Instant Runoff Voting is the target of false and misleading attacks in Saint Paul. Perhaps the most egregious alleges that IRV would be too difficult for voters to understand. The implication is that Saint Paul voters aren’t as smart as Minneapolis voters or those elsewhere using IRV.

The weaknesses of our current two-step (primary-general) municipal elections and plurality state partisan elections have become clear in recent years:

• low voter participation
• unrepresentative primaries
  
• expensive two-round elections
• negative campaigning
• spoiler dynamics
• wasted votes
• minority rule
  

Do we really want to continue with a system that draws just 7 percent of the voters to polls for the primary (as we saw in the last St. Paul primary election)? Do we really want to continue with a system in which as few as 37 percent of the voters can elect the winner (the last time a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate received a majority of support was in 1994)?

While not perfect – no voting system is – Instant Runoff Voting addresses these problems in significant ways and produce results that better reflect the will of the voters. Equally importantly, it is a proven and implementable system that has proven easier for voters than two-round runoff systems.

Some people don’t like IRV because it changes the electoral game they’re used to playing. In their efforts to hold on to their advantage, they are using misinformation to scare voters. This backgrounder exposes the fallacies that underpin those efforts.