Commentary
If only we could elect a governor with majority support
by Jeanne MasseyOur next governor will likely take office without the support of a majority of Minnesota voters. And if that happens, it will be the fourth consecutive time: Not since Arne Carlson's 1994 election has the governor's race yielded a majority winner.
Is this good for Minnesota?
As it happens, Gov. Carlson is one of many respected Minnesota leaders -- of all political stripes -- who share our conviction that it's not, and that the time has come for reform. There's a better way, a fairer, smarter, cheaper and cleaner way, to elect our leaders. Ranked Choice Voting is offers a proven path to elections that are more decisive and less divisive -- and a path to more effective governance.
Acrimony and polarization, as familiar as they've become, are not necessarily intrinsic to politics and policymaking. They're fueled by our winner-take-all plurality system, which so often empowers a small slice of the electorate at one end of the political spectrum -- and invites bitter opposition from the other. The result? Gridlock in government, disenchantment in voters.
By contrast, Ranked Choice Voting (a.k.a. Instant Runoff Voting) fosters consensus-building, campaigning on substantive issues, and better policymaking. In races with more than two candidates, RCV eliminates the "spoiler" dynamic and the need for tactical voting: settling for one's second-favorite candidate in order to prevent one's least-favorite candidate from winning.
Under RCV, voters choose the candidate they prefer -- as is done on a traditional ballot -- but can also designate a second choice, and additional choices if they wish. In single-seat elections, if a candidate receives a majority of votes in the first counting, that candidate wins. If not, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and his or her ballots are divided among the remaining candidates based on those voters' second choices. The process repeats, if necessary, until one candidate gains a majority of support.
In municipal nonpartisan elections, RCV eliminates the need for costly, low-turnout primaries. In current state partisan elections, RCV can be used in both the primary and general elections to ensure majority winners without the need for costly, low-turnout runoff elections.
Ranked Choice Voting isn't perfect; no voting system is. But as a growing number of U.S. cities -- including Minneapolis and San Francisco, and soon Berkeley, Oakland and St. Paul -- will attest, it's a clear and workable improvement over the status quo. As the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg recently wrote, "The real world, where voting actually occurs, is where IRV [or RCV] has proved its mettle. IRV is all over the place, from Sydney to San Francisco ... and for good reasons."
And while foes of reform are vocal and persistent, their fear-mongering claims have proven unfounded: The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously last year that RCV upholds the constitutional principle of one person, one vote, paving the way for Minneapolis to use RCV. That city's rollout of RCV for municipal elections was a resounding success, with 95 percent of voters calling it "easy to use." That experience helped convert onetime RCV opponent Rick Stafford, former DFL Party chair, into a strong supporter.
"It's a new day and voters want more choices," Stafford said at the party's state central committee meeting this month. In renewing its support for RCV, the DFL is part of a broad reform coalition that also includes the Independence Party, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.
Indeed, Minnesota voters do want more choices: Ours is a state in which two-party elections are becoming the exception, not the rule. Polling indicates that more than 70 percent of Minnesotans would consider voting for an independent or third-party candidate. Moreover, we're an increasingly diverse state; as shown in San Francisco, RCV boosts participation among historically underrepresented voters and gives greater voice to communities of color. Ranked Choice Voting will help make government more inclusive and more broadly representative.
Minnesota has a long, proud tradition of informed and civil political engagement. Meaningful electoral reform would help restore some of the substance and civility that's been missing in our political debates these past several years. At the same time, a move to RCV would bring our voting system into the 21st century. It's a time of tremendous challenges, fiscal and otherwise, in which new ideas are needed in government more than ever.
Our electoral system has evolved in many important ways over the past two centuries - think of the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - and the time has come for it to evolve again. We can't implement Ranked Choice Voting statewide in time for this fall's election, but we can work toward reform now and accelerate the adoption of RCV for future elections and make Minnesota elections more competitive, participatory, civil and representative. Whichever way we're planning to vote this November, and regardless of the outcome, that's a goal we can all endorse.
----
Jeanne Massey is executive director of FairVote Minnesota, which says it "works for better democracy through public education and advocacy. Our focus is on progressive voting systems that lead to greater competitiveness, better representation and more participation in elections."
Comments (6)
Electoral reform/RCV is not necessarily going to restore "substance and civility" to political discussions or discourse. There is no shortage of people and organizations aligned with both major parties that thrive on anything but substance or civility.
When candidates are campaigning in a ranked-choice election, only the fools will engage in acrimony and negativity. They want to be your first choice, and if they aren't your first they'll settle for second, meaning they are more likely to tout their commonalities and differences in a civilized manner.
This phenomenon of positive, issues-based campaigning has been noticed wherever RCV has been implemented.
Please speak for yourself, Jeanne.
Carlson does not hold respect in all camps. I recall the tactics he used during his campain,(the 15 year old in the swimming pool) and I would distance myself from this man if I were a executive director.
More to the point-the voters. We have all seen the folks in action, and who is selected as politicians. I see the voters choice as an imbearacement!!
The voters can't even fill out a census, for heavens sake!!... and it's only 10 questions!!
As I see it- the strength of the political party sysem is so intrenched there is little that would gain the steam needed to change.
Civility??! Raymond Buhr may have had the right idea...my forefather certainly thought so, gave him shelter after his deed.
I see that the public seeks the information born out by the substance of the issues- and finds only dogma and foolishness.
I'd like to see the politicians bear in mind the publics interest and legislate accordingly.
I don't see RCV doing much- without electoral financial reform. We've further slipped away from a chance at regulating finances in elections- now that corperations are people...Hmmmm.
Sounds nice, but it still favors the two main parties. Let's just jump right in the deep end and go for proportional representation, based on the 5% rule the Germany uses - to get a seat your party needs at least 5% of the vote. This will provide for blocks of legislators who are wedded to policy programs, not their individual careers and make legislating more coherent. It will also provide for coallition governing and forced consensus building, at least among coallition members.
And Glenn, it was Gunderson who self-destructed, Arne was just there to save the repubs from themselves.
" Ranked Choice Voting fosters consensus-building, campaigning on substantive issues, and better policymaking. In races with more than two candidates, RCV eliminates the "spoiler" dynamic and the need for tactical voting:"
All of these claims are either not proven to be true, or proven to be not-true. "Eliminates spoilers" and "no tactical voting" are certainly NOT TRUE. Example:
45%: A > B > C
10%: B > A > C
15%: B > C > A
30%: C > B > A
If this election is A vs. B, B wins. But when you add C, the winner changes to A! Therefore, C is a spoiler for B. IRV has spoilers.
Furthermore, the C-first voters would be better off to rank B first: that way, they get their second choice, rather than their last choice. They should vote tactically. IRV has tactical voting.
IRV may look like it fixes these problems, but only because our third parties today get, at best, 10% of the vote. IRV gives them room to grow, but once they do, we find ourselves with the same problems: spoilers, tactical voting, and a two-party dominated system.
Only approval voting and score voting have no spoilers in three candidate races; please, look to them for new voting methods.
http://rangevoting.org
Thank you.
First, let me say that I live in San Francisco, where we use Instant Runoff Voting (well, the truncated "top-3 only" form, aka Ranked Choice Voting).
Almost every pro-IRV claim made by Massey is simply false.
She claims IRV produces majority winners. False.
http://scorevoting.net/CoreSuppPocket.html
http://scorevoting.net/IrvExhaustionSF.html
She says IRV "eliminates the 'spoiler' dynamic and the need for tactical voting: settling for one's second-favorite candidate in order to prevent one's least-favorite candidate from winning." Absolutely false, as Massey would know if she had actually paid attention to real IRV elections, like the last mayoral race in Burlington VT.
http://www.electology.org/analysis/irv-plurality
She complains that Plurality Voting "empowers a small slice of the electorate at one end of the political spectrum". But IRV is actually MORE prone to electing extremists.
http://scorevoting.net/IrvExtreme.html
She claims that IRV decreases costs, but what she means is that "eliminating runoffs" decreases costs. You can eliminate runoffs without using IRV, so that's a red herring. Moreover, IRV is so much more costly in EVERY election, that it appears to outweigh the cost savings from OCCASIONALLY avoiding a runoff.
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/costs.html
She claims that IRV "fosters consensus-building, campaigning on substantive issues, and better policymaking." But she cites NO EVIDENCE for these already hard-to-quantify claims.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Most Shared
- AeroShot: Caffeine inhaler, touted as safe, may get FDA review
- Scientists concerned about antibiotic resistance in wastewater
- Minnesota among 10 states to get No Child waiver
- Analysis finds $55M shortfall in Minneapolis stadium plan
- Dining with Dara: Duluth becoming state's premiere destination for beer tourism
Latest News & Features
News Cut
with Bob CollinsIn The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
