by Jeanne Massey
Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
8/6/2008

Isaac Peterson’s articles on Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in the July 17 and July 24 editions of the Spokesman-Recorder provide good background on the lawsuit brought against this democratic reform and the group leading the legal challenge, the Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA). This article responds to MVA’s views on IRV, which reflect misunderstandings about the purpose of IRV and how it works.

This small group of activists alleges that IRV is not constitutional under the principle of “one person, one vote” and has filed a lawsuit in Minneapolis to challenge IRV in court.

Instant Runoff Voting does not violate the constitutional principal of “one person, one vote,” and the argument has no legal merit. This has been the conclusion of several state courts where IRV has been similarly challenged by opponents.

MVA opposes IRV in part because IRV counters the group’s aim to create municipal partisan elections. MVA wants to turn municipal primaries into partisan affairs. FairVote Minnesota wants to eliminate primaries altogether, because so few voters show up to these elections — just five percent in the 2007 St. Paul primary — and they cost a lot of money.

While we disagree with MVA’s partisan solution to primaries, we fully agree with their larger aim of ensuring that candidates representing views from across the political spectrum should appear on the general election ballot and be a part of the electoral debate.

We believe IRV accomplishes this goal more effectively and efficiently.
With IRV, we can eliminate costly, low-turnout municipal primary elections and ensure that all candidates have the opportunity to compete in the general election and not get weeded out by a small number of voters in the primary.

IRV folds two elections into one, simulating a runoff election on one ballot and accomplishing a majority winner without the need for a separate runoff election and making the process fairer for all candidates and voters.

An “instant runoff” does not violate the “one person, one vote” principle any more than does a primary and general election separated in time, as they are now.

MVA’s arguments against IRV go beyond concerns about constitutionality, such as IRV “leads to an unreasonably large field of candidates, making it nearly impossible for voters to identify them.”

Multi-candidate races bring more perspective to races, and there are no data to show that voters are confused by choice on the ballot. In fact, many cities in Minnesota and many states do not use municipal primaries as a winnowing step in the process. All candidates (less those who lose and abide by party endorsements) appear on the general election ballot — to the benefit of the voter.

Not only do voters have more choice; they also benefit from a greater focus on the issues they care about and less negative campaigning, which tends to set in when two candidates square off against each other.

The MVA also argues that IRV hurts “minority points of view.” As Senator Mee Moua and Council Member Ralph Remington so well articulated in their July 2 Spokesman-Recorder op-ed piece, IRV does just the opposite — it gives a big boost to candidates who represent minority and new voting populations.

In single-seat elections, such as for mayor or a governor, IRV ensures that whoever is elected is supported by a majority of voters, meaning more people vote for that candidate than against that candidate.

The current system excludes minority viewpoints from serious consideration. Without a majority-winner requirement, which we lack in state elections, third party candidates are usually cast aside as “spoilers.” Their message is marginalized and their support among voters is unquantifiable, because too many voters are scared to vote for their true preference for fear of helping elect their least preferred candidate.

IRV would open the political process for all voices and make sure all votes count until a candidate wins with a majority of voter support.

With IRV, you as a voter get to rank your preferences. If no candidate wins with a majority in the first round, then there’s a runoff. The lowest vote-getter is eliminated from the race, and if you voted for that candidate, your second preference is counted in the runoff (the next round of counting).

So, a preference for a candidate who represents a minority point of view can be expressed without consequence. A vote for minor party is not “wasted” as voters often believe it is now, but rather goes on to be counted until one candidate wins with a majority of voter support.

IRV, when used in multi-seat elections, is called “choice voting” and provides an opportunity to change from a winner-take-all to a proportional representation system. This provides a meaningful opportunity for traditionally underrepresented communities and minority voting blocks to gain better representation.

This is a goal that the MVA should support, given their interest in creating real opportunity for all political parties.

Jeanne Massey is executive director of FairVote Minnesota. She welcomes reader responses to www.fairvotemn.org, jeanne.massey@fairvotemn.org, or call 762-807-2550.