Why Adopt Preference Voting

Most U.S. elections currently do not allow for ranking a voter's preferences; rather,
each voter gets to indicate only one choice for an office. The problem is that when
there are more than two candidates for an office, the votes might end up spliting
between the candidates in such a way that none of the candidates has a majority.
In that case, one of two methods is usually used to determine the winner. Either:

(a) the candidate with the most votes (a "plurality") wins, or

(b) a second, run-off election between the top two vote-getting candidates must be
held.

Elections for federal and state-level offices in Oregon use option (a), while county
and city elections in Lane County use a version of option (b).

In either case voters must make strategic decisions about the likely outcome of the
vote rather than voting for the candidate that they truly prefer. Voting for a
candidate from a "minor" party, an independent candidate, or a candidate without
high name recognition or lots of money can be counter-productive under these
voting systems because your vote might have helped your second choice beat the
candidate you least liked. Therefore voters usually vote for a more "realistic"
candidate even if that candidate is not their first choice.

The current electoral system therefore has a number of negative effects:

*it inhibits voters from voting for their true choice

*it discourages many potential candidates from running

*it gives an artificial advantage to candidates with high name-recognition or
access to lots of money

*it reduces voter participation

*a candidate can win without majority support

Preference Voting (IRV) would solve or reduce such problems, as well as having a
number of other beneficial effects.