On Nov. 7, Minneapolis voters will have a chance to make the city an experiment in local democracy.

A referendum will ask voters if they want to elect future mayors, city councils and other boards by instant-runoff voting, a system used in Ireland, Australia and London, but only in San Francisco and two smaller cities in the United States.

The system eliminates the primary elections and asks voters in the general election to rank their choices for each seat, instead of choosing only one candidate. In some elections, voters' second or third choices will help propel candidates to victory.

Supporters say instant-runoff voting (IRV) eliminates costly primary contests, reduces political mudslinging, encourages more issue-oriented campaigning and discourages "spoiler" candidates snatching votes.

"It's critically important that we vote with our true conscience," said Jeanne Massey, lead coordinator for the Minneapolis Better Ballot Campaign, a

key group stumping for instant-runoff voting. "Otherwise, we ... make it very difficult for third- and fourth-party candidates to contribute equally to the debates and campaigns."

Opponents argue that instant-runoff voting tosses out years of tradition and gives fringe or long-shot candidates enormous influence in outcomes.

Instant-runoff voting is "really based on an assumption that there's not a dime's worth of difference between candidates," said Steve Cross.

"And, because of that, you can rank them in a certain order without an instant winner," said Cross, of Minneapolis.

"If I vote, I want to vote for one candidate," Cross said. "One person, one vote."

The change, which the city estimates would cost $1.8 million to implement, would add Minneapolis to San Francisco; Cambridge, Mass.; and Burlington, Vt., in the list of cities electing officials with this system, sometimes called single transferable vote or ranked-choice voting. Next month, voters in Oakland, Calif., will also consider adopting instant-runoff voting.

How it works

If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, usually 50 percent, the candidate with the least number of first-choice votes is eliminated. The second-choice votes marked on those lower-ranking ballots are transferred to the other candidates. The process is automatically repeated until a candidate receives a majority of votes.

Election reform in Minneapolis has been a discussion for nearly a decade, said Tony Solgard, president of FairVote Minnesota. The Better Ballot Campaign, a grass-roots coalition, spent more than a year lobbying to put instant-runoff voting on the ballot.

Other organizations, such as Minnesota Voters Alliance, have expressed hopes for election reform, but strongly object to the notion of instant-runoff voting. Andy Cilek, executive director of the alliance, said his group would prefer to replace the nonpartisan elections with partisan primaries and elections.

However, those favoring the new system cross party lines and organizations. They include Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, a majority of the City Council, the city's DFL party, the state's Green and Independence parties as well as the League of Women Voters. In May, the City Council voted to put an instant-runoff voting measure on the Election Day ballot.

But the city's Charter Commission, which deals with any changes to the city charter, recommended rejecting the new system, with cost being a big factor.

A report from a task force of city and county leaders estimated that Minneapolis would spend about $1.8 million to switch to instant-runoff voting in its first year -- half of that toward buying new equipment. Two years ago, San Francisco spent $1.6 million to upgrade its voting machines to run IRV.

The report said the new system would cost Minneapolis about $700,000 by its fourth year. The city spent about $450,000 during last year's primary and general elections.

The Charter Commission's recommendation was overruled by another decisive City Council vote in August. Council President Barbara Johnson was the only member who voted against it -- twice.

Johnson said she's "astounded" by the council's support of instant-runoff voting, arguing it would likely confuse a core group of consistent voters: senior citizens.

"This will make them less of a force. It may dissuade them from voting all together," Johnson said. "They've been used to voting one way all of their lives. What a rotten thing to do to some of the most loyal voters."

House parties

With the vote less than a month away, supporters are trying to explain the unfamiliar voting system by appealing to voters' palates at "IRV dessert house parties." Cakes, pies and tarts are substituted for candidates, and "voters" rank their preferences. The tastiest garners a majority vote through instant-runoff voting.

"I see a lot of heads rise up with this 'Oh, now I get it,' look, so it helps bring the IRV concept home," said Council Member Betsy Hodges, who will cosponsor a dessert party Wednesday at a home in Linden Hills.

Jeff Lomonaco, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota and an ardent supporter of IRV, believes the process offers voters a diversity of choices.

"No electoral system is ever going to perfectly embody democracy, but it seems in many respects IRV will be an improvement over what we have now," Lomonaco said. "If the biggest city in the state would use IRV, it would set a good example that the electoral sky doesn't fall."

But Cilek said voters should be wary of the supporters' claims.

"Their arguments don't hold water," he said. "If they're that sound, IRV would be used all over the United States. It's a false representation of reality."