By David Larson
Published March 12th 2009 in Des Moines Register
Minnesota's Andy Cilek leveraged little of substance into his Feb. 21 letter decrying instant runoff voting, instead larding it with hyperventilated propagandizing. It was no more than an exercise in nonproductive naysaying.
Cilek's sole citation was of a position alleged to a lone Minnesota election official - and even that referenced but a single point.
In contrast, in his Jan. 31 Iowa View, advocating adoption of instant runoff voting in Iowa, Jim Paprocki offered sources, illustrations and both practical and philosophical rationales recommending this increasingly used option for broadening electoral choice.
As explained by Paprocki, this option comprises in its unitary process the entire runoff series potential in elections. The resultant savings are manifest to all.
As it promises not only important tax-dollar savings, but full candidate choice, instant runoff voting merits Iowa adoption. Democratic participation that's made easier and is more representative is a nearly universal ideal.
Nearly, but not completely. As Cilek's offering illustrates, the current limited and anti-public-interest model enjoys continuing support in some quarters.
But then, Jim Crow-era poll tests had their defenders, too.
- David Larson, Waterloo
Cilek's sole citation was of a position alleged to a lone Minnesota election official - and even that referenced but a single point.
In contrast, in his Jan. 31 Iowa View, advocating adoption of instant runoff voting in Iowa, Jim Paprocki offered sources, illustrations and both practical and philosophical rationales recommending this increasingly used option for broadening electoral choice.
As explained by Paprocki, this option comprises in its unitary process the entire runoff series potential in elections. The resultant savings are manifest to all.
As it promises not only important tax-dollar savings, but full candidate choice, instant runoff voting merits Iowa adoption. Democratic participation that's made easier and is more representative is a nearly universal ideal.
Nearly, but not completely. As Cilek's offering illustrates, the current limited and anti-public-interest model enjoys continuing support in some quarters.
But then, Jim Crow-era poll tests had their defenders, too.
- David Larson, Waterloo
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.