By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Page Editor

For the second time in less than a decade, Honolulu is likely to end up with a mayor that a clear majority of the voters did not want in office.

That's a result of the "winner-take-all" special election that will be held for the remainder of incumbent Jeremy Harris' term if he steps down as planned to run for governor. Harris won his first mayoral election through the same process, after Frank Fasi stepped down to run for governor.

True, the top vote-getter wins it all, as was the case with Harris in 1994. But it's highly unlikely, in a field with a number of qualified well-known candidates, as would be the case this year, that anyone will get an outright majority.

This doesn't make for good politics, because it is guaranteed that a majority of those who vote will be unhappy with the winner.

One solution, obviously, would be to use the system applied in regular nonpartisan elections, such as those for the City Council.

If no one wins an outright majority in the primary, a runoff is held during the general election between the two top finishers.

But this is expensive and tends to lead to greater voter apathy. "Hey, we've already gone to the polls to choose a mayor. Why do we have to do it again?" And disgruntled supporters of those who did not advance in the first round may simply conclude it isn't worth it to vote again.

Another option, which is garnering increased attention nationwide, is the innovation of the "instant runoff."

It is used widely in other countries such as Australia and Britain and has been approved for municipal elections in San Francisco.

Here's how it works:

During the initial election, voters indicate their first choice and — in addition — indicate a runoff choice on the same ballot.

If no one gets a majority on the first run-through, the ballots are counted again to see who is most popular among the two top finalists. If a voter's first choice happens to be one of the finalists, then that vote is simply counted again.

Here's a real-world example of how this might work, as explained in an article by Rob Richie and Eric Olson, from the Center for Voting and Democracy:

If instant runoff voting had been in place during the 1992 presidential election, a backer of Ross Perot (who took 19 percent of the vote) could have marked George Bush or Bill Clinton as the second choice. Perot probably would have done better because his supporters would have been able to vote for him without worrying about "wasting" their vote. And the electoral votes of the individual state would have been allocated to the candidate who truly had majority support.

Coming back to Honolulu, this system would allow voters to express their true preferences — even if for a long shot — while still ensuring that their choice among the front-runners will be counted.

This system is no panacea for voter apathy, of course. But it might generate fresh interest and, in addition, guarantee that the eventual winner is truly the majority's choice.

Reach Jerry Burris through letters@honoluluadvertiser.com.