N.C. runoffs: Big bucks but little interest

Published May 9, 2010 at 9:41 p.m.
In North Carolina's last statewide runoff, in 2008, fewer than 2 percent of voters went to the polls.

Turnout in Mecklenburg County was so low - half of 1 percent - that each vote cost taxpayers $121.

Now a fraction of N.C. voters will return to the polls on June 22 to nominate candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House and other races. The elections will cost as much as $5 million.

Are they worth it?

"It seems to me it's pretty hard to justify runoffs given the very low voter participation," says Michael Crowell, a professor at the UNC School of Government. "It seldom changes the outcome, and the winner of the runoff usually has fewer votes than most of the people who ran in the first primary."

North Carolina is one of only nine states, all in the South, with runoff elections. Started in 1915, they're a vestige of one-party government when Democratic primaries were tantamount to election.

"The original justification for them probably has passed," says Charles Bullock, a political scientist at the University of Georgia and author of what may be the only book on runoff elections. "(But) what the runoffs forced the top two candidates to do was try to broaden their appeal. In the absence of bipartisan competition, there was no other check."

N.C. Democrats face a U.S. Senate runoff between former state Sen. Cal Cunningham and Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. In the Charlotte area, Raeford businessman Tim D'Annunzio and former sportscaster Harold Johnson meet in a Republican runoff in the 8th Congressional District, which spans 10 counties from Mecklenburg to Cumberland.

Second-place finishers in primaries where the top vote-getter fell short of 40 percent have until noon Thursday to request a runoff.

Changing runoffs

States such as Florida have dropped runoffs altogether. In North Carolina, changes over the years have reduced the number while extending the time between the primaries and runoffs.

In 1989 the General Assembly lowered the threshold for victory from 50 percent-plus-one to 40 percent. The change came at the urging of African Americans. Many black Democratic candidates had won the first primary only to lose the second.

The change eliminated the need for runoffs if one candidate reached the magic 40 percent.

The most recent change came in 2006.

At the time, there were 28 days between a primary and runoff. But the Defense Department said that didn't leave enough time to mail absentee ballots to overseas military voters.

Johnnie McLean, deputy director of the state elections board, said in order to steer clear of summer holidays the General Assembly settled on seven weeks. That's a period longer than entire campaigns in Great Britain.

Changing results

A study once showed that 70 percent of candidates who led the primary won the subsequent runoff. The figure was lower in North Carolina. At one time, only half the first-round leaders went on to win.

In 1950, U.S. Sen. Frank Porter Graham won 49 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary but lost the runoff to Willis Smith. Democrat Richardson Preyer led the 1964 primary for governor but later lost to Dan Moore. In 1978, Luther Hodges Jr. won the Democratic Senate primary but lost the runoff to John Ingram, who went on to lose to Republican Jesse Helms.

Two of North Carolina's current Republican members of Congress are there despite losing their first primaries. But U.S. Reps. Patrick McHenry and Virginia Foxx both won 2004 runoffs.

Each of those runoffs saw drops in turnout, but not as steep as the 2008 runoff for state labor commissioner when turnout fell from 36 percent to 1.8 percent.

"It causes voter fatigue to go to the polls three times in one year for the same set of offices," says Richard Winger, editor of California-based Ballot Access News.

Bullock, the Georgia political scientist, says runoffs often bring out "people who are even stronger partisans." And because one-party districts have often replaced one-party government, he says runoffs can still theoretically prevent a candidate from winning a primary with narrow support.

However, he adds, "It's kind of hard to make the case if nobody bothers to show up."

A runoff alternative

The 2006 N.C. law that extended the time between primaries also allowed experiments with an alternative called "instant runoff voting."

How it works

Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Initially, voting officials would tally only the top choices. If a candidate fails to win more than 40 percent of the first-choice votes, the top two advance to a runoff.

Officials would then review ballots of voters whose top candidate was eliminated. The second choices of those voters are allocated to the totals of two runoff candidates. Whoever ends up with the most votes wins.

Where it's used

The 2006 N.C. legislation allowed pilot programs. Hendersonville and Cary were two cities that tried it.

Henderson County elections director Beverly Cunningham says it's worked well in mock elections, though it hasn't been used yet in a real one.

Instant runoffs are already in use in cities such as San Francisco and Minneapolis as well as in England and Ireland.

Back | Read more at Charlotte Observer local