Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2006 > August > 08 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USThe 45 percent solution to run-offs
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
On Monday, House Majority Leader Jerry Keen raised the possibility of tweaking Georgia’s election law to reduce the number of run-offs, by declaring a winner when the leading candidate passes the 45 percent mark.
It’s a matter of cost, the St. Simons lawmaker said. “In my county, we’ve had early voting for a week and had to open up all the polling places for two votes,â€? Keen said. (Think of it as the only thing that he and Cynthia McKinney might agree on.)
While he was jawing with reporters, Keen said he thought he’d read somewhere that, in a multi-candidate field, the candidate who reaches 45 percent or more wins 95 percent of the time.
That seemed like something that could be instantly vetted. Chuck Bullock, the University of Georgia political scientist, went home early to run the numbers on 30 years’ worth of run-offs. Few other people carry that kind of information on a hard drive.
As it turns out, the 45 percent bar is far from magic. Bullock’s research has found that, in Georgia over the past 30 years, the lead vote-getter in a contest wins the run-off 70 percent of the time. That’s without considering the lead vote-getter’s share of the initial vote.
If you just consider those cases in which the lead vote-getter wins 45 percent or more in the first balloting, chances of victory are only mildly greater — 74 percent.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Justin
August 8, 2006 4:18 PM | Link to this
As a true independent who has no use for schemes that favor one party over another or keep incumbents in office, I am in favor of eliminating run-offs completely. I think the person with the most votes in a primary or general election deserves to be declared the winner. There is no need for another election so the person can obtain a majority. If the President is elected this way and an overwhelming majority of states conduct elections this way, I see no reason why Georgia can’t change its election laws. Let us not forget this law was put in place during the Civil Rights era, just like when it was decided that the Confederate flag should be our state flag.
By Bruce Wilcox
August 8, 2006 4:39 PM | Link to this
Get rid of the backward open primary where the other party can decide the others party candidate. Republican should only be able to vote as a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat.
By NM
August 8, 2006 4:51 PM | Link to this
Justin wrote: I think the person with the most votes in a primary or general election deserves to be declared the winner.
Really? Is that a good idea? Imagine an election (primary, general, whatever) with four candidates. Jane gets 27%, Jack gets 26%, Jim gets 24%, and Joe gets 23%. Would it really be fair for Jane to win the election with little more than a fourth of the vote? What about with five or six or ten candidates, when the lead vote getter might (in theory) have 11 or 12 percent? How is that fair?
By Justin
August 8, 2006 5:40 PM | Link to this
I agree with you Bruce, another good change would be to make people register by party or as an independent, so only identified members of the party can vote in their respective primaries.
NM… outcomes like the one you listed occur in 42 states. Last week in Tennessee two races for congressional seats were won with about 23% and 29% of the vote in 13 and 14 person races. I think the idea of “fairness” is subjective. To me, the person with the most votes deserves to win the race. Are you as concerned that the President does not need a majority of votes in a state to win its electors?
By RiverRat
August 8, 2006 5:52 PM | Link to this
Three words - Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. You vote for your number one and number two pick, so that if your number one doesn’t get into the top 2, your number two choice picks up your vote. For example, everyone who voted for Coyne instead of Johnson or McKinney would see their votes go to their number 2 choice, Johnson, and we wouldn’t need a runoff.
By RiverRat
August 8, 2006 5:56 PM | Link to this
Also, IRV would allow people to vote for independant or third party candidates in a presidential election without fear that they will be screwing their candidate. For example, the Democratic candidate gets 48% of the vote, the Republican candidate gets 47% of the vote, and the Libertarian candidate gets 5% of the vote. Currently, the Dem would get the electoral votes. Under IRV, the GOP candidate would get the electoral votes.
By RFSOsInRevolt
August 8, 2006 8:02 PM | Link to this
Jerry Keen is a lying, scumbag criminal.
He has no concern for the monetary (or other) costs incurred by the people of Georgia. Just take a look at his pathetic harassment campaign against people who are listed on Georgia’s SEX OFFENDER Registry. There is not an expert in this entire country who believes banishing people who are on that God-forsaken joke Registry will do anything positive. Quite the contrary, expert after expert warned Keen and the other criminal legislators that their legislation would reduce public safety and lead to higher recidivism. He’s a certified idiot.
By Arual
August 8, 2006 10:07 PM | Link to this
Bruce Wilcox - Sorry to burst your self-involved bubble, but the open primary is in itself a triumph of democracy.
By Bruce Wilcox
August 8, 2006 11:54 PM | Link to this
Sorry Arual but “but the open primary is in itself a triumph of democracy.” , no its just Southern Poitic’s. This is one of the few states in the country to hold on to this backward process, where fence-jumpers decide the other parties candidate. You may as well get rid of the Republican - Democrat system all togeher in Georgia.
In other states you’re a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green or an Indpendent, it just takes the South a little more time to catch up.
By Bon Vivant
August 9, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Hey, Brucie, if you don’t like Georgia’s voting system, take your yank’ed a* back up North a/k/a God’s land of Paradise.
If you think party-politics identification is “modern,” then you are more ignorant than you sound at first glance.
By Fred
August 9, 2006 6:02 PM | Link to this
Gee Bruce (there’s a telling name in itself) why don’t you do two things. First go back to whatever paradise of a state you came from and quit telling us (whom you obviously despise and see as your inferior servants) what to do and second quit your leftist whining when a practice that benefited the Leftists for over a hundred years benefits a few pubs in the last couple of years. That racist McKinney has ignored her District and constituents for years. She is again thankfully gone.
So Brucie, how many Leftists crossed over to vote against idiot Ralph Reed? I know many from the FOURTH district (my district) that did. They felt that Ralphie was more of a threat than commie, Islamic terrorist loving, Cindy was. It was a tough decision for me, I couldn’t decide who was the bigger htreat to our country, Ralphie or Cindy…….. I’ll let YOU make the erroneous decision on what my choice was……
By Bruce Wilcox
August 9, 2006 6:14 PM | Link to this
Ah, Bon-bon and Freddy you proved my point so well. I’ll be leaving this backward state in about five years, even missionary’s get a break once in awhile.
By UGA 72
August 10, 2006 1:59 AM | Link to this
Bruce Delta is ready when you are, we’ll try but I suspect we won’t miss you at all.
By Chris
August 12, 2006 5:33 PM | Link to this
RiverRat suggested Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) as an alternative voting method. It is true that IRV eliminates the need for runoff elections (expect if any of the multiple rounds of automated runoffs leads to an exact tie). However, his second point that IRV allows one to vote for independent or third party candidates without hurting the chances of their favorite candidate from the two major parties is not true.
By Chris
August 12, 2006 5:34 PM | Link to this
RiverRat is referring to a problem called “wasted vote syndrome� or “spoiler candidates.� A famous recent example is the 2000 presidential election in Florida where voters for Nader (who had no chance of winning) essentially wasted their votes and caused their most likely second choice (Gore) to lose. IRV only eliminates the wasted vote syndrome when there are two strong candidates and one or more non-viable candidates. If there are three or more viable candidates, then the wasted vote syndrome is again possible. This creates incentive to vote strategically rather than honestly by ranking a major party candidate first and a third party second (or choosing not to assign the second and third rankings at all). For example, in Australia, which uses IRV, most voters do vote strategically and they remain a 2-party dominated country. There are also other less-obvious problems with IRV: does not work on all voting machines, leads to more invalid ballots, etc. Click here for explanations of several problems with IRV.
By Chris
August 12, 2006 5:36 PM | Link to this
There are available voting methods that have all the following properties: eliminate the need for runoffs, reduce incentives for strategic voting, encourage honest voting, help third parties grow, are simpler than IRV, and work on all voting machines in use today. One of these methods is called Approval Voting. Approval Voting allows a voter to express their opinion of each candidate on the ballot. Every voter gives every candidate a “thumbs-up/approve� or “thumbs-down/disapprove� vote. The candidate with the most approvals wins. Approval Voting eliminates the wasted vote syndrome in all cases, allowing voters to express their honest opinions without fear of causing their least favorite candidate to win. The only necessary modification to ballots is to change the instructions from “Choose one of the following candidates� to “Choose any number of the following candidates.� Click here for more information on Approval Voting. An extended version of Approval Voting called Range Voting allows voters to express their level of approval for each candidate on a scale of 0 to 10. Click here for more information on Range Voting.
By Craig
August 12, 2006 10:12 PM | Link to this
Fred,
Actually there were crossover votes in the Cagle-Reed race but not enough to consider them the reason Cagle won. You can take about half of the margin Cagle won by and that would be a rough estimate of the crossover vote. So essentially it made no difference. We’ll see in the details whether a ‘crossover vote’ made any difference for McKinney in about a week.