Re: [FairVoteMD] Maryland Voting Systems

Thank you, Isaac, for the informative and thorough posting about Maryland's 
voting systems!  I'm glad you wrote that up.

Sorry I didn't get back to Andrew's questions earlier, the other part of his 
question dealt with Maryland's IRV history.  Below is a brief explanation of 
that history, although it would be great if we knew more about it, it's an 
area that we could use some more research on if anyone's looking for a 
research project...

A form of instant runoff voting was used in the early part of the century in 
Maryland for what existed before primaries.  Essentially the county parties 
would choose candidates, not through a direct primary, but what they used was 
a form of instant runoff voting.   

See below for more info that was sent to me by someone who has done a little 
bit of investigation into this.

Eric

Here is information that was sent to me by someone who has looked into
this some:

Five states, Maryland, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, passed 
laws requiring parties to use what was essentially a truncated IRV system in 
their primaries.  Voters were limited to a first and second choice only, 
while IRV allows and encourages voters to rank as many candidates as they 
wish.  Maryland and Wisconsin used the standard IRV methodology of sequential 
elimination of bottom vote-getters, while the other three state laws 
eliminated all of the candidates except the top two in a batch.

Maryland's 1912 law was for an indirect primary.  The IRV rules applied to 
the party state convention first ballot candidate pledges of county 
delegations.  For determining the second choice pledge of the county 
delegation at the convention another single transferrable vote (STV) 
procedure was used.  All the ballots of the first-choice county winner were 
distributed to those voters' second choices.  If that gave another candidate 
a majority, that candidate became the fall-back choice for the delegation.

If this transfer failed to give any candidate a majority, the bottom 
candidates were again dropped in order and their ballots transferred to those 
voters' second choices.

While these systems were far more democratic than Bucklin voting, they have 
not survived to the present day.  To understand why we need to examine the 
concerns at the time of original adoption.  Prior to the adoption of 
state-run direct primaries, most state parties selected candidates through 
either a convention process or purportedly corrupt local party-run primaries. 
 These systems gave tremendous power to "party bosses."  Direct primaries 
were seen as an anti-fraud reform.  It was assumed that without the heavy 
hand of "party bosses" the party faithful would have a wide range
of choices in potential candidates.  To assure majority rule within the 
nomination process  either an expensive two round runoff primary or some 
other method, other than plurality rule, would be needed.

Over time it became apparent that the range of candidates envisioned was 
narrowed.  This can be attributed, at least in part, to what has been termed 
the "wealth primary."  For prospective candidates to put in the effort 
required to campaign in a primary, they liked to have a sense that there is a 
chance to win.  Campaign funds became a major concern.  The informal "wealth 
primary" serves to winnow the field down to a very few choices, who have the 
ability to raise adequate money to be treated seriously.  Some states 
attempted to address this problem with strict primary campaign spending 
limits.  However, the courts ultimately struck down such limits as an 
infringement on first amendment rights.

With few candidates to choose among, the usefulness of a somewhat complicated 
two-choice voting system was questionable.

In the case of Maryland, the state changed from the indirect primary with IRV 
rules to a direct primary in 19??.  All of the focus was on this major change 
with the minor detail of eliminating second choice voting taking a back seat.

Source:
Charles E. Merriam & Louise Overacker, Primary Elections, 1928, pages 52, 83.