By John A. La Pietra
Published August 17th 2003 in Battle Creek, Michigan Enquirer
Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land's selection of past- generation optical-scan equipment as Michigan's "uniform voting system" could squander a once-in-a-lifetime chance to help the people of Michigan have better, faster, cheaper elections with more power and flexibility to support their preferred candidates.
A state law passed last year did authorize Land to select a system - but nothing in that law said she had to make the pick immediately. Limited funding and other practical considerations mean Michigan must spread its purchases over several years. And that may be a good thing - recent reports of problems with various types of voting machine remind us that it may be unwise to put all our eggs in one ballot box.
Michigan should follow the federal lead and adopt comprehensive, flexible functional performance standards as the basis for all acquisition of voting machines. Land should delay imposing her choice on local governments, and give them more choice during the transition period. This would boost competition, reduce bid prices and help tax dollars go farther. Places with the poorest equipment could still start replacing it - but in the meantime, we could study all the kinds of equipment still to be in use and think about amending state law to let the state keep some diversity in its voting equipment.
Among other things, the performance standards should require voting machines to be able to handle advanced voting methods that let voters better express their preferences for policies and politicians. Since 1909, Michigan law has allowed home rule cities and villages (currently all cities and about 50 villages) the right to let their residents indicate more than one preference among candidates. A dozen local groups supporting the greater choice and flexibility of the preferential- balloting system called instant-runoff voting (IRV) have sprung up in Michigan this year.
The state should uphold that right, not ignore it - and try IRV itself, too. Why? Because IRV:
Elects candidates with strong core support and broad appeal.
Costs the public less than polarized, low-turnout, money-bound two- round runoffs.
Gives voters more choice.
Rewards positive campaigning (with chances to win second-choice votes) and coalition-building, not attack ads.
Lets us vote for candidates we want, without helping candidates we oppose win with a minority of actual support. Your vote always counts for the candidate you like best who's still in the race. To cast an IRV ballot, you rank as many, or as few, candidates as you want: 1 for your first choice, 2 for second, etc. If any candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, he or she wins. If nobody gets a majority, the last-place candidate is eliminated and votes for that candidate transfer to the next-choice candidate on each ballot. This repeats until one candidate wins a majority of votes.
And it isn't even expensive. Land's hand-picked advisory committee heard testimony from manufacturers that upgrading some existing voting machines, at a small fraction of the cost of new equipment, could accommodate all four ballot types currently used in U.S. elections - ballots on which the voter can:
Vote for only one candidate in a race (used in today's plurality and runoff elections).
Vote for more than one candidate (used in at-large plurality elections, among others).
Give more than one vote to one or more candidates (cumulative voting).
Rank candidates in order of preference (IRV and multiple-seat choice voting).
New machines will include this capability literally for the asking - at no added cost.
Land's hasty decision doesn't mean the end of the campaign for better, faster, cheaper elections. It'll be up to county clerks, and committees of local clerks in each county, to actually buy new voting equipment; they may be able to ask for advanced-voting capability. Let them know you want it.
Also, there will be a 45-day comment period after Michigan's full draft election-reform plan appears in the Federal Register. Add your comments to the thousands sent to the Bureau of Elections in Lansing by people like you who want Michigan to live up to the title of the federal law that started all this: the Help America Vote Act. For more information, visit www.migreens.org.
John A. La Pietra of Marshall is elections coordinator for the Green Party of Michigan.
A state law passed last year did authorize Land to select a system - but nothing in that law said she had to make the pick immediately. Limited funding and other practical considerations mean Michigan must spread its purchases over several years. And that may be a good thing - recent reports of problems with various types of voting machine remind us that it may be unwise to put all our eggs in one ballot box.
Michigan should follow the federal lead and adopt comprehensive, flexible functional performance standards as the basis for all acquisition of voting machines. Land should delay imposing her choice on local governments, and give them more choice during the transition period. This would boost competition, reduce bid prices and help tax dollars go farther. Places with the poorest equipment could still start replacing it - but in the meantime, we could study all the kinds of equipment still to be in use and think about amending state law to let the state keep some diversity in its voting equipment.
Among other things, the performance standards should require voting machines to be able to handle advanced voting methods that let voters better express their preferences for policies and politicians. Since 1909, Michigan law has allowed home rule cities and villages (currently all cities and about 50 villages) the right to let their residents indicate more than one preference among candidates. A dozen local groups supporting the greater choice and flexibility of the preferential- balloting system called instant-runoff voting (IRV) have sprung up in Michigan this year.
The state should uphold that right, not ignore it - and try IRV itself, too. Why? Because IRV:
Elects candidates with strong core support and broad appeal.
Costs the public less than polarized, low-turnout, money-bound two- round runoffs.
Gives voters more choice.
Rewards positive campaigning (with chances to win second-choice votes) and coalition-building, not attack ads.
Lets us vote for candidates we want, without helping candidates we oppose win with a minority of actual support. Your vote always counts for the candidate you like best who's still in the race. To cast an IRV ballot, you rank as many, or as few, candidates as you want: 1 for your first choice, 2 for second, etc. If any candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, he or she wins. If nobody gets a majority, the last-place candidate is eliminated and votes for that candidate transfer to the next-choice candidate on each ballot. This repeats until one candidate wins a majority of votes.
And it isn't even expensive. Land's hand-picked advisory committee heard testimony from manufacturers that upgrading some existing voting machines, at a small fraction of the cost of new equipment, could accommodate all four ballot types currently used in U.S. elections - ballots on which the voter can:
Vote for only one candidate in a race (used in today's plurality and runoff elections).
Vote for more than one candidate (used in at-large plurality elections, among others).
Give more than one vote to one or more candidates (cumulative voting).
Rank candidates in order of preference (IRV and multiple-seat choice voting).
New machines will include this capability literally for the asking - at no added cost.
Land's hasty decision doesn't mean the end of the campaign for better, faster, cheaper elections. It'll be up to county clerks, and committees of local clerks in each county, to actually buy new voting equipment; they may be able to ask for advanced-voting capability. Let them know you want it.
Also, there will be a 45-day comment period after Michigan's full draft election-reform plan appears in the Federal Register. Add your comments to the thousands sent to the Bureau of Elections in Lansing by people like you who want Michigan to live up to the title of the federal law that started all this: the Help America Vote Act. For more information, visit www.migreens.org.
John A. La Pietra of Marshall is elections coordinator for the Green Party of Michigan.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.