Duluth News Tribune
Majority should rule in
elections By Tony Solgard November 19, 2002 Every two years about
this time, I'm fed up with elections and the unblushing reach for
power. I, too, succumb to the cynicism that has characterized our
political depression since Watergate. But this year is different
because we lost someone who inspired us to hope for better. Whether
you agreed with him or not, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone was widely
regarded as one who tried for more than politics as usual. One of
his most famous quotations goes, "Politics is not about winning for
the sake of winning. Politics is about the improvement of people's
lives." So, in honor of the memory of Wellstone, I'm willing to keep
going in pursuit of democratic principles. For example, the results
from Nov. 5 show once again that majority winners are increasingly
hard to come by in Minnesota's statewide general elections. It is
time for a serious discussion in the coming legislative session on
whether or how we will uphold such an essential principle of
democracy as majority rule. In 1996, Bill Clinton and Wellstone just
barely reached the majority threshold of 50 percent plus one vote in
their respective races. Then came Jesse Ventura's infamous 37
percent victory in 1998, the second-lowest winning percentage in
history for a Minnesota governor. Obscured by the sensation of the
pro wrestler's coup de theatre was the fact that none of the other
four constitutional officers elected that year received a majority
of the vote either. Two years later, Mark Dayton and Al Gore's slate
of presidential electors were the choice of 48.8 percent and 47.9
percent, respectively. This year's closely watched election
continued the trend: Norm Coleman, 49.5 percent; Tim Pawlenty, 44.4
percent; Mary Kiffmeyer, 47.6 percent; Pat Awada, 44.7 percent.
Attorney General Mike Hatch received 54.7 percent of the votes cast,
the only majority decision in a statewide contest in three general
elections. Polls are starting to come out assessing whether anyone
owes their victory to an electorate divided by two or more rival
candidates. In some cases, the answer will be "yes," meaning
majority will was thwarted. In others, the answer will be "no,"
meaning that the winner was unfortunately denied the legitimacy and
mandate that comes with a majority decision. Either way, democracy
was not well-served in 2002. Besides majority rule, the other
casualty was suffered by third parties who could not press their
case without being labeled as spoilers. There are indications that
significant numbers of voters may have preferred a third-party
candidate but abandoned conscience in order to have a say between
the top two candidates. Consequently, support for third-party
candidates was understated, candidates were excluded from debates
and the Green Party lost major-party status. In a remarkable poll
earlier this fall, 57 percent of Minnesotans surveyed said the state
was better off with more than two viable political parties. That
poll, combined with the fact that the highest third-party
vote-getter this year took just more than 16 percent of the vote,
suggests that Minnesotans see value in a multi-party system, even if
they intend to continue voting for one of the two larger parties.
Maybe the public thinks the competition will keep the big boys
honest -- or at least keep them on their toes. Whatever the reason,
the question remains how to get majority rule and preserve
competitive choices at the same time. Not mentioned in the above
list of elected offices are the Supreme Court and Appeals Court
justices. They are elected by a majority because, as nonpartisan
offices, they go through a two-round, primary-general election to
narrow the field to two candidates between which the voters
choose. A runoff election could be added for partisan offices in the
event that no candidate received a majority of the vote in the
general election. Four years ago, this was suggested by departing
Gov. Arne Carlson and since then by others. A runoff election would
allow third parties to compete in the general election without
wearing the spoiler tag. It would also ensure that the winners
received a majority of the votes. It should be discussed in the
Legislature in January. There is another option, called "instant
runoff voting," which merits consideration as well. As suggested by
the name, this voting method works like a runoff election but
accomplishes it on the same ballot as the general election. The
voters rank the candidates in order of preference -- their first
choices and their runoff choices. The first choices are counted. If
a low vote-getting candidate is eliminated, the people who voted for
that candidate have their votes count for their second choices
instead. The votes are recounted and the process is repeated until
one candidate has a majority and is declared the winner. Instant
runoff voting has advantages over two-round runoffs. Two-round
runoffs are difficult and expensive to administer. Voter turnout
drops significantly in a second runoff election, calling into
question whether majority rule has been accomplished in any
meaningful way. And when the field is cut to two candidates, the
benefits of competition are erased and negative campaigning is more
likely. Instant runoff voting spares the expense of another
election, maximizes participation in choosing the winner and
preserves alternative choices in the process -- all while ensuring
that the majority chooses the winners. Gov.-elect Pawlenty said of
instant runoff voting during the campaign, "I kind of like it."
Legislators should follow up with a serious discussion about the
best way to ensure that Minnesota's elections are decided by a
majority. Why? Because it's about principles. Tony Solgard is chairman of
the board of FairVote Minnesota, a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization working for better democracy by educating Minnesotans
about alternative voting methods.
|