted to 42.33% of the first-round vote, with 19.38% exhausted ballots.
- District 6: There were 8 candidates and was stopped on the second round with 4 candidates remaining. The winner had 49.99% of the total first-round votes, with 48.37% divided among the 3 runners up, and 1.64% exhausted ballots.
The detailed runoff results for district 4 are:
|Race and Candidate||Pass 1||Pass 2||Pass 3||Pass 4|
(-2171 no marks)
In November 2000, the voters of San Leandro, California approved a charter amendment by 63% to 37% requiring use of a two-round runoff or IRV if no candidate won a majority of first round votes. In January 2010, the city council voted 5-2 to use IRV for its elections for mayor and three city council seats in November 2010. The mayor's race required multiple rounds of counting.
In November 2012, San Leandro held IRV elections for three city council seats. One election was decided in first choices, and two with an instant runoff. In November 2014 and November 2016, San Leandro used IRV for electing six city council seats and the mayor.
Aspen, Colorado passed IRV in November 2007 for the mayoral race and for at-large council races with two winners. In March 2009, the Aspen council adopted a unique variation of IRV for the council races. A block voting tally based on the first and second rank choices was used to determine first round support. Any candidate with initial majority support was elected. If there were not two first-round winners, there was a batch elimination of low-placing candidates to reduce the number of continuing candidates before the instant runoff. In the latter case, separate IRV runoffs would be conducted for each council seat, with the winner of the first seat eliminated from the race for the second seat.
Aspen's first elections with IRV and the new city council system were on May 5, 2009. The number of voters was the highest in the history of Aspen elections. Mick Ireland was re-elected as mayor in the fourth round of a four-candidate race. Both city council incumbents were defeated in the two-seat IRV election in which nine candidates participated. The winners were selected after IRV tallies. 168 spoiled ballots were recast by voters alerted to errors by their optical scanning machine. The city reported 0% invalid ballots in the mayor's race and 0.9% invalid ballots in the two-seat city council elections.
The elections were close, and some Aspen observers argued that a traditional runoff system would have given more time to consider their top choices. There also was debate over how to implement audit procedures. In 2009 voters rejected an advisory measure to maintain IRV and in 2010 approved a binding amendment to return to a traditional runoff system.
The city of Basalt, Colorado adopted instant runoff voting in 2002 for mayoral elections in which there are at least three candidates. The city is ready to run instant runoff elections, but the elections in 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 did not have more than two candidates file for the mayor's office.
On November 4, 2008, voters in the town of Telluride, Colorado, passed an ordinance with 67% of the vote to adopt IRV for the next three mayoral elections, starting in November 2011 if three candidates file for the office. The system was used for the city's 2011 mayoral election. The incumbent mayor Stu Fraser was re-elected by securing a majority of first choices. In the 2015 mayoral election, Sean Murphy handily won an open seat election for mayor after trailing in first choices.
The city of Sarasota, Florida passed IRV (78%) in November 2007. While initially precluded from implementation by the lack of compatible voting machines, in 2015 new, compatible machines were purchased by the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections. Implementation now hinges on the adoption of certification criteria for ranked choice voting tabulation equipment by the Florida Department of State's Division of Elections.
In November 2010, voters in Portland, Maine, adopted a charter amendment with 52% to establish a directly elected mayor, using instant runoff voting. The first election was in November 2011. Fifteen candidates ran. The winner Michael Brennan led with 27% of first choices and won decisively in the final instant runoff voting.
In November 2015, Brennan ran for re-election against two opponents and was defeated by Ethan Strimling. 'While Strimling won a majority of votes in the first round, the Green Party affiliated candidate was able to run a serious campaign without any fingers pointing to him as a "spoiler"', fairvote.org opined.
In January 2007 the first IRV election was held to fill a city council vacancy in a three-way race with a majority winner in the first round. Voters selected Reuben Snipper with 107 votes (52.7%), defeating Eric Hensal with 72 votes (35.5%) and Alexandra Quéré Barrionuevo with 23 votes (11.3%) and one write-in. Snipper said the possibility of using the IRV system changed the race's dynamics. "I had every reason to believe this was going to be a close race," he said. "It meant that when I knocked on a door, if a person indicated they were going to vote for another candidate, I didn't just leave right away. I tried to persuade them I would be a good second choice."
In November 2007 the mayor ran unopposed, and, out of six ward seats on the ballot, one was contested. Runoff provisions were not exercised. In November 2009, the mayor and one city councilor each faced one opponent. In November 2011, one city council race drew three candidates; it was won by a candidate securing a majority of first choices.
In July 2012, the Ward Five race again was vacant. In another three-way race, first-time candidate Jarrett Smith was elected. After securing 44% of first choices, Smith won a majority in the instant runoff against Eric Hensal.
IRV was used in regularly scheduled city elections in 2013, 2015 and 2017, along with a special election that required two rounds of counting.
Ann Arbor: city mayor, 1974-1976
IRV (called preferential voting or PV) was adopted for mayoral races in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1974 after a successful ballot initiative sponsored by the local Human Rights Party. IRV was used in the 1975 mayoral election. Democratic Party nominee Albert H. Wheeler, the city's first African-American mayor, won after trailing the Republican incumbent 49% to 40% in the first round of counting, with remaining votes cast for the Human Rights Party nominee.
In April 1976, 62% of voters voted to repeal IRV in a special election.
The city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, passed (65%) instant runoff voting in November 2006. Although a citizen group filed a lawsuit in 2007 challenging the constitutionality of the system and to block its implementation, the lawsuit was dismissed in a ruling on January 13, 2009. The Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously upheld this ruling in an opinion on June 11, 2009.
On November 3, 2009, the City used instant runoff voting, now commonly known in Minneapolis as ranked choice voting, to elect the mayor, 13 city council seats and seven other local offices and used a multi-seat variation of IRV, the single transferable vote, for park board elections. In November 2013, it again used IRV for those same elections, including in the open seat Minneapolis mayoral election, 2013
On November 4, 2009, voters in the city of Saint Paul, Minnesota, passed a charter amendment with 52% of the vote to adopt IRV for future elections for mayor and city council. In February 2011, the city council adopted rules governing the November 2011 elections. IRV elections took place for city council races, with two council races requiring multiple rounds of counting.
IRV was used in St. Paul's 2013 election for mayor and in an open seat election for city council. IRV also was used for city council elections in 2015, including one election decided in an instant runoff.
- Charter Amendment 5 – RANKED CHOICE VOTING: Proposing to amend the Santa Fe Municipal Charter, Article IV, to create a new Section 4.06 to require that candidates for municipal office be elected by a majority of voters through a ranked choice voting system that combines the initial vote with an "instant" runoff in a single election. The instant runoff is achieved by allowing voters to rank, in order of their preference, each candidate for mayor, city councilor and municipal judge. If, after counting all voters' first choices listed on their ballots for an office, no candidate has received a majority of votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Each ballot listing the eliminated candidate as first choice is then recounted using that ballot's second choice. If still no candidate for the office has received a majority, the process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority of votes for that office.
- Ranked choice voting would go into effect commencing with the regular municipal election in March 2010 or as soon thereafter when equipment and software for tabulating the votes and allowing correction of incorrectly marked, in-person ballots are available at a reasonable price.
Responding to a petition to force the city to implement RCV, the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered RCV to be used in municipal elections, beginning with the March 6, 2018, races for mayor and city council.
A 2006 law established that IRV would be used when judicial vacancies were created between a primary election and sixty days before a general election. In The law also established a pilot program for instant runoff voting in the form of batch-elimination IRV for up to 10 cities in 2007 and up to 10 counties for 2008; to be monitored and reported to the 2007-2008 General Assembly. In November 2010, North Carolina had three IRV elections for local-level superior court judges, each with three candidates, and a statewide IRV election for a North Carolina Court of Appeals seat (with 13 candidates). The Court of Appeals race is believed to be the first time IRV has been used in any statewide general election in the United States.
Several municipalities considered participating in the IRV pilot in 2007. Cary, Hendersonville and Kinston voted to participate; Kinston dropped out because there were not enough candidates running to use IRV. Other cities declined to participate in the pilot. No NC counties volunteered to pilot IRV in 2008 elections held in conjunction with state and federal races. In August 2008 the governor signed legislation extending the pilot program for local elections to be held in 2009-2011.
There was much debate whether IRV was successful when it was used. This debate continued in the North Carolina legislature when it debated legislation to extend the pilot program. Some verified voting advocates contended that the IRV tabulation procedures used were not legal. Both advocates and opponents of the provision supported amendments to the pilot program to: ensure that the local governing body of any jurisdiction participating in the pilot must approve their participation; the jurisdiction must develop and implement voter education plans; and the UNC School of Government by January 2009 must approve procedures for conducting IRV elections. After these amendments were adopted, the state House of Representatives, by a majority of 65-47, rejected an amendment designed to remove the pilot program from the legislation, and the legislation ultimately won approval by both houses.
In 2009 Hendersonville again used IRV, while the Cary Town Council voted to use a traditional runoff method. Three candidates ran for mayor in Hendersonville in November 2009; five candidates ran for two seats on the city council using a multi-seat version of IRV. All seats were filled based on first choices without the need for instant runoffs.
In 2011, Hendersonville's city council unanimously voted to use IRV a third time, although ultimately not enough candidates filed for office to trigger the need for the system.
The IRV pilot program was repealed by the General Assembly in 2013 as part of a sweeping "voter ID" bill, meaning that special judicial elections with more than two candidates would once again be decided by a simple plurality.
In October 2007 the city of Cary, North Carolina used batch-elimination IRV for municipal election for three council seats and for mayor. The mayor's race (with two candidates) and two of the council seats (with four and three candidates on the ballot) were won with a majority in the first round. The remaining council seat, with three candidates, went to a second round of counting under the instant runoff system; the plurality winner in the first round went on to win with 50.9% of the final round vote, amounting to 46.4% of first-round ballots cast, with 8.9% of the ballots offering no preference between the top two candidates.
|Candidate||Round 1||Round 2|
Cary used hand or machine-marked paper ballots that are read on optical scanners manufactured by ES&S. First column choices were tallied at the precinct. The second and third column choices were counted at a central location.
On November 8, 2016, voters in Benton County, Oregon, passed a charter amendment with 54.3% of the vote to enact IRV for county elections. The first use of IRV will take place in November 2020, after the state legislature in 2018 appropriated funds to enable the county to administer the elections.
On November 4, 2008, voters in the city of Memphis, Tennessee, passed a charter amendment with 71% of the vote to enact IRV for city elections. The first use of IRV has been dependent on the city's ability to administer the election: it is scheduled for 2019, however, the city council voted in 2017 to place a referendum to repeal IRV on the 2018 ballot.
2005-2010, Burlington: mayor
The city of Burlington, Vermont approved IRV for use in mayoral elections with a 64% vote in 2005. The 2006 Burlington mayoral race was decided after two rounds of IRV tallying, and the mayoral race in 2009 was decided in three rounds. Unlike Burlington's first IRV mayoral election in 2006, the IRV winner in 2009 (VT Progressive candidate Bob Kiss) was neither the same as the plurality winner (Republican candidate Kurt Wright) nor the Condorcet winner (Democratic candidate Andy Montroll).
The results caused a post-election controversy regarding the IRV method. In late 2009, a group of several Democrats (who supported Republican Kurt Wright) led a signature drive to force a referendum on IRV. According a local columnist, the vote was a referendum on Mayor Kiss, who was a "lame duck" because of a scandal relating to Burlington Telecom and other local issues. However, in an interview with Vermont Public Radio, Mayor Kiss disputed that claim. IRV was repealed in March 2010 by a vote of 52% to 48%.
The repeal reverted the system back to a 40% rule that requires a top-two runoff if no candidate exceeds 40% of the vote. Had the 2009 election occurred under these rules, Kiss and Wright would have advanced to the runoff. If the same voters had participated in the runoff as in the first election and not changed their preferences, Kiss would have won the runoff. In 2011, an initiative effort to increase the winning threshold from the 40% plurality to a 50% majority failed.
2006-2009, Pierce County
Pierce County, Washington, passed (53%) instant runoff voting in November 2006 for most of its county offices. Voters upheld the 2008 implementation timing with a vote of 67% in 2007 and made minor adjustments to the charter language involving ballot access and numbers of rankings. Seven instant runoff voting elections took place on November 4, 2008 and one on November 3, 2009. The introduction of IRV was marked by controversies about costs and a Supreme Court ruling that restored Washington State's top two election system passed statewide in 2004, but struck down by courts in 2005. On November 3, 2009, voters repealed IRV.
Several states jurisdictions that hold runoff elections allow certain categories of absentee voters to submit IRV ballots, because the interval between votes is too short for a second round of absentee voting. IRV ballots enable long-distance absentee votes to count in the second (general) election round if their first choice does not make the runoff. Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and South Carolina used IRV ballots for overseas voters in 2014 and in 2016. A city using this practice is Springfield, Illinois after voters approved it with 91%. Louisiana uses it also for out-of-state members of the United States military and others who reside overseas.
Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of IRV (typically with only two rankings) were implemented and subsequently repealed in the states of Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In the 1970s, it was implemented and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan. More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County, Washington (2006-2009); Burlington, Vermont (2005-2010); and Aspen, Colorado (2007-2010); and in North Carolina, which allowed its use in elections between 2006 and 2013.
According to FairVote, an organization advocating IRV, dozens of states have entertained instant runoff voting legislation since 2000. In 2008, Republican Vermont governor Jim Douglas vetoed legislation which would have established instant runoff voting for that state's congressional elections starting that year despite testimony in support by Vermont's independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and its Democratic U.S. House Member Peter Welch. In 2003, an amendment to the California State Constitution was proposed with wide-ranging goals of election reform, including instant runoff voting for statewide offices. In the state of Washington, an initiative seeking to adopt instant runoff voting in 2005 failed to garner enough signatures. The city of Vancouver, Washington voted in 1999 to adopt instant runoff voting and the state legislature enacted enabling legislation in 2004, but the city in 2006 chose not to exercise its option. Instant runoff voting for all state and federal elections was on Alaska's statewide ballot in August 2002, when it was defeated. It also was defeated by voters in Glendale, Arizona, in 2008, in Fort Collins, Colorado in 2011, and in Duluth, Minnesota in 2015.
In the U.S. Congress, the Voter Choice Act of 2005 sought to require the use of instant runoff voting for general elections for federal office.
- "Where is Ranked Choice Voting Used?". www.fairvote.org. FairVote. Retrieved 2018-04-08.
- "Maine became the first state in the country Tuesday to pass ranked choice voting". 10 November 2016. Retrieved 10 November 2016.
- "Ranked Choice Voting | Maine Voters Rank Candidates". Maine Uses Ranked Choice Voting. Retrieved 2018-04-08.
- Eric Russell (12 June 2018). "Mainers vote to keep ranked-choice voting, with supporters holding commanding lead". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved 13 June 2018.
- Hoag, Clarence Gilbert (1914). Effective Voting: An Article on Preferential Voting and Proportional Representation. U.S. Government Printing Office.
- Walter, Benjamin (26 August 2001). "Instant Runoff Voting: History in Ann Arbor, Michigan". Green Party of Michigan. Archived from the original on 17 September 2008. Retrieved 2 January 2018.
- "Pierce voters nix 'ranked-choice voting' – From Our Corner". blogs.sos.wa.gov. November 10, 2009. Retrieved 2018-01-02.
- McCrea, Lynne (2010-03-03). "Burlington Voters Repeal Instant Runoff Voting". Vermont Public Radio. Retrieved 2018-01-02.
- Wackerle, Curtis (Nov 3, 2010). "City voters repeal IRV". Aspen Daily News. Retrieved 2018-01-02.
- "Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court". 23 May 2017.
- "Maine's top court clears way for ranked-choice voting in June". Bangor Daily News. Retrieved 2018-05-07.
- Thistle, Scott (October 24, 2017). "Legislature delays and potentially repeals ranked-choice voting". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved 28 October 2017.
- "Tuesday, August 10, 2010 « Democracy North Carolina Blog". Democracy-nc.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "North Carolina Bar Association News & Events | NCBA News". Ncbar.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Binker, Mark. "Q&A: Changes to NC election laws". WRAL.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA : SESSION 2013 : SESSION LAW 2013-381 : HOUSE BILL 589" (PDF). Ncleg.net. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "The History of Instant Runoff Voting". FairVote.org. Archived from the original on October 28, 2009. Retrieved November 9, 2005.
- Solgård, Tony Anderson; Paul Landskroener. "Municipal Voting System Reform: Overcoming the Legal Obstacles" (PDF). Fairvotemn.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Reilly, Ben (2001-09-13). Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521797306.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on July 24, 2008. Retrieved May 13, 2009.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on December 5, 2008. Retrieved May 13, 2009.
- "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 6, 2009. Retrieved May 13, 2009.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on July 26, 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2011.
- Ramsey, Grace (2014-12-05). "Party in Major Virginia County Uses Instant Runoff Voting – and Voters Like It". FairVote.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Fitzgerald, Ethan (2016-05-24). "Over 1,700 Virginia Democrats Participate in Ranked Choice Voting Election". FairVote.org. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
- Schmidt, Markus. "Kevin Sullivan defends firehouse primary for Morrissey's seat - Roanoke Times: Politics". Roanoke.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- [dead link]
- "Vote Count Summary for City Council" (PDF). Cvillepedia.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 6, 2008. Retrieved January 29, 2008.
- http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/alm/meas/I/. Missing or empty
- "California Local Government News". PublicCEO. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Election Results - Alameda County Registrar of Voters". Acgov.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Knobel, Lance (2012-04-26). "Berkeley's Mayor Bates announces his re-election bid". Berkeleyside. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- http://www.fairvote.org/assets/RCV-Civility-Project/CivilityBriefForApsa2015.pdf[dead link]
- Offbeat and practical issues taken up around Bay Area, Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 8, 2006.
- "Instant-runoff voting a go for Oakland". Inside Bay Area. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Oakland, California municipal elections, 2014". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November 15, 2011. Retrieved November 11, 2011.
- "Oakland City Council Will Change; Oaklanders Get To Decide How – Dan Cohen". Zennie62blog.com. 2012-06-07. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Hailey, Mollie (2012-11-12). "FairVote's First Take on RCV Elections in Four Bay Area Cities". FairVote.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-01-06. Retrieved 2013-01-06. Unknown parameter
|=ignored (help); Invalid
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2004-10-27. Retrieved 2004-10-27. Unknown parameter
|=ignored (help); Invalid
- Gonzales, Richard (2004-08-23). "San Francisco Adopts Instant Runoff Elections". NPR. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Google Scholar". Scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "And It's 1, 2, 3: That's What We're Fighting For | Scoop News". Scoop.co.nz. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "SFRCV". Sfrcv.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 28, 2007. Retrieved January 28, 2008.
- Arntz, John (February 2, 2005). "Ranked-Choice Voting: A Guide for Candidates" (PDF). Department of Elections: City and County of San Francisco. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 2, 2008. Retrieved August 25, 2009 – via FairVote.
- "Reports - Better Elections in San Francisco". Sfbetterelections.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 6, 2012. Retrieved November 11, 2011.
- Hailey, Mollie (2012-11-12). "FairVote's First Take on RCV Elections in Four Bay Area Cities". FairVote.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 2, 2008. Retrieved February 1, 2008.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 5, 2008. Retrieved February 3, 2008.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November 8, 2009. Retrieved November 4, 2009.
- "Center for Voting and Democracy". Archive.fairvote.org. 2000-11-07. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Holmes, Tim (2010-01-20). "City Council Approves Ranked Choice Voting - Election is Nov. 2, 2010". San Leandro Bytes. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 24, 2012. Retrieved September 1, 2011.
- "San Leandro Political Season Officially Opens | Patch". Sanleandro.patch.com. 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Ranked-Choice Voting - Registrar of Voters - Alameda County". Acgov.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Voters approve instant runoff voting". AspenTimes.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Aspen council adopts instant runoff voting method". AspenTimes.com. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
- "Aspen voter turnout breaks record". AspenTimes.com. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
- "IRV passes first test". AspenTimes.com. Retrieved 2010-05-26.
- [dead link]
- "Aspen's May election under review". AspenTimes.com. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
- "Aspen voters to vote on how they vote — again". AspenTimes.com. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
- "Instant runoff voting loses by razor-thin margin | Aspen Daily News Online". Aspendailynews.com. 2009-11-04. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "City voters repeal IRV | Aspen Daily News Online". Aspendailynews.com. 2010-11-03. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2008.
- "It's six (and one) for Basalt town election". AspenTimes.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 25, 2009. Retrieved November 6, 2008.
- Klingsporn, Katie (2011-11-09). "Stu Fraser wins mayoral race - Telluride Daily Planet: News". Telluridenews.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Sean Murphy elected new mayor of Telluride - Telluride Daily Planet: News". Telluridenews.com. 2015-11-04. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 11, 2007. Retrieved January 26, 2008.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on December 17, 2007. Retrieved February 11, 2008.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on December 5, 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2008.
- "Portland returns to electing its mayor - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram". Pressherald.com. 2010-11-03. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Home". PortlandVotes123. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Koenig, Seth (2011-11-09). "Brennan to become Portland's first popularly elected mayor in 88 years — Portland — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine". Bangordailynews.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Penrose, Drew Spencer (2015-11-04). "Seven Ways Ranked Choice Voting is Empowering Voters in 2015". FairVote.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Assessing Instant Runoff Voting in Takoma Park (MD)". FairVote.org. March 28, 2007. Retrieved 2016-11-12.
- Takoma Park's New Vote System Makes Debut, Miranda S. Spivack, Washington Post, Feb. 8, 2007.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 8, 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2008.
- "Williams retains mayor's seat in Takoma Park". Gazette.net. 2009-11-03. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-09-03. Retrieved 2012-09-03. Unknown parameter
|=ignored (help); Invalid
- Gay, Jared (2012-07-18). "Instant Runoff Voting in Action in Takoma Park". FairVote.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Survey Shows Support for Takoma Park Voting Reforms". FairVote.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Jonathan Marwil, A History of Ann Arbor (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), 164–165.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 8, 2012. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Results at a glance". Daily Tribune. November 3, 2004. Archived from the original on 2008-01-20. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
- "IRV: What's missing from Ferndale's election".
- Measure to overhaul municipal races passes, Terry Collins, Star Tribune, November 8, 2006.
- Lawsuit challenges Minneapolis instant runoff voting system, 12/20/07 (Group filing lawsuit: Minnesota Voters Alliance)
- "Minnesota State Court Rules in Favor of Instant-Runoff Voting | Ballot Access News". Ballot-access.org. 2009-01-13. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis, 766 N.W.2d 683 (Minn. 2009)
- Brandt, Steve (2009-06-12). "Minneapolis will use ranked-choice voting method". StarTribune.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Brandt, Steve (2009-07-22). "List of filers for Minneapolis city offices now complete". StarTribune.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Mauter, Erica L. "Ranked Choice Voting in Minneapolis 2013 Elections" (PDF). Sophia.stkate.edu. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on July 25, 2011. Retrieved January 20, 2010.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 12, 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2011.
- Olson, Rochelle (2011-11-09). "Ranked voting gets first runoff test". StarTribune.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- [dead link]
- [dead link]
- North, T.S. Last and Mark Oswald|Journal. "Supreme Court clears way for ranked-choice voting in Santa Fe". www.abqjournal.com. Retrieved 2018-01-12.
- Stelnicki, Tripp (2018-06-04). "Second city in New Mexico opts for ranked-choice". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Retrieved 2018-07-11.
- House Bill 1024, General Assembly of North Carolina, Session 2005.
- "CITIZEN-TIMES: Capital Letters - Post details: No instant-runoff this year". Blogs.citizen-times.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- [dead link]
- Arnold, Adam (Jan 22, 2008). "Opinion mixed on Cary's instant-runoff trial". Archived from the original on 2008-02-03. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
- Senate Bill 1263, General Assembly of North Carolina, Session 2007-8
- "N. C. Coalition for Verified Voting" (PDF). Ncvoter.net. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "North Carolina General Assembly - Senate Bill 1263 Information/History (2007-2008 Session)". Ncga.state.nc.us. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Niolet, Benjamin; Beckwith, Ryan Teague (May 8, 2009). "'Patient's bill' also boon to chiropractors, therapists". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
- "Cary votes to keep current election method". WRAL.com. 2009-04-30. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- [dead link]
- [dead link]
- Harbin, John (2011-04-08). "Hendersonville votes to keep instant runoff ballots". BlueRidgeNow.com. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 11, 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2008.
- "Archived copy". Retrieved November 13, 2015.
- "Better Ballots for Benton". Archived from the original on 2016-11-14. Retrieved November 13, 2015.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November 8, 2008. Retrieved November 6, 2008.
- Smith, Maya. "City Council Votes to Repeal Instant Runoff Voting". Memphis Flyer. Retrieved 2018-07-11.
- 4. How did this change to IRV come about? Over 64% of Burlington voters voted in favor of the IRV Charter amendment in March, 2005, and it went into effect on May 12, 2005, when the governor signed the ratification bill, H.505, which had been passed by both the House and Senate.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on July 26, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2010.
- "Burlington Vermont 2009 IRV mayoral election". RangeVoting.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Baruth, Philip (March 12, 2009). "Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out A Case Against Instant Runoff Voting". Vermont Daily Briefing. Archived from the original on July 26, 2011.
- "One Person, One Vote Press Conference". CCTV Center for Media and Democracy. 2009-12-29. Retrieved 2018-04-10.
- Totten, Shay. "Burlington Residents Seek Repeal of Instant Runoff Voting". Seven Days. Retrieved 2018-04-08.
- "Bob Kiss on IRV, Burlington Telecom And The Moran Plant - VPR Archive". vprarchive.vpr.net. Retrieved 2018-04-10.
- "Burlington voters repeal IRV". Wcax.com. March 2, 2010. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
- "Instant run-off voting experiment ends in Burlington : Rutland Herald Online". Rutlandherald.com. 2010-04-27. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Briggs, John (March 3, 2010). "Instant runoff rejected". The Burlington Free Press.
- "City of Burlington, Vermont | Instant Runoff Voting". 2011-09-28. Archived from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2018-04-08. - FAQ 5. for IRV: Under the old [pre-IRV] system a candidate could be elected with just over 40% of the vote, meaning a candidate could win even though seen as the last choice of nearly 60% of the voters .
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 9, 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2008.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 8, 2008. Retrieved January 27, 2008.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November 8, 2008. Retrieved November 6, 2008.
- Wickert, David W. (2009-11-09). "Voters Changing their Minds on Ranked-Choice". Tacoma News Tribune.
- Penrose, Drew Spencer. "Proven Innovations to Uphold Voting Rights for Overseas Voters". FairVote.org. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Initiatives – Pew Center on the States" (PDF). Electionline.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 May 2008. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
- IRV for Louisiana's [sic] Overseas Voters (web page), FairVote IRV America, retrieved June 16, 2013
- Kinzel, Bob, "Douglas vetoes two election bills", Vermont Public Radio, April 4, 2008. Retrieved 2016-11-12.
- "FairVote - Bernie Sanders: Testimony to the Vermont Senate Government Operations Committee". Archive.fairvote.org. 2007-03-15. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Peter Welch: Testimony to the Vermont Senate Government Operations Committee". Archive.fairvote.org. 2007-03-15. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- "Unindexed archive directory". Archived from the original on October 12, 2004. Retrieved January 28, 2008.
- McKinney, Cynthia (2005-05-26). "Voter Choice Act of 2005 (2005; 109th Congress H.R. 2690)". GovTrack.us. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
- Explainer video: How does ranked-choice voting work?, Minnesota Public Radio MPR.org