These are the sobering realities of our current voting system.

The current way we winnow local candidates  – in primaries – isn’t fair. For one thing, primary voters are few — just 15 percent of registered voters in the last city election. These voters are far fewer, and much less diverse, than those who participate in the November general election. A small voter pool shouldn’t decide who will compete head-to-head in the general election.

At the state level, where we have partisan elections, low turnout in the primaries is also a problem, but there’s another hitch too – since 1998, in most statewide elections in Minnesota, the winner did not get a majority of the vote. We have here a winner-take-all election system that works fine if there are only two candidates, but often fails when the vote is split among three or more candidates and the winner often tops out with less than a majority – sometimes far less.

We are not prone to tinker with democratic processes that seem to be working well.  But the evidence mounts that people are increasingly frustrated by the loss of a full choice when more than two candidates are presented to the voters. Other municipalities and some foreign democracies use Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which gives each voter more control over his or her vote and greater voice in the outcome of elections. Here’s how.

IRV accomplishes a runoff in a single election. It allows the voter to consider all the candidates for each office and rank them in order of preference—first choice, second choice and so on. The votes cast for the least popular candidate are not “wasted” but rather redistributed to the more popular candidates, based on the voters’ second or third choices, until one candidate emerges with a majority of votes. Rather than having a later runoff election—which the general election essentially is under our current voting method—an instant runoff is achieved by the ranking of candidates. And, very importantly, the ultimate winner is chosen by a majority of the voters.

The best voting system for a particular situation depends on what you value and what you are trying to accomplish.  Most supporters of IRV, ourselves among them, view the following as important.

Majority governance. Election by less than a majority of voters is eliminated with ranked voting, which simulates a runoff in a single election. Third parties are now a permanent part of our political landscape and without a change, pluralities, not majorities, will decide the winners in more and more elections.

Voter participation. By eliminating low turn-out primaries in local elections and presenting the most choice of candidates at the general election, most voters get to choose among the most candidates. That’s more representative.  And more choice is likely to increase turnout. Greater voter participation means better representation.

Positive campaigns. While candidates need to distinguish themselves from their revivals to secure as many first choice votes as possible in an IRV election –  as they do now in our plurality elections – they also need to be concerned about getting second (and perhaps third) choice votes. This means that they are more likely to conduct positive, issue-oriented campaigns and build coalitions with rivals. This is happening in San Francisco, a city of legendary negative campaigning and where the IRV process has changed the dynamic of the elections. There will also be more voices in municipal general elections bringing multiple viewpoints forward.

Electoral efficiency. The jurisdiction spends less money with only one election to administer and the candidates can spend less money with only one election to campaign for.

Balancing intensity and breadth of support.  Most voting systems favor either intensity or breadth of support. IRV offers a compromise between two extremes: it requires sufficient core support to avoid elimination and enough broad support to win a majority of votes.

Eliminating “Wasted” votes. Under plurality voting, many voters who prefer third party candidates choose not to vote for them for fear that a vote for their first choice will mean their third choice will be elected rather than their second choice; in their terms, their vote will have been “wasted.” When voters are allowed to rank their votes, they are empowered to vote their preference and know that their vote is likely to be “reassigned” if their first choice candidate does not win.

Reform for better elections must start locally and there is a strong campaign to bring Instant Runoff Voting to Saint Paul.  Saint Paul’s Better Ballot Campaign is collecting petition signatures to authorize asking Saint Paul voters in this fall’s election whether or not to use Instant Runoff Voting for municipal elections. Minneapolis voters adopted IRV last year and over a dozen other cities across the country use or soon will use Instant Runoff Voting.

We think Instant Runoff Voting will improve elections in Saint Paul and hope that the Legislature will ultimately approve this method for state elections. We have joined in signing the petition and believe the local election campaign this fall will afford the voters a great opportunity to discuss and decide upon this important reform.

Ruby Hunt & George Latimer