HOST A LAWN SIGN!
MinnPost asks: Could Minnesota elections be better?
Minnesota elections are already a national leader, but could they be better?
By Marisa Helms | Friday, Nov. 14, 2008
For the most part, Minnesota has a strong
elections process, and the state even leads the nation in some areas,
such as same-day registration and the use of paper ballots and
automatic audits.
But, is there a better way to run Minnesota's elections?
Election
watchers around the state have been weighing in on a lot of election
issues – from a few minor tweaks, such as moving the state's primary
earlier than September, to major changes, such as extending the time
when citizens can cast their votes, requiring a photo ID in order to
vote, and moving to a system called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).
Here's a look at some of the high-profile issues, starting with the most controversial.
Some
see the recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken
as a prime example of why the state should move to IRV. Lots of people
seem to like it. But there are others who abhor it and hope never to
see a ranked ballot in the state of Minnesota – or anywhere else in the
United States, for that matter.
IRV is a process in which the
electorate ranks candidates by preference: first choice, second choice,
third choice, etc. If a candidate is clearly determined with a majority
(50 percent plus one) of first-place votes, then he or she wins. If
not, the instant runoff is triggered. The candidate with the fewest
first-place votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed to
citizens' second choice. If the first redistribution doesn't produce a
majority winner, the process continues by eliminating the next lowest
candidate and redistributing those votes until one candidate reaches a
majority.
Proponents of IRV say it's a better way to run elections, especially when third-party candidates are on the ballot.
"Many
people in the DFL and Republican parties wish the Green, Independence
and Libertarian parties would go away," says Jack Uldrich, an
Independence Party member who has run for U.S. House and Senate seats.
"But we're not going away. Especially here in Minnesota. The question
becomes how to create a system that allows us to flourish, and to elect
people by majority. The best solution is IRV."
Its proponents
argue that the current plurality system presumes just two candidates in
a race, and when there are more, such as the Coleman-Franken Senate
race that also included the IP's Dean Barkley, the system breaks down.
"What a debacle," says Jeanne Massey of FairVote Minnesota, the local branch of a national organization pushing IRV.
"If
a significant third-party candidate gets cast aside as a 'spoiler,' the
message doesn't get through," says Massey, "And voters lose out."
She
says voters want and deserve choice. But in the current election
system, voters don't always choose their preferred candidate "because
they worry their vote is wasted or it will help elect their least
favorite candidate," says Massey.
IRV would remedy the spoiler
effect, she says, because every vote is counted. Massey also believes
it would promote more civil elections.
"Negative campaigning is a hallmark of two-way
races," says Massey. "With IRV, candidates stay on the issues because
they want as many first-choice votes as they can get, but also want
second-choice votes. So they don't go negative because they don't want
to alienate voters by attacking their opponents."
While IRV
could be seen as a benefit to the Independence and Green parties that
regularly run candidates in Minnesota, one of the state's major
parties, the DFL Party also supports it, adopting IRV as part of its
platform earlier this year.
"It allows voters to express their
preferences more honestly," says DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez.
"It's better to have an outcome with a majority vote, instead of being
stuck with electing the minority candidate."
Melendez and others
point out that the choice of Minnesota's governor has not been decided
by a majority of the electorate in the past three election cycles
(Ventura, with 37 percent in 1998, and Pawlenty, with 44 percent in
2002 and 47 percent in 2006).
IRV is used in Australia and
Ireland and in a small handful of U.S. cities, including San Francisco,
Cambridge, Mass., and Burlington, Vt., and several counties, most
recently Pierce County, Wash. FairVote's Massey says several more
cities are scheduled to implement IRV, including Berkeley, Calif.;
Aspen, Colo.; and of course, Minneapolis (that is, if a lawsuit doesn't
stop it from moving forward).
In 2006, Minneapolis approved IRV
with 65 percent voter approval. It's supposed to go into effect for
next year's city elections, but the Minnesota Voters Alliance is suing the city of Minneapolis to stop it.
The
group's director, Andy Cilek, says the only reason IRV passed in
Minneapolis and in other municipalities is because "the bureaucratic
elite shoved it down the throats of the people."
Cilek says IRV
is "fatally flawed," because it violates both Minnesota law and the
state Constitution. Cilek says he's confident his group will take its
case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.
"IRV
puts blindfolds on the voters," he says. "(With IRV) voters don't know
if they're helping or hurting the cause of their favorite candidate.
The court has said we do right in upholding the right of the citizen to
cast a vote for the candidate of his choice unimpaired by additional
votes by others."
Cilek also believes IRV is unconstitutional
because it allows some people in effect to vote more than once. For
example, if you pick the winning candidate, you get one vote, but if
you choose a losing candidate, then your second-choice, and maybe even
third-choice votes also might be counted.
The alliance's case against the city could be heard as early as next week in Hennepin County court.
Other
cities in Minnesota, particularly St. Paul and Duluth, are looking at
IRV. St. Paul is waiting for the outcome of the Minneapolis case before
moving ahead with plans to put it on the ballot for voters to decide.
FairVote's
Massey says IRV has survived constitutional challenges in other states,
and she expects Minneapolis' IRV measure to prevail, too.
Click here for rest of article.
Comments in response to Minnesota Voters Alliance
(#2) On November 14, 2008, says:
Who are the "bureaucratic elites" and how did they
"shove [IRV] down" the people's throats, Mr. Cilek? Where's the
evidence please, not just vague innuendos and insults to us
Minneapolitans.
And explain how a person gets more votes than I do if my first choice candidate is still there to be counted? I get to vote for my choice in every round of counting. If you picked a candidate who was eliminated for being in last place, you get to vote for your 2nd choice. That's one vote for me and one for you in each round. Nice try confusing "vote" with "candidate", but in effect it won't work. Minneapolitans are too smart to fall for it.
Voting in an IRV election cannot hurt your candidate. You'd have to know how everyone else voted when you voted and then figure out how to vote to hurt your candidate. No rational voter would be interested in doing that nor would anybody would be able to. Nor can you cite a single example from a real world election where that happened.
And explain how a person gets more votes than I do if my first choice candidate is still there to be counted? I get to vote for my choice in every round of counting. If you picked a candidate who was eliminated for being in last place, you get to vote for your 2nd choice. That's one vote for me and one for you in each round. Nice try confusing "vote" with "candidate", but in effect it won't work. Minneapolitans are too smart to fall for it.
Voting in an IRV election cannot hurt your candidate. You'd have to know how everyone else voted when you voted and then figure out how to vote to hurt your candidate. No rational voter would be interested in doing that nor would anybody would be able to. Nor can you cite a single example from a real world election where that happened.
(#3) On November 14, 2008, says:
#1 -- Andy Cilek of MN Voters Alliance calls IRV
"fatally flawed," because he claims it's unconstitutional -- though in
fact, IRV has prevailed in previous constitutional challenges. Many
people see this challenge of his as a costly red herring.
#2 - Cilek also says "IRV puts blindfolds on the voters. (With IRV) voters don't know if they're helping or hurting the cause of their favorite candidate."
The simple and honest response to this is that you can't hurt your favorite candidate by voting for her, that is, by giving her/him your first-choice vote. You vote your favorite candidate #1, your second favorite #2, your third favorite 3, and you don't give votes to people you don't like. How difficult is this? Where is the "blind-fold?" Using terms like "blind-folded" reveals more about the manipulative tactics of the protester than it reveals about IRV.
#3 -- Quoted from the original article above: "Cilek also believes IRV is unconstitutional because it allows some people in effect to vote more than once. For example, if you pick the winning candidate, you get one vote, but if you choose a losing candidate, then your second-choice, and maybe even third-choice votes also might be counted."
My sense is this: The key to the concept of "one man, one vote," is that a rich man's votes should count no more than a poor man's, that a landowner's vote isn't worth more than his tenant's, that a white person's vote isn't worth more than a black person's vote. IRV *does not* give more votes to one person than to other; rather, it allows a voter to rank preference; it allows a voter to say, "I like person Q the best, but if it comes down to A or Z, I choose A."
By recognizing a voter's true preference, IRV encourages more thoughtful dialogue, and it more accurately assesses the population's true beliefs and opinions. By any definition based on fairness to both the whole and to the individual, IRV does not give one voter "more votes" than another. It simply allows a truer manifestation of actual preference, rather than forcing a voter to choose between "preference" and "strategy."
Who benefits when a voter must say to herself -- I really like J, but I'm afraid K will win, so I will vote for X instead.
Nobody benefits in that situation -- though Fear and Greed always see danger in change.
#2 - Cilek also says "IRV puts blindfolds on the voters. (With IRV) voters don't know if they're helping or hurting the cause of their favorite candidate."
The simple and honest response to this is that you can't hurt your favorite candidate by voting for her, that is, by giving her/him your first-choice vote. You vote your favorite candidate #1, your second favorite #2, your third favorite 3, and you don't give votes to people you don't like. How difficult is this? Where is the "blind-fold?" Using terms like "blind-folded" reveals more about the manipulative tactics of the protester than it reveals about IRV.
#3 -- Quoted from the original article above: "Cilek also believes IRV is unconstitutional because it allows some people in effect to vote more than once. For example, if you pick the winning candidate, you get one vote, but if you choose a losing candidate, then your second-choice, and maybe even third-choice votes also might be counted."
My sense is this: The key to the concept of "one man, one vote," is that a rich man's votes should count no more than a poor man's, that a landowner's vote isn't worth more than his tenant's, that a white person's vote isn't worth more than a black person's vote. IRV *does not* give more votes to one person than to other; rather, it allows a voter to rank preference; it allows a voter to say, "I like person Q the best, but if it comes down to A or Z, I choose A."
By recognizing a voter's true preference, IRV encourages more thoughtful dialogue, and it more accurately assesses the population's true beliefs and opinions. By any definition based on fairness to both the whole and to the individual, IRV does not give one voter "more votes" than another. It simply allows a truer manifestation of actual preference, rather than forcing a voter to choose between "preference" and "strategy."
Who benefits when a voter must say to herself -- I really like J, but I'm afraid K will win, so I will vote for X instead.
Nobody benefits in that situation -- though Fear and Greed always see danger in change.
»
Minneapolis voters supported IRV because it will streamline our elections process, ensure a majority winner, and bring forth better democracy. Additionally, and this is a crucial point, IRV eliminates the need for costly primary elections.
Cilek's organization's mission is to require partisan primaries for city elections, something Minneapolis and St. Paul do not have. Enacting such a system gives Republicans a better chance of being on a general election ballot--and that is what Cilek's organization is all about. That is why they oppose IRV and want to require ID's at the polls (which disenfranchises renters and students).