IRV works, so let’s keep it |

IRV works, so let’s keep it

Dear Editor:

After two years of nasty, divisive attacks on instant runoff voting, there’s only one reason to get rid of it – so we’ll stop arguing about it. It’s sad if that is how we now make our decisions. I suspect we’ll find something else to argue about.

IRV is the most accurate system for electing whomever the majority supports. If there had been IRV in the 2000 presidential election, Gore would have been elected. Like him or not, most Americans think we should elect the candidate more people like – not the one fewer people like.

We’re told that Aspenites are too stupid to figure out how to rank candidates and that they need more time to figure out the difference between the final candidates. We are supposed to think Aspenites needed more time to discern the difference between Mick Ireland and Marilyn Marks!?

The opponents have broadly attacked the city but not made any remotely compelling arguments about why IRV is bad. Reducing the campaign season by a month would be great, and a system that prevents two strong candidates from splitting the vote so the weakest candidate can get elected is a good one. I’m voting “no” on getting rid of IRV.

Lee Cassin

Recommended Stories For You


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.