Why can't anything be perfect?

A method of balloting known as "instant runoff voting" is a big favorite among third parties because it eliminates both the pressure of "lesser of two evils" voting and the accusation of "spoiler" that keeps minor parties minor. Simply put, you vote not only for your choice but also for a second (and occasionally third) choice in order of preference. If no one listed as a first choice gets a majority, then second-choice votes are counted, and so on until someone has a majority.

In this way, for example, if you were a voter in a swing state you could vote for David Cobb (Green Party) as a first choice and John Kerry as a second. If neither Bush not Kerry got a majority, your second-choice votes would then be counted as Kerry votes. It's conflict-free because if in this example Bush got a majority of first-choice votes, then if you'd voted for Kerry as first choice instead of Cobb it would have made no difference. It opens up the debate, gives room for minor parties to grow, and of course GOPpers and Dummycrats both hate it. But a few places have adopted it on the municipal level, San Francisco among them. But as they say, the best laid plans....

San Francisco's introduction in November of a new municipal election system known as instant runoff voting has hit an unexpected snag with the city's Ethics Commission.

One of the most noted byproducts of the unusual system - cooperation among rival candidates in races for the Board of Supervisors - might be in violation of city and state campaign finance laws. The commission is scheduled to consider the matter on Monday in response to queries from several campaigns worried about the political fallout of possible ethics charges. ...

With the instant runoff in mind, some of the 65 candidates have been identifying their preferences for the second and third slots in their races. Rivals have also held joint fund-raisers, shared Web sites and printed campaign literature that identifies their ranked choices.

But several campaigns have been advised by the Ethics Commission staff that city and state laws appear to ban cooperation among candidates if it involves the expenditure of campaign funds. For example, a candidate can walk door to door with a rival and endorse the rival in conversations with voters, but the candidate cannot print and distribute literature that makes the same endorsement.

Frankly, I think a fair amount of that is silly. I can understand and accept the idea that a campaign should not be using donations in support of another campaign. But if a campaign, for example, issues leaflets promoting the candidate which also state a second choice, what expenditure of campaign funds is involved? Did it cost more to print the extra lines? If we're going to refer to some supposed cost of (it would have to be paid) staff time, does that mean it's illegal for any campaign official to say anything good about anyone in the race other than their own candidate? What about the candidate walking door-to-door with a rival? How did the rival get there? Did the candidate give them a ride? Oops! Campaign expense!

I can't help but wonder if there is some attempt to throw roadblocks in the path of instant runoff, especially considering

[a] spokeswoman for the state [Fair Political Practices] commission, Sigrid Bathen, said the laws in question resulted from a statewide ballot measure that passed in 2000. Should the San Francisco candidates be found in violation, Ms. Bathen said, only a formal ruling by the state commission would exonerate them from prosecution.

That is, those who pursue this course are being threatened with prosecution. The Commission, proudly bipartisan, is presently composed of three Democrats and two Republicans, chosen by state officials, who are themselves - well, you know.