On November 3, the Los Angeles City Council postponed taking action on Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Instead, it launched a "task force" to further study IRV -- which it has been studying since 2002 (see this LA Times article). As a result, IRV will not appear on the March 2009 ballot.

Why was the City Council willing to vote for a solar power initiative that will cost up to $3 billion, but not for an election reform that will save taxpayers $8 to $9 million every 2 years?

Here are the facts on an invaluable reform that has been embraced by Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, LA League of Women Voters, LA Area Chamber of Commerce, LA County Federation of Labor, California Common Cause, CfER, California State Controller John Chiang, Los Angeles Controller Laura Chick, and many others (full details at www.IRVinLA.org):

1. By eliminating wasteful runoff elections, IRV will save LA taxpayers $8 to $9 million (source: LA City Clerk's report).
2. Last year, barely 6% of voters showed up for a Los Angeles community college runoff election -- which cost taxpayers $5.5 million, or over $40 per voter. That's what led Council Members Rosendahl, Huizar, Reyes, and Greuel to support IRV. By eliminating wasteful runoff elections, IRV will boost voter turnout. After IRV was introduced in San Francisco, voter turnout skyrocketed by 168% -- and by over 300% in its most diverse neighborhoods.
3. IRV is easy to use: you simply vote for your first, second, and third choices (1-2-3). If your first choice is eliminated, you won't need to vote again in a separate runoff: your vote will automatically go to your SECOND choice.
4. IRV can make it easier for lesser known candidates to win -- by eliminating the spoiler (Nader/Perot) effect. Currently, voters are often reluctant to "waste" their vote on an underdog candidate. By allowing voters to rank their choices, IRV solves this dilemma. With IRV, voters could vote for an underdog candidate as their first choice, and a more established candidate as their second choice.
5. IRV will not force the City to buy new voting machines -- the City has to buy them anyway. Due to flaws with the current InkaVote system, the City will have to spend millions of dollars on new voting equipment, regardless of whether IRV is adopted.

While we are disappointed, the fight for IRV is by no means over. We are actively pursuing other ways of getting IRV on the ballot. Please feel free to contact me at to get involved or for more information.