Currently, Davis elects its five-member council in a setup similar to other cities. If two of the seats are up for grabs, each voter chooses his or her two preferences. The top vote- getters take office, even if those two winners may not necessarily be the overall favorites of the electorate.

Measure L, an advisory measure, would ask the city to adopt an alternative system, known as choice voting. Under such a system, voters would rank each candidate in order of preference -- 1, 2, 3, etc. -- regardless of the number of open seats. The candidates with the best overall rankings would win.

While choice voting is complicated [we don't agree], it eliminates the need for runoffs, saving money and campaign costs. Cambridge, Mass., has used choice voting for years. San Francisco uses it in district elections. This system may not work for many communities, and possibly not most communities. But a civically active place such as Davis is a perfect local test site for such an experiment.

For us, deciding to endorse Measure O was as simple as counting 1-2-3.

If approved, the measure would amend the City Charter to let voters rank candidates in order of their preference during November general elections, a process known as instant runoff voting.

In allowing local candidates to skip primaries, Measure O essentially eliminates the need for costly runoff elections between politicians who couldn’t muster 50 percent-plus-one votes to win outright.

Under Measure O, voters would rank candidates first, second, third and so on. In cases where no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That candidate’s votes then would be transferred to the voter’s second choice and the ballot would be retabulated. The process continues until a candidate wins more than 50 percent of the votes.

Instant runoff voting in Oakland would begin as soon as Alameda County election officials install new voting machines capable of ranking candidates, possibly as early as November 2008. Critics of Measure O argue that instant runoff voting would confuse many people and disenfranchise minority voters. Such thinking implies some people and minorities aren’t intelligent or adaptable enough to understand a different way of voting. That is ridiculous.

The concept of ranking candidates is no more difficult than learning how to use different voting machines every few elections. Certainly, some of the money saved -– City Auditor Roland Smith estimates a June primary costs the city $464,000 -– could be spent to educate the public about the change.

When instant runoff voting was used in the November 2004 municipal elections in San Francisco, we didn’t hear complaints of voters being disenfranchised.

10) If you like majority rule, you need a new voting method. The one Minnesota uses now is plurality rule.

9) Third parties -- and fourth, fifth and sixth parties -- are here to stay. Without a change, pluralities, not majorities, will decide the winners in more and more elections.

8) Rank three or more candidates in order of preference, and you've cast a guilt-free ballot. You can vote for your favorite without worrying that you've actually helped elect your least favorite.

7) Getting the whole state to switch to an untested new way of voting is nigh unto impossible. Instant runoff voting needs a test.

6) Long-ballot Minneapolis, where just about everybody except the dog catcher is elected, is a great IRV testing ground. If instant runoff voting can make it there, it can make it anywhere.

5) A new way of voting will take some explanation. Where better to do that than in the city that may be the Public Meeting Capital of the World?

4) Instant runoff voting would eliminate the city primary, which isn't the great exercise in democracy it's cracked up to be. Only about one out of seven of the city's registered voters came to the polls on Sept. 13, 2005, to decide which candidates would advance to the ballot two months later.

3) Keeping more candidates in the running in October will enrich the political stew. The ideas they tout will get wider exposure.

2) Instant runoff voting will inspire candidates to appeal for those important second-choice votes. That should stifle at least some of the smear tactics Minnesota is seeing too often today.

Implements instant runoff voting.

This is an intriguing experiment in democracy worth trying.

Instant runoff voting is a method that eliminates primary elections and allows voters to rank their choices in order of preference. If no candidate draws a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the remaining votes are distributed according to voter preferences. The process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority. The process is done quickly by computer.

Minor parties love IRV. The two major parties hate it – which is understandable, since it gives minor parties better access to the voters. The claim that IRV in Pierce County would weaken the major parties is laughable.

If Amendment 3 is approved, IRV elections would be conducted only for the offices of county executive, County Council, assessor and treasurer. Judges and prosecutors are considered officers of the state.

IRV ensures that the winner is elected by a majority vote. No one wins with a plurality. IRV also allows voters to cast “sincere votes” for the true candidate of their choice, without worrying that doing so might help elect a candidate they dislike.

Pierce County Auditor Pat McCarthy clearly doesn’t like IRV, although she says she’ll carry out the voters’ wishes. Her office would have to buy new vote-tabulation software; voters in county elections would have to mark two different ballots – one traditional ballot, one for the IRV choices. So some additional expense would be involved, but not a lot.

Voters in San Francisco and Burlington, Vt., had little difficulty adjusting to IRV after voters mandated it. The entire nation of Australia uses IRV. We doubt Pierce County voters would have much trouble adapting to it.

IRV also has the potential to increase voter turnout and to favor moderate candidates. Candidates would have to appeal for second-choice votes to win.

IRV is no panacea. But it’s certainly worth a try. If voters later decide they don’t like it, it won’t be difficult to change back.