Democracy gets short changed when state officials are elected by less than half of the voters

By Ellen T. Brown

Published in the August/September edition of the Citizens League Minnesota Journal

After the gubernatorial election last year, I promised myself I’d get involved in electoral reform in Minnesota. I’m fed up with the process we have in place.

• Too few people (about 15 percent of eligible voters) participate in primary elections and choose the candidates for the general election the rest of us vote on.

• In general elections with multiple candidates, folks are scared they’ll be spoilers if they vote for a “third party” candidate so they pull the lever for their second choice candidate, whom they often view as the lesser of two evils.

• Too many officials are elected without majority support: Gov. Jesse Ventura was elected with just 37 percent of the vote; Gov. Tim Pawlenty received just 44.4 percent and 46.7 percent of the vote in his two elections. And with little third party opposition, U.S. Norm Coleman fell shy of a majority vote in 2002. In fact, in most of Minnesota’s statewide elections held since 1998, the winner received less than a majority of the vote.

• If you don’t vote for the winner, you are essentially without a voice in the winner-take-all election system we have.

As I began to research electoral reform issues, I found that in 2004 the League of Women Voters had done an extensive review of election systems that had led them to endorse a different kind of electoral system. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). IRV is a very simple system that simulates a series of runoff elections with a single ballot. It allows voters to rank some or all of the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins an immediate majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that candidate’s first choice ballots are reassigned according to the voter’s second indicated choice. It makes sense to me and begins to address my central issues.

Looking at the vote totals from recent elections, it is easy to see that some, maybe many of those elections, might have had different results if voters had been allowed to rank the candidates in their order of preference. Let’s look at the reasons why.

Increasingly in Minnesota, more than the two “major” parties run strong candidates for major offices resulting in officials elected by a plurality rather than a majority.

In our winner-take-all system that means most voters didn’t vote for the winning candidate.

In state primaries, partisan ballots commonly feature multiple candidates vying for party nomination, frequently yielding similar results. In winner-take-all primaries, candidates rarely earn their spot on the general election ballot by winning a majority of votes.

In non-partisan municipal elections, the top vote-getters in the primaries advance to the general election. Yet even here, primary election turnout is generally very low, so only a few voters decide which candidates will compete in the general election.

Low turnout primaries and winner-take-all outcomes are making voters all over the country question whether our current method of voting is really producing a representative government. Many are saying no and several jurisdictions have already adopted Instant Runoff Voting.

Minneapolis overwhelmingly approved an instant runoff initiative last fall and will be implementing it in 2009. An energetic campaign is underway in Saint Paul to give voters in 2008 the option to choose IRV for future city elections. IRV has already been adopted in several U.S. cities and states, including San Francisco, Calif., Burlington, Vt., Takoma Park Md., as well as Louisiana, South Carolina, and Arkansas. IRV has been approved and implemented in upcoming elections in Oakland and Berkeley, Calif., Pierce County Wash., and Ferndale. Mich. And it’s been approved for optional use in Vancouver, Wash. and in the California cities of Santa Clara and San Leandro. FairVote, the leading national organization working on electoral reform, tells us that the best voting system for a particular situation depends on what you value and what you are trying to accomplish. For me that’s having elected officials who have been chosen by a majority of our citizens. And creating a voting system that encourages people to participate.

Most supporters of IRV, myself among them, think a ranked voting system would help accomplish these goals. Here’s why:

• Majority governance. We aren’t comfortable with governance by officials who are not supported by most voters. With IRV, although the elected official may not be the first choice of a majority of voters, she or he is likely to be at least the second choice.

• Voter participation. As noted, turn out in primary elections is quite low. So if all the candidates for an office were on the general election ballot, more voters would participate in choosing a winner. And those voters would have more candidates to choose from. IRV supporters expect having a greater choice of candidates is likely to increase general election turnout even further, although we won’t know for sure until IRV is more widely implemented in the United States.

• Positive campaigns. If candidates need to be concerned about getting second (and perhaps third) choice votes, they are more likely to conduct positive, issue-oriented campaigns. Early reports from San Francisco’s implementation of IRV support this outcome.

• Cost. Running a single election will cost the government and the candidates less money.

• Balancing intensity and breadth of support. Most voting systems favor either intensity or breadth of support. IRV requires each: sufficient core support to avoid elimination and enough broad support to win a majority of votes.

• Avoids “wasted” votes. Third party candidates often lose votes because people are afraid of “wasting” their vote. These voters fear the “Nader effect,” where even a small number of votes cast for a third party candidate can lead to the election of these voters’ third choice rather than their first or second choice. With ranked voting, these voters would be assured that their second choice vote could be counted.

So why isn’t Instant Runoff Voting a “no brainer.” Well, to me it is. But some people think it doesn’t strictly adhere to the principle of “one man, one vote” stipulated in the constitution. But we already have a two-step (or two-vote) system with primary and general elections. IRV simply offers a more efficient system that gives voters the maximum choice of candidates while eliminating the need for primary elections, or a second, runoff election if no candidate gets a majority of the vote.

There have also been questions raised about the cost of implementing IRV, particularly because current voting machines aren’t set up to count votes this way. But many machines could be modified to work and many more are due to be replaced in the near future. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has initiated the Minnesota Ranked Choice Voting Issues Group to explore issues surrounding localities' ease of transition to choice voting and IRV. One goal is to forge a statewide consensus on implementation so that voting equipment needs can be presented to vendors in a united, systematic manner.

Finally, critics suggest IRV is too complicated. I think they underestimate our electorate. This isn’t rocket science. It is rank ordering a series of candidates on a ballot. With clear ballot instructions and voter education, complication should be the least of our concerns.

Proving IRV’s worth at the local level should convince naysayers in the state Legislature that giving more voters more choices is a good thing for democracy in Minnesota. Saint Paul voters can advance that cause by educating themselves and their neighbors about voting options and by supporting IRV in 2008. And other communities should start the steps necessary to implement instant runoff voting in their local elections.

Ellen T Brown is a long time Citizens League member and community leader with professional and volunteer experience in the public, private and non-profit sectors. She is a board member of FairVote Minnesota and former treasurer of Minnesota’s Independence Party. FairVote is the leading national organization acting to transform our elections to achieve unfettered, fraud-free access to participation, a full spectrum of meaningful choices and majority rule with fair representation and a voice for all.