HOST A LAWN SIGN!
Post-election letters and blogs call for IRV
BY Brandon Wiarda
University student
PUBLISHED: 11/09/2008, MN Daily
Many who voted for Barkley have a stance on whether they would prefer Coleman or Franken in office. And some of us who voted for Coleman or Franken would have put our support behind Barkley had we not been afraid of losing our ability to voice which major-party candidate represented us the least.
Instant Runoff Voting is a system that continues our striving to be a more perfect democracy, allowing people to articulate their varying preferences in the voting booth and move us beyond the binary political system that so many of us want out of.
The recent gridlock between Al Franken and Norm Coleman illustrates a fundamental flaw in our voting system: The inability to cast a vote for your “second choice” through Instant Runoff Voting. We are blessed in Minnesota to have a prominent third party that offers an alternative and often forces our political debates away from black and white, right and left politics. But when Independence candidates take a significant 5 to 15 percent of the vote, it arguably leaves Minnesotans with elected representation that does not accurately represent the peoples’ political leanings.Comment on MinnPost, November 6, 2008
:
Our state is now represented by a governor who failed to receive a
majority of votes, a senator who will have failed to receive a
majority, and, in my district, a congressman who will have failed to
receive a majority, and a state representative who will have failed to
receive a majority. In fact, in that last instance, over 60% of us
didn't want the victor in office. Isn't it time the Legislature
seriously consider instant runoff voting?
Comment on MinnPost, November 5, 2008
:
This race, along with the US Senate race and the three-way house race
in Edina, are perfect examples of why we need to use Instant Runoff
Voting on a state-wide level. We have too many elected officials who
won with more people against them than for them. More info can be found
at www.fairvotemn.org.
<!-- @@@ comments_comment_section_display -->
:
Yes, a perfect example where Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) would give
much greater confidence that the will of the people was being served. See http://fairvotemn.org
Of course there is no way of knowing what the outcome would be if the 10% had the option of listing a second choice but it is clearly possible that the outcome would have been different. In the Senate race too.
Adopting IRV will inevitably take time, to gain experience, to develop hardware and procedures, to move those "up" from local lections to State and Federal elections, to build political will but I urge all deliberate speed.
I see no logical reason that it should be a partisan issue (other than 'my opponent is for it therefore I'm opposed') assuming we all support democracy.
Of course there is no way of knowing what the outcome would be if the 10% had the option of listing a second choice but it is clearly possible that the outcome would have been different. In the Senate race too.
Adopting IRV will inevitably take time, to gain experience, to develop hardware and procedures, to move those "up" from local lections to State and Federal elections, to build political will but I urge all deliberate speed.
I see no logical reason that it should be a partisan issue (other than 'my opponent is for it therefore I'm opposed') assuming we all support democracy.
:
Independence Party, Green Party, whatever - a substantial number of
Minnesotans would prefer to vote for somebody other than the two big
parties. It's ten years since Ventura won and the MNIP is still having
an impact on federal races. How long can the legislature ignore this
reality? A majority of us want more than two candidates in elections,
and a meaningful minority of us will back up that preference with votes.
It's past time for the two-party bigwigs to wake up and start a public, statewide discussion about election reform. Use the position of leadership to bring ideas like Instant Runoff Voting and early primaries to the public. Hold town halls or consider convening something like the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Citizens%27_Assembly_on_Electoral_Reform). Give us a chance to improve our elections to accommodate changing reality.
It's past time for the two-party bigwigs to wake up and start a public, statewide discussion about election reform. Use the position of leadership to bring ideas like Instant Runoff Voting and early primaries to the public. Hold town halls or consider convening something like the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Citizens%27_Assembly_on_Electoral_Reform). Give us a chance to improve our elections to accommodate changing reality.
by Eric Pusey, November 5, 2008
Sick of spoiler candidates ruining your candidates hopes and your dreams? There is a solution -- Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Any bitter Tinklenberg supporters out there? Independent Party candidate Bob Anderson took 10% of the vote in the MN-06 race. How many of you are wondering how much of the 10% would have gone to Tink?
Regardless of who ends up winning the recount in the Minnesota Senate race, this recount could have been avoided. What if this Senate race had used IRV? What if the Dean Barkley supporters had indicated a second choice? Do you think more would have gone to Al Franken or Norm Coleman?
In IRV elections, voters rank their choices. If nobody wins 50% +1, the bottom candidate is dropped and their voters votes redirected to their second choice. There are no wasted votes in an IRV election. You can vote your heart without worrying you might be wasting your vote and putting someone you despise in office.
Sick of dirty politics? IRV elections tend to be cleaner. Candidates
tend not to go after their opponents because ... well ... they look
bad. Imagine a major race any race in this state not being a dirty mud-slinging contest.
Comments on MinnPost, November 7, 2008
The future success of the Independence Party (or any third party
candidate for that matter)is totally dependent on getting Instant
Runoff voting implemented statewide (nationwide?!?). When the stakes
are as high as in the last election (regardless of your political
"position") it makes it very difficult to vote for the candidate whose
views might better reflect your own views, knowing that if that
candidate is a third party candidate, (and stands no real chance of
winning) you are helping your least favorite candidate to win it all.
Instant Runoff ballots allow you to rank your selections, and if your
first pick doesn't win, your vote goes to your second pick. This is an
idea whose time is well past due, and it would behoove ALL political
parties (other than the Big "D" and the Big "R") to put all of their
energy and resources in to getting this policy implemented so that all
of us can vote for our favorite candidate without fear of that
candidate ending up being a "spoiler" and throwing the election to a
kook with a Joe McCarthy-like mentality who promotes Un-American
hearings to investigate "Traitors" who may have expressed dissent with
the Status Quo.
:
I listened to the 3rd District Congressional debate on MPR and was
tempted to call in and ask David Dillon what he was actually "for."
He did say something about never voting for a budget that wasn't balanced, so I guess he'll never go to see a movie that didn't get "two thumbs up" from Roger Ebert and whoever is sitting next to him.
This isn't a shot at Dillon per se, but I have come to the conclusion that the Independence Party has pretty much become Goldilocks and the Three Bears after Baby Bear went to college. The only porridge on the table seems to be either "too hot" or "too cold." Nothing seems to be "just right."
But this is the same plight that beset John Anderson in 1980. If you are simply an "anti" choice and haven't got a firm "forward" philosophy that clearly differentiates you from the competition over time, you are probably going to be captive to the personality heading the ticket; John Anderson, Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, take your pick.
And as for instant run-off, where do I sign up?
He did say something about never voting for a budget that wasn't balanced, so I guess he'll never go to see a movie that didn't get "two thumbs up" from Roger Ebert and whoever is sitting next to him.
This isn't a shot at Dillon per se, but I have come to the conclusion that the Independence Party has pretty much become Goldilocks and the Three Bears after Baby Bear went to college. The only porridge on the table seems to be either "too hot" or "too cold." Nothing seems to be "just right."
But this is the same plight that beset John Anderson in 1980. If you are simply an "anti" choice and haven't got a firm "forward" philosophy that clearly differentiates you from the competition over time, you are probably going to be captive to the personality heading the ticket; John Anderson, Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, take your pick.
And as for instant run-off, where do I sign up?
:
We can go round and round on whether Independence Party candidates play a spoiler role, and whether their role favors Republicans or not. The real problem, however, is this: As a result of "third party" candidates, the majority of Minnesota voters actually end up losers in statewide elections. Instead, the minority rules.Since 1998, Minnesota has had 7 elections for governor or U.S. Senator. Only once – Amy Klobuchar's Senate victory in 2006 – did the winning candidate receive more than 50 percent of the vote. All the other "winners" achieved only a plurality, not a majority. If this year is any indication, this tyranny of the minority is now spreading from the governor's and Senate races to U.S. House races as well.
Minnesota needs to deal with this ongoing reality. How much longer can we expect voters to put up with elected officials whom most of them voted against?
Right now, state law continues to support and encourage
something more than two major parties. But the law doesn't keep up with
the consequences of its good intentions. The law fails to protect the
majority of voters. It fails to ensure that the will of the majority
prevails.
The simplest solution, of course, is to require a runoff in any general election where the top vote-getter fails to achieve a majority of votes. This is not unusual, even here in the U.S. It's a mere detail whether that runoff is a follow-up election (as in the state of Georgia this year) or instant runoff voting (in which voters rank their preferences). We need to agree on the principle first – that no one gets elected without a majority vote.
But Minnesota also should re-examine other election laws. For example, Minnesota's definition of "major party" rests in large part on whether a single statewide candidate can get 5 percent of the vote. The state should look at stripping that language and focus more on other requirements – such as being able to run viable candidates in multiple districts. If the goal is to develop beyond a two-party system, requiring real party infrastructure will do more to achieve the goal than being able to sacrifice a single candidate every two years.
The state should also look at "fusion" voting, in which the same candidate can appear on the same ballot under multiple parties. This, too, encourages the development of third parties by eliminating the claim that voting for a third party is a wasted vote.
If we keep doing the same thing in the same way, we can't expect different results.
»
