This letter was written in response to the Southwest/Downtown Journal's update on the Minneapolis Ranked Choice Voting cost report released in April 2010.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

By Journal readers

June 28, 2010

Setting the record straight on RCV

Minneapolis reported that costs associated with the 2009 move to RCV were approximately $365,000, of which a third were one-time startup expenditures. The city projects RCV costs of roughly $240,000 in the 2013 election. While the report did not factor in potential long-term savings achievable through the elimination of the primary, it did note that cost-efficiencies are expected as equipment is updated and voters and election judges become increasingly familiar with RCV.

The largest RCV-specific expense was the hand count, which would be eliminated in 2013 with the use of machines, reducing the overall RCV-specific expenses by more than half. Minneapolis leases equipment from Hennepin County, which aims to replace its aging machines by 2013 and is collaborating with other counties to reduce purchasing costs.

The county’s outdated equipment is due for replacement whether Minneapolis uses RCV or not, and new equipment can tally both RCV and traditional elections. The only cost directly attributable to RCV would be any special programming required to tally ranked ballots.  

While RCV-capable equipment is used in other states, none is certified for use in Minnesota. Timely certification is key to securing new equipment by 2013 and this depends on the federal certification process — not on the number of cities using RCV as the recent Journal article suggests.

Minneapolis’ RCV voter education program was the second largest outlay in 2009. The investment paid off: 95 percent of voters polled called RCV easy to use and just one of the nearly 46,000 ballots cast was defective. The city wisely plans to continue investing in voter education and doesn’t predict a large reduction in education costs in 2013, but again, expects increased cost efficiencies over time as familiarity with RCV grows.

Finally, Council President Johnson’s criticism that RCV did not fulfill a promise of boosting voter turnout indicates a misunderstanding of RCV’s effects. Local election turnout is driven mainly by a competitive citywide mayoral race, which did not occur in 2009. RCV fosters increased participation by combining two elections into one and eliminating the disparity in turnout between the primary and general election.

See FairVote MN’s statement on the city’s report: fairvotemn.org/MplsCostReport.

Jeanne Massey
Executive director, FairVote Minnesota
Kingfield