Clay Shentrup, Berkeley, Calif.

Letter to the Editor

A recent piece by David Courard-Hauri claims that Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), "would mean that people could vote their preferences, not their fears, and strong independents would not be tarred as spoilers" [How we can change our failed two-party system, June 17]. Both claims are false.

Consider the 2009 IRV mayoral race in Burlington, Vt. A group of Republicans saw their third favorite candidate elected, but could have instead gotten their second favorite if some of them had insincerely ranked that second favorite as their first. Sincerely voting their preferences hurt them, contrary to Courard-Hauri's talking points.

The Republican acted as a spoiler in that race, but the same could happen with a strong independent as well. This refutes the notion that IRV prevents independents from being tarred as spoilers.

And that's not even considering the cost of IRV. San Francisco, for instance, spent $1.6 million to upgrade its voting machines to handle IRV.

A simpler and better option is Approval Voting. Voters continue to see the same ballot, but are allowed to support as many candidates as they wish. This guarantees they can always vote for their sincere favorite without regard to electability. And it requires no costly upgrades to voting machines.

— Clay Shentrup, co-founder, Center for Election Science, Berkeley, Calif.