By Tony Solgård

Every two years about this time, I’m fed up with elections
and the unblushing reach for power. I, too, succumb to the cynicism that has
characterized our political depression since Watergate. But this year is
different because we lost someone who inspired us to hope for better. Whether
you agreed with him or not, the late Senator Paul Wellstone was widely regarded
as one who tried for more than politics as usual. One his most famous quotations
goes, “Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about
the improvement of people’s lives.� So, in honor of the memory of the late
senator, I’m willing to keep going in pursuit of democratic principles.

For example, the results from November 5 show once again
that majority winners are increasingly hard to come by in Minnesota’s statewide
general elections. It is time for a serious discussion in the coming legislative
session on whether or how we will uphold such an essential principle of
democracy as majority rule.

In 1996, Bill Clinton and Paul Wellstone just barely
reached the 50%+1 vote majority threshold in their respective races. Then came
Jesse Ventura’s infamous 37 percent victory in 1998, the second lowest winning
percentage in history for a Minnesota governor. Obscured by the sensation of the
pro-wrestler’s coup de theatre was the fact that none of the other four
constitutional officers elected that year received a majority of the vote
either. Two years later, Mark Dayton and Al Gore’s slate of presidential
electors were the choice of 48.8 percent and 47.9 percent, respectively.

This year’s closely watched election continued the trend:
Norm Coleman – 49.5 percent; Tim Pawlenty – 44.4 percent; Mary Kiffmeyer – 47.6
percent; Pat Awada – 44.7 percent. Attorney General Mike Hatch received 54.7
percent of the votes cast, the only majority decision in a statewide contest in
three general elections.

Polls are starting to come out, assessing whether anyone
owes their victory to an electorate divided by two or more rival candidates. In
some cases, the answer will be ‘yes,’ meaning majority will was thwarted. In
others, the answer will be ‘no,’ meaning that the winner was unfortunately
denied the legitimacy and mandate that comes with a majority decision. Either
way, democracy was not well-served in 2002.

Besides majority rule, the other casualty was suffered by
third parties who could not press their case without being labeled as spoilers.
There are indications that significant numbers of voters may have preferred a
third party candidate, but abandoned conscience in order to have a say between
the top two candidates. Consequently, support for third party candidates was
understated, candidates were excluded from debates, and the Green Party lost
major party status.

In a remarkable poll earlier this fall, 57 percent of
Minnesotans surveyed said the state was better off with more than two viable
political parties. That poll combined with the fact that the highest third-party
vote-getter this year took just over 16 percent of the vote suggests that
Minnesotans see value in a multi-party system, even if they intend to continue
voting for one of the two larger parties. Maybe the public thinks the
competition will keep the big boys honest – or at least keep them on their toes.
Whatever the reason, the question remains how to get majority rule and preserve
competitive choices at the same time.

Not mentioned in the above list of elected offices are the
Supreme Court and Appeals Court justices. They are elected by a majority
because, as nonpartisan offices, they go through a two-round, primary-general
election to narrow the field to two candidates between which the voters choose.

A runoff election could be added for partisan offices in
the event that no candidate received a majority of the vote in the general
election. Four years ago, this was suggested by departing Governor Arne Carlson
and since then by others. A runoff election would allow third parties to compete
in the general election without wearing the spoiler tag. It would also assure
that the winners received a majority of the votes. It should be discussed in the
legislature come January.

There is another option, called “instant runoff voting,�
which merits consideration as well. As suggested by the name, this voting method
works like a runoff election, but accomplishes it on the same ballot as the
general election. The voters rank the candidates in order of preference – their
first choices and their runoff choices. The first choices are counted. If a low
vote-getting candidate is eliminated, the people who voted for that candidate
have their votes count for their second choices instead. The votes are recounted
and the process is repeated until one candidate has a majority and is declared
the winner.

Instant runoff voting has advantages over two-round
runoffs. Two-round runoffs are difficult and expensive to administer. Voter
turnout drops significantly in a second runoff election, calling into question
whether majority rule has been accomplished in any meaningful way. And when the
field is cut to two candidates, the benefits of competition are erased and
negative campaigning is more likely. Instant runoff voting spares the expense of
another election, maximizes participation in choosing the winner, and preserves
alternative choices in the process – all while assuring that the majority
chooses the winners.

Governor-elect Tim Pawlenty said of instant runoff voting
during the campaign, “I kind of like it.� Legislators should follow up with a
serious discussion about the best way to assure that Minnesota’s elections are
decided by a majority. Why? Because it’s about principles.

Tony Solgård is chair of the board of

FairVote Minnesota, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization working for better
democracy by educating Minnesotans about alternative voting methods.