By Aaron Neumann
Published March 10th 2004 in pulsetc.com
Every election cycle, and especially the last two presidential
elections, there is always political discussion around the “spoilers”
of third-party politics (anyone remember Ralph Nader?). The same is
doubly true this year, where it’s expected to be a very close and very
partisan race. Vote your conscience, and it’s a wasted vote and others
dub you as a spoiler. Vote pragmatically, and once again us voters are
left with the limited option of the “least worst” candidate.
But wait a second. Aren’t there other democratic systems already in use that eliminate the spoiler effect? Isn’t there a better way?
There sure is.
Actually there’s lots of better democracies in the world, typically the newer ones, that abandon the flawed winner-take all system, have full public financing and actually encourage multi-party politics. The easiest and most fair aspect of many modern democratic systems is IRV—Instant Runoff Voting, which can and should be implemented in municipalities in Minnesota.
Citizens of all political persuasions should have all options of exercising democracy, including IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). IRV is a reform that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, so that in cases where there is no initial majority winner, a runoff recount can be conducted without a new election to determine which candidate is actually preferred by a majority of voters.
The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1,2,3, etc. (Hence, the motto, “It’s as easy as 1-2-3.”). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until one winner emerges with a majority of the vote.
There are many reasons why IRV can enhance our democracy at any level, but specifically it makes good sense for a city like Minneapolis—essentially a one-party city (DFL), where political parties are in the minority and independent candidates often don’t make it past the primary. IRV can do some good things, such as:
• When there are more than two candidates, it ensures the winner has a majority. Without IRV, the winner can win with less than 50 percent of the vote. How do we really know they have a mandate? (Think of the last two gubernatorial elections here in Minnesota.)
• It will allow more candidates, including independents and third parties, to get involved in a race, without being accused of “spoiling” the elections. Even if your favorite candidate comes in last, at least IRV allows your next favorite candidate to be counted. No more wasting your vote, and no more spoilers. (What if someone like Ken Pentel threw their hat into the ring for Mayor of Minneapolis and the scenario was Rybak, Pentel, and a DFL endorsed candidate. Do you think that would split some votes?)
• It will decrease negative campaigning. To win, candidates need to get some 2nd and 3rd place votes, as well as 1st place votes. They’ll be less likely to “go negative” if they need their opponent’s voters, too.
• IRV saves money. I had the opportunity to be a part of a really neat city election in Ward 3 this last time around. There were a lot of candidates who I thought were great, and a lot that I didn’t. Not only would a voter be able to vote on preference, IRV would eliminate the need for a primary to be followed by a “general” (runoff) election. IRV holds the runoff all in one election—saving money, and provides for less voter fatigue and a higher voter turnout.
I realize there are some concerns that in a very close election a candidate with the most number of first-choice votes may not be elected due to another candidate being more preferred in second, third AND first choice votes over all. But a second choice (or many choices) allows for preferences in voting, establishing a true majority (as opposed to a plurality) that is more reflective of the people’s will.
The citizens of Minneapolis should be able to vote for the decision to establish IRV in our elections. It’s a matter that only the people, and not the politicians with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, can make.
But wait a second. Aren’t there other democratic systems already in use that eliminate the spoiler effect? Isn’t there a better way?
There sure is.
Actually there’s lots of better democracies in the world, typically the newer ones, that abandon the flawed winner-take all system, have full public financing and actually encourage multi-party politics. The easiest and most fair aspect of many modern democratic systems is IRV—Instant Runoff Voting, which can and should be implemented in municipalities in Minnesota.
Citizens of all political persuasions should have all options of exercising democracy, including IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). IRV is a reform that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, so that in cases where there is no initial majority winner, a runoff recount can be conducted without a new election to determine which candidate is actually preferred by a majority of voters.
The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1,2,3, etc. (Hence, the motto, “It’s as easy as 1-2-3.”). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until one winner emerges with a majority of the vote.
There are many reasons why IRV can enhance our democracy at any level, but specifically it makes good sense for a city like Minneapolis—essentially a one-party city (DFL), where political parties are in the minority and independent candidates often don’t make it past the primary. IRV can do some good things, such as:
• When there are more than two candidates, it ensures the winner has a majority. Without IRV, the winner can win with less than 50 percent of the vote. How do we really know they have a mandate? (Think of the last two gubernatorial elections here in Minnesota.)
• It will allow more candidates, including independents and third parties, to get involved in a race, without being accused of “spoiling” the elections. Even if your favorite candidate comes in last, at least IRV allows your next favorite candidate to be counted. No more wasting your vote, and no more spoilers. (What if someone like Ken Pentel threw their hat into the ring for Mayor of Minneapolis and the scenario was Rybak, Pentel, and a DFL endorsed candidate. Do you think that would split some votes?)
• It will decrease negative campaigning. To win, candidates need to get some 2nd and 3rd place votes, as well as 1st place votes. They’ll be less likely to “go negative” if they need their opponent’s voters, too.
• IRV saves money. I had the opportunity to be a part of a really neat city election in Ward 3 this last time around. There were a lot of candidates who I thought were great, and a lot that I didn’t. Not only would a voter be able to vote on preference, IRV would eliminate the need for a primary to be followed by a “general” (runoff) election. IRV holds the runoff all in one election—saving money, and provides for less voter fatigue and a higher voter turnout.
I realize there are some concerns that in a very close election a candidate with the most number of first-choice votes may not be elected due to another candidate being more preferred in second, third AND first choice votes over all. But a second choice (or many choices) allows for preferences in voting, establishing a true majority (as opposed to a plurality) that is more reflective of the people’s will.
The citizens of Minneapolis should be able to vote for the decision to establish IRV in our elections. It’s a matter that only the people, and not the politicians with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, can make.
