The tight three-way Senate race in Minnesota offers analysts a perfect opportunity to speculate what might have happened in this race if it had been conducted under instant runoff voting (IRV, also called ranked choice voting)

• IRV could change the dynamics of campaigning away from bitter, divisive partisanship as candidates have a real incentive to compete to be acceptable “second choices” for voters
• IRV supports inclusiveness in the political process as it counters the “wasted vote” perception that impairs many third-party candidacies.
• IRV promotes more effective governance because it produces a winner in each race (as opposed to a plurality) who is affirmatively chosen by a majority of voters.

Given the dynamics of the Barkley-Coleman-Franken race, it is interesting to speculate how voters might have ranked each candidate and how the ultimate result could be affected by the electorate’s second choices:

• How would Barkley voters, for example, break in terms of choosing Coleman or Franken as their second choices?
• How many Coleman voters would list Franken as their second choice?
• How do Franken voters perceive the differences between Barkley and Coleman?

FairVote Minnesota, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes voting system reform in Minnesota, offers the following background for discussion during election night coverage.

1) What is Instant Runoff Voting?

• IRV allows voters to rank candidates according to their preference and simulates a runoff election on a single ballot, ensuring the ultimate winner has the support of a majority of voters without the necessity of a separate, costly runoff election. The votes cast for the least popular candidate are not "wasted", but rather redistributed to the more popular candidates, based on the voters' second or third choices, until one candidate emerges with a majority of votes.

2) Plurality Elections Becoming the Norm

• In the U.S. Senate race, incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman is facing DFLer Al Franken and Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley. Poll numbers leading up to Election Day have been predicting a very close race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, with the winner likely to emerge with a plurality well below 50% of the vote.

• In Congressional District 3, Republican Erik Paulsen, DFLer Ashwin Madia and Independence Party David Dillon are running for an open seat.Polling shows top runners Paulsen and Madia in a tight race, with Dillon supported by about 8% of voters. The winner in this race here may also emerge with less than majority support.

• In the Minnesota House race in District 41A, long-time incumbent and former Republican Ron Erhardt is in a tight three-way race against Democrat Kevin Staunton and Republican Keith Downey. This race is split three ways and the winner may top out with less than 40% of the vote. 

• These races are replays of the past three Minnesota gubernatorial elections which all showcased a strong third party candidate, who split the vote three ways and triggered a plurality outcome:
  • Jesse Ventura with 37% of the vote in 1998
  • Tim Pawlenty with 44% of the vote in 2002 and again with 46% in 2006

The last governor to be elected by majority was Governor Arne Carlson in 1994, with 63%. 

• Fourteen Minnesota legislative races have been won by plurality since 2002.   

• Recent US presidential elections have also been split by strong third parties on the ballots.  In 1994, Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote, with third-party challenger Ross Perot garnering 19% support.  Republicans blame Perot for peeling votes away from George Bush. In 2000 Nader was accused by Democrats of depriving crucial votes from Al Gore.

3) If Minnesotans want to Preserve Majority Rule, We Need A New Voting Method

• Third parties are here to stay and an important element in making the system more inclusive of and responsive to citizens. Without a change in our voting systems to recognize this fact, pluralities, not majorities, will decide the winners in more and more elections. The current system is prone to breaking down whenever there are three or more candidates on the ballots. Candidates are elected by a mere plurality and any chance for the majority of voters who preferred another candidate to prevail and shape the direction of public policy is lost.

4) IRV Does Away with "Spoilers" and "Wasted Votes" -- and Much More

• Spoiler-free elections and more choice. Rather than punishing third parties for playing the role of counterproductive spoiler, IRV encourages new voices in the political dialogue. This means more choices for voters.

• Greater accountability. By giving voters the opportunity to vote their preference, IRV ensures all candidates get a true tally of support. That's more representative and better ensures elected power is responsive to the public interest.

• Greater efficiency and participation. IRV identifies the majority winner in one election. It eliminates the need for primaries in local nonpartisan elections (which attract very few voters) or separate runoff elections in December to elect a majority winner (the way traditional partisan elections are done), thereby maximizing voter participation in the decisive November election.

• Less influence of partisan extremism. IRV balances intensity and breadth of support, offering a compromise between two extremes: it requires sufficient core support to avoid elimination and enough broad support to win a majority of votes.

• Less mudslinging. IRV promotes positive, issue-based campaigns and does away with some of the reasons candidates go negative. While candidates need to distinguish themselves from their rivals to secure as many first-choice votes as possible, they also need to attract second (and perhaps third) choice votes. This means they are more likely to conduct positive, issue-oriented campaigns and build coalitions with rivals.

5) There is Growing Recognition of Need for a Better Voting System

• IRV has been the norm in places like Australia and Ireland, where it is seen as a sensible and practical and it is taking root across the United States, where it is now in use in seven jurisdictions:

• Pierce County, Washington
• San Francisco, California
• Cary and Hendersonville, North Carolina
• Tacoma Park, Maryland
• Burlington, Vermont
• Cambridge, Massachusetts

• IRV is slated for implementation in over a dozen other U.S. jurisdictions, including Minneapolis, where it was approved in 2006 with 65 percent of the vote.  In Minneapolis, IRV will be used for municipal elections beginning in 2009.

• IRV is on the ballot in a handful of cities every election year, including five this year, most prominently in Memphis, Tennessee and Cincinnati, Ohio.

• There are campaigns underway to put IRV on the ballot in Saint Paul and Duluth and interest in several other cities.

• Legislation has been introduced in Minnesota to support IRV for use in local jurisdictions.

6) IRV has Multi-Partisan Support

• IRV has broad, cross-partisan support in Minnesota and elsewhere in the country. What other issue has the support of Barack Obama, John McCain and the highest ranking third-party presidential candidates – Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr?

• Among the three senatorial candidates facing off in this tight election, Al Franken and Dean Barkley support IRV; Norm Coleman said he is considering it.

• Franken and Barkley have the backing of their respective DFL and Independence  Parties. The Republican Party hasn’t yet weighed in on the issue, though former party leaders Dave Durenberger and Arne Carlson are supporters.

• Governor Pawlenty said during his 2002 run that he thinks Minnesota needs a runoff system to elect majority winners, though he has not publicly supported IRV.

• National and state organizational supporters include the Brookings Institute – Project O8, White House Project, Minnesota League of Women Voters, Sierra Club (Northstar Chapter), Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, TakeAction Minnesota and MPIRG, among many other state and community organizations.

7) IRV is Simple and Voters Like It 

• IRV is a change but not a complicated one – as it’s often made out to be. In fact, IRV makes voting simpler by consolidating two elections into one, saving taxpayers money and voters the inconvenience of showing up twice to the polls. 

• Exit polls consistently show voters understand instant-runoff voting, and prefer it to traditional runoff and plurality systems.

For more information, please contact: Jeanne Massey (Jeanne.Massey@FairVoteMN.org) at 763-807-2550.

More information is available at www.FairVoteMN.org.

On election night, Fair vote representatives will be available to answer your questions at info@fairvotemn.org or 763-807-2550.