By Lori Sturdevant
Published November 16th 2000 in Minneapolis Star-Tribune
Alan Shilepsky, come back. I want you to explain "instant runoff
voting" one more time. This time, I promise to listen more closely.
When Shilepsky was running for secretary of state on the Reform ticket
in October 1998 and came to call on the Star Tribune, he was revved up
about a new kind of voting.
Instead of marking a ballot with a line or a colored-in oval or -- Mary Kiffmeyer forbid -- a punched-out hole, he said people could vote with numbers. They could mark their ballot with a "1" next to their first choice for an office, a "2" next to their second choice, and so on. The votes would be counted according to the number-one choices. But if that initial count failed to give one candidate more than 50 percent of the vote, the count would continue with another step. The ballots for the candidate in last place would be resorted according to their second-place choices. The sorting would continue until one candidate's count crossed the 50 percent threshold. Have I got it right, Alan?
Instant runoff voting sounded complicated and unnecessary when Shilepsky made it the centerpiece of his campaign in 1998. Back then -- so long ago, it seems -- elections were assumed to be two-way affairs, with a little color provided on the sidelines by the third-party also-rans. If the sideshow made the winner's vote percentage 49.5 instead of 52.5, who cared? That was before Shilepsky's ticket-mate Jesse Ventura was elected Minnesota's governor. It was before Ralph Nader siphoned enough votes away from Al Gore to -- most likely -- cost him the presidency. It was before so many thoughtful participants in the Star Tribune-Twin Cities Public Television Minnesota Citizens' Forum confided that they sincerely wished for more choices on the general election ballot -- and for some way to support a third-party candidate without inadvertently electing a candidate they abhorred.
In today's light, instant runoff voting looks intriguing. Granted, it is more complicated than marking a ballot with a single X. But presumably, instant runoff voting would allow anyone who did not care to express a second choice to mark a ballot with a single X -- or 1 -- and call it an election. Other than added complexity, however, the drawbacks of voting by the numbers are hard to spot (though they are probably lurking out there, in the land of unintended consequences).
The virtues are more obvious. For one, it would give any election winner the legitimacy of majority support. A governor elected in a replay of the 1998 election in Minnesota would not have to attempt to govern from a base of only 37 percent of the state's voters. For another, it would put to rest the tired contention that a vote for a third-party candidate is a "wasted vote." No legitimately cast vote is ever wasted in a democracy. But a third-party vote this year could assist a Republican or a Democrat whom the voter would rather not help.
Instant runoff voting would not let a third-party vote accrue to the benefit of Mr. or Ms. Undesirable. That might encourage more people to vote for third-party candidates. Which might encourage more third parties. Which might make politics more lively and engaging. And more fractious. (Aha! There's one of those pesky unintended consequences.) On the other hand, a candidate in a multicandidate race would know that he or she must get some second-place votes to win. Appealing only to one's own base wouldn't get the job done. The need to court the other candidates' supporters should enlarge each candidate's agenda -- and, blessedly, tone down the attack ads.
Minnesota should not rush to change the way it votes. But this year's presidential election is bound to generate great interest in new voting methods and procedures. That should make the next legislative session a fine one in which to give instant runoff voting a harder look.
Instead of marking a ballot with a line or a colored-in oval or -- Mary Kiffmeyer forbid -- a punched-out hole, he said people could vote with numbers. They could mark their ballot with a "1" next to their first choice for an office, a "2" next to their second choice, and so on. The votes would be counted according to the number-one choices. But if that initial count failed to give one candidate more than 50 percent of the vote, the count would continue with another step. The ballots for the candidate in last place would be resorted according to their second-place choices. The sorting would continue until one candidate's count crossed the 50 percent threshold. Have I got it right, Alan?
Instant runoff voting sounded complicated and unnecessary when Shilepsky made it the centerpiece of his campaign in 1998. Back then -- so long ago, it seems -- elections were assumed to be two-way affairs, with a little color provided on the sidelines by the third-party also-rans. If the sideshow made the winner's vote percentage 49.5 instead of 52.5, who cared? That was before Shilepsky's ticket-mate Jesse Ventura was elected Minnesota's governor. It was before Ralph Nader siphoned enough votes away from Al Gore to -- most likely -- cost him the presidency. It was before so many thoughtful participants in the Star Tribune-Twin Cities Public Television Minnesota Citizens' Forum confided that they sincerely wished for more choices on the general election ballot -- and for some way to support a third-party candidate without inadvertently electing a candidate they abhorred.
In today's light, instant runoff voting looks intriguing. Granted, it is more complicated than marking a ballot with a single X. But presumably, instant runoff voting would allow anyone who did not care to express a second choice to mark a ballot with a single X -- or 1 -- and call it an election. Other than added complexity, however, the drawbacks of voting by the numbers are hard to spot (though they are probably lurking out there, in the land of unintended consequences).
The virtues are more obvious. For one, it would give any election winner the legitimacy of majority support. A governor elected in a replay of the 1998 election in Minnesota would not have to attempt to govern from a base of only 37 percent of the state's voters. For another, it would put to rest the tired contention that a vote for a third-party candidate is a "wasted vote." No legitimately cast vote is ever wasted in a democracy. But a third-party vote this year could assist a Republican or a Democrat whom the voter would rather not help.
Instant runoff voting would not let a third-party vote accrue to the benefit of Mr. or Ms. Undesirable. That might encourage more people to vote for third-party candidates. Which might encourage more third parties. Which might make politics more lively and engaging. And more fractious. (Aha! There's one of those pesky unintended consequences.) On the other hand, a candidate in a multicandidate race would know that he or she must get some second-place votes to win. Appealing only to one's own base wouldn't get the job done. The need to court the other candidates' supporters should enlarge each candidate's agenda -- and, blessedly, tone down the attack ads.
Minnesota should not rush to change the way it votes. But this year's presidential election is bound to generate great interest in new voting methods and procedures. That should make the next legislative session a fine one in which to give instant runoff voting a harder look.
