Three years back came a column touting the merits of ranked-choice voting, a strategy used worldwide to settle elections more quickly – and to avoid costly new runoff elections.
Also known as instant runoff voting, voters in several states simply go to the polls on election day like regular and pick their top candidate. But then they rank any other choices in the race. In the first count if no candidate gets a majority in a multi-candidate race, the bottom candidate is dropped and his or her votes are assigned in voters’ rank order to other candidates. Thanks to computer wizardry, the process continues until one candidate gets a majority.
It sounds more complicated than it is. But what it does is save a whole lot of money because election officials don’t have to spend millions to reopen polls for an actual runoff election – most of which have low participation here anyway – and voters don’t have to slog back to the polls.
Ranked-choice voting also encourages third parties in general elections because it allows voters to stick with their top preferred alternative, say a Democrat or Republican, as a main choice. But if that candidate gets dropped in the tallying process, then the voter’s second choice – a Green or Alliance or Libertarian – would pick up extra votes in the second or later round of the process, which would increase the chances of third-party candidates winning. The strategy also would lead to more kinds of ideological voices among those elected.
With all of this being said, what happened during South Carolina’s recent primary runoffs may give pause to some. Why? Because if the electorate had not had two extra weeks to examine the two candidates in each runoff and get more information, the results might have been far different.
Take the Republican gubernatorial race, for example. In the June 9 primary, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette came in top among five candidates with 28.9% of the vote. Attorney General Alan Wilson came in second with 26.1%. If South Carolina’s voting rules allowed the top vote-getter to be the winner or if a ranked-choice process was at work, Evette might now be the nominee.
But since our process demanded a June 23 runoff, voters had extra time to narrow their focus on the pros and cons of both candidates. And what they seem to have discovered was that Evette and Wilson were dramatically different kinds of people – even though their policy differences weren’t that stark.
Evette, you might remember, got lots of press when she attacked S.C. State University students in May who protested a sweetheart deal for her to serve as graduation speaker. She called them a “woke mob” for exercising their free speech rights – a snippet that she knew would be the red meat to inflame some conservative voters.
Meanwhile Wilson, who never has seen an anti-Democratic lawsuit that he didn’t like, carried on with a solid, respectful standard campaign without lots of drama and tension. He seemed to be a regular, decent standard-bearer in contrast to other recent hopefuls like U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, who voters remembered cursing at law enforcement, and U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman who saw corruption everywhere in a state where fellow Republicans have run things for 20 years.
So when the choices narrowed for the runoff, Evette’s campaign went into uber-attack mode with nasty ads and inaccurate charges about Wilson’s record. Voters essentially saw someone who seemed just plain mean, compared to the genial Wilson – who can still fire off a zinger when necessary.
The runoff, in other words, allowed Republican voters to see the true character of the two remaining candidates. And when voters went to the polls June 23, they sent Evette packing in what may be the most lopsided primary runoff in state history.
Wilson won by a 37-point margin with more than twice the votes that Evette snared. Final tally: Wilson, 218,569; Evette, 100,277. Lesson learned: Runoffs are expensive and a pain, but might not be so bad.
Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report and the Charleston City Paper. Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.
