Not to belabor the point, but the problem is paying for two elections to
generate a majority winner.

A related problem is plurality winners (like your state's new governor, Gray
Davis) that never have to earn the support of a majority of voters. Instant
runoff voting solves both of those problems.

Check out our website, by the way, on how instant runoff voting would
improve the Louisiana-style open primary (we were hoping that Senate control
would have remained 49-49-1, and the Louisiana race would have been the
national narrative of November, but alas, not nearly enough attention
outside of we junkies). The website is www.ReformTheRunoff.com

Dan
Dan Johnson-Weinberger
General Counsel
Center for Voting and Democracy
312.587.7060
www.fairvote.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine@earthlink.net>
To: <rick.hasen@mail.lls.edu>; <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: message from Bob Bernstein

Preferential balloting and instant run offs are solutions in search of a
problem. They will further dull political debate and drain the process of
ideological discourse.
Larry


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hasen" <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:05 AM
Subject: message from Bob Bernstein

Bob Bernstein wrote:

I agree with Richard Winger that the multiple elections and runoffs in
the LA model are undesirable (they are even worse in TN).  The
simplest--and I think best--way of handling that is via preferential
balloting or some other kind of instant runoff.  In the CA or LA case,
the non-partisan primary and the general election would be held
simultaneously on Election Day.  There would be no later contest before
a different (and often reduced) electorate.
Bob Bernstein
Auburn Univ. (bernsra@auburn.edu)