Duluth Ranked Choice Voting Steering Committee

June 2, 2010    

Council President Anderson

Council Vice President Gardner

Councilor Boyle Councilor

Cuneo Councilor Fosle  

Councilor Fedora  

Councilor Gauthier

Councilor Hartman

Councilor Stauber    

 

Dear City Councilors,

Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about Ranked Choice Voting and to share with you why we believe RCV is a more cost-effective, participatory and fairer way to vote. We welcome your leadership on this important issue and are grateful for your interest and time.  

We would like to follow up on a few key issues that were discussed at the presentation on May 10 and address several points made by opponent Andy Cilek that we believe are misleading and inaccurate and that we fear may have created confusion about what RCV is and is not.

RCV has been the target of false and deceptive attacks, including the notion that RCV is too difficult for voters to understand. The implication is that Duluth voters aren’t as smart as Minneapolis voters or those elsewhere using RCV.

The weaknesses of the current two-step (primary-general) municipal elections and plurality state partisan elections have become clear in recent years:

• low turnout, unrepresentative primaries
• expensive two-round elections – for candidates and taxpayers alike
• “spoiler” dynamics and fear of “wasted votes”
• minority rule
• negative campaigning

While not perfect – no voting system is – RCV addresses these problems in significant ways and produces results that better reflect the will of the voters. Equally importantly, it is an implementable system that has been shown to be easier for voters than two-round runoff systems.

Some people don’t like RCV because it changes the electoral game they’re used to playing. Many defenders of the status quo use misinformation to confuse and scare policymakers and voters. Please allow us to expose some of the fallacies that underpin their arguments and hopefully clear up some misunderstandings about RCV.

1)      RCV is a proven and constitutional voting method.

Despite a unanimous and strongly worded ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court affirming the constitutionality of RCV, Mr. Cilek continues to assert that RCV is not constitutional.

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling in June 2009 on the question of whether or not Ranked Choice Voting is constitutional under the Minnesota and federal constitutions. In a unanimous decision, authored by Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, the court found that RCV upholds the state and federal constitutional principle of “one-person, one-vote”:

“In IRV, a voter’s subsequent choices are not counted unless the voter’s higher-choice candidate has been eliminated (or elected, in a multiple-seat race), so a voter’s subsequent choices cannot count against his first-choice candidate.  [A] first-choice vote for a continuing candidate may compete against a second or third choice of another voter, but only one at a time, and each time each voter’s vote counts only as a single vote.

[N]or does the system of counting subsequent choices of voters for eliminated candidates unequally weight votes. Every voter has the same opportunity to rank candidates when she casts her ballot, and in each round every voter’s vote carries the same value.”

Mr. Cilek may be unhappy with the overwhelming rejection of his arguments in court but he cannot deny that the court upheld the legality of RCV.

In fact, RCV has a successful track record of more than 100 years; it’s currently used in democracies such as Australia, Ireland and New Zealand and now successfully in use in several cities in the United States, including San Francisco, Minneapolis, Takoma Park (Maryland), Hendersonville (North Carolina) and Aspen (Colorado). RCV will be used for the first time in three additional large cities – Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro -- this November, in St. Paul next year and Santa Fe (New Mexico) in 2012.

Foes of reform have taken RCV to court in other states as well, and each time their arguments have been defeated. Read more about the RCV lawsuit in Minneapolis and other states.

2)      RCV works especially well in multi-seat elections.

Mr. Cilek shared that his organization, the Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA), is planning to file another lawsuit against RCV in Minneapolis focused on the multi-seat use of RCV. As the Supreme Court ruling made clear, RCV does not treat votes differently. Under RCV, every voter has one equal vote, which may transfer from one round to the next based on his or her preferences and which continues to be counted until the seat is filled (or all seats are filled, in the case of multi-seat races). A voter’s first choice continues to count (i.e., is transferred to the next round) if that candidate is still in the race; if not, the voter’s second choice is counted. This process continues until the seat (or seats) is filled or the voter’s preferences are exhausted.

By setting the threshold to win based on the number of seats to fill and continuing to count all ballots based on voters’ preferences until one candidate (or more in the case of multi-winner races) reaches the threshold, RCV produces results that better represent the will of the voters. The more seats there are to fill, the more voters who will be represented by someone they voted for.

To illustrate: When electing one winner, the threshold to win is 50 percent, plus a vote. This means that at least half the voters will be represented by someone they voted for. When electing two winners, the threshold to win each seat is 33 percent, plus a vote. This means that at least 66 percent of the voters will be represented by someone they voted for. The more seats there are to fill, the greater the opportunity to represent more voters.

RCV ensures majority rule while also providing the opportunity for minority voices to be represented. In the end, the makeup of the council better mirrors the community it serves.

The process of voting for in a multi-winner race is just as simple for voters as it is in a single-winner race – voters rank their choices in preference order. While the vote counting in multi-seat elections is slightly more involved than in single-seat elections (the purpose of which is to minimize wasted votes and ensure accurate representation), it’s easy to cast an informed and effective vote regardless of how many details one knows about the tabulation process

3)      RCV is simple for voters.

Opponents of RCV try to make it sound complicated.  It’s not. Whether voters fully understand all of the details of how their ranked ballot is tallied, the record shows repeatedly that voters have no difficulty using RCV effectively.

Minneapolis is the most recent example of a highly successful RCV implementation and it provides Duluth and other cities considering RCV with proof that voters can easily make the transition to a new voting system with proper voter education and a user-friendly ballot design. A survey of Minneapolis voters following the election shows overwhelming understanding of and preference for RCV:  95 percent of polled voters said that RCV was simple to use and only one ballot was found defective and uncounted.

Interim Minneapolis Elections Director Pat O’Connor, reflects on the successful rollout of RCV:

"I have had the great fortune to be a small part of what could easily be considered the most significant civic exercise in the history of Minnesota government, the implementation of the first Ranked Choice Voting election in Minneapolis.  We proved that it could be well administered, quickly and accurately counted, and that voters had little problem with the concept."

Similar successes have been experienced in other cities that have adopted RCV. The following shows the share of voters who indicated they understood RCV after using it for the first time:

• 87% in San Francisco (CA)
• 89% in Burlington (VT)
• 88% in Takoma Park (MD)
• 95% in Cary (NC)
• 86% in Hendersonville (NC)

4)      Machine-counted RCV results are produced as timely as traditional election results.

Mr. Cilek pointed to the long delay in election results in Minneapolis last year as another flaw of RCV. Minneapolis’ first RCV election was manually counted because no certified machines were available for use in 2009 that could fully tally ranked ballots -- not because RCV elections must be manually tallied. In fact, RCV-capable machines are in use in almost all other cities that use RCV in the United States -- including in the upcoming elections in Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro – and Hennepin County and Minneapolis are working to acquire certified RCV-capable machines for use in the next scheduled RCV election in 2013.  

Should Duluth adopt RCV, it would have the opportunity to replace its aging voting equipment with RCV-capable equipment along a similar timeline. Machine-tallied RCV results are produced just as quickly as machine-tallied traditional election results. Further, RCV-capable machines can process both ranked and traditional elections on the same ballot so that separate ballots would not be needed for traditional school board and ranked municipal races.

5)      RCV provides majority rule and engages more voters in the process.

Mr. Cilek claims that RCV doesn’t produce true majority winners and that it disenfranchises voters. Again, this is inaccurate. RCV, like a traditional runoff, produces majority winners (in single-seat races) and only votes cast in the winning round are counted. The winner may have a majority or a plurality of initial ballots cast, but will always have a majority of ballots cast in the final round. Those ballots without an expressed preference for one of the two finalists or another remaining candidate are exhausted and not included in the final round count. This is similar to the way the process works in a traditional two-round election in which only the ballots cast in each election are counted.

A significant advantage of RCV over traditional two-round elections is that voters can express their preferences in one trip to the polls. Folding two elections into one eliminates the disparity in turnout between the primary and general elections.   

6)      RCV eliminates the “spoiler” effect and fear of “wasted” votes.

While on the one hand, Mr. Cilek argues that RCV doesn’t elect true majority winners, he argues on the other that the election of majority winners is one of the main problems with RCV.  His organization, the Minnesota Voters Alliance, advocates for partisan, plurality elections, in which the candidate with the most votes wins.  It has led unsuccessful petition drives in major Minnesota cities to replace the nonpartisan top-two primary system with a state-like partisan plurality primary system.

The Minnesota Voters Alliance supports the current partisan, plurality election system in use for state elections, despite its propensity to produce winners who are supported by only a minority of voters.

If recent polls are any indication, it is likely that – for the fourth time in a row – our next governor will take office with the support of a minority of Minnesota voters. Minnesotans haven’t seen a governor take office with 50 percent of the popular vote since Arne Carlson won in 1994. Elections that produce winners without majorities do not promote the kind of constructive political dialogue and thoughtful, cross-partisan policymaking we need in these difficult times. Electing public officials who feel responsible for - and accountable to - a majority of Minnesota’s citizens is an important precursor for effective governance.

RCV is real reform, a way to allow voters to cast an enthusiastic, affirming vote for their candidate without fear of “wasting” their vote or, worse, helping elect their least favorite candidate. RCV provides an important balance to today’s political extremism, it gives voters more choices and it encourages candidates to work for the support of a broader slice of the electorate. RCV promotes issue-oriented campaigning, and allows new candidates and new ideas to truly be a part of our democratic electoral process.

7)      RCV is expanding in the United States.

Mr. Cilek’s claims about RCV repeal efforts are also erroneous. RCV in recent decades has been repealed by only two governmental jurisdictions in the United States: Pierce County (WA) and Burlington (VT). Both repeals are disappointing to the electoral reform efforts, but there are particular political contexts to both of them (see more on Pierce County and on Burlington).

These repeals – like the repeal in Ann Arbor (MI) in 1974 following the election of the city’s first African American mayor using RCV – were led by defeated candidates and/or special interest groups who perceive that the traditional plurality or runoff systems serve their interests better, even if they don’t serve the voters’ interests.

No other city has repealed RCV – and more cities, organizations and colleges are using RCV than ever before. Cilek should know that Aspen (CO) hasn't repealed RCV and, in fact, voters there narrowly failed to pass (by a few votes) a non-binding advisory question to keep RCV.

Cary (NC) didn't repeal RCV, but rather it had used it in a one-time pilot in 2007 and has indicated interest in using it again in the future.  In Cary, two surveys (in 2007 and 2008 have demonstrated overwhelming voter preference for and understanding of RCV -- and voters have expressed their strong preference for the continued use of RCV.  

8)      The city may experience eliminated primaries in several election cycles.

Finally, the question was raised whether or not the school board elections could also be conducted using RCV should the city adopt this method for municipal races, allowing local primaries to be eliminated altogether. The answer is no, school board elections cannot use RCV because they are governed by statute and not local charter.

However, school board primaries are conducted only as needed. In the past six election cycles (since 1999), school board primaries were required in only two (or one third) of the six elections. Assuming this trend continues, the city may experience eliminated primaries in more than half of the odd-year elections. We hope that future legislation will enable school boards to also use RCV, providing the Duluth School Board with the opportunity to consider using RCV as well and eliminating the need for local primaries altogether. The amount of cost savings due to combined primary and general elections depends largely on the availability and use of RCV-capable equipment; machine-tallied RCV elections are generally less expensive than manually-tallied RCV elections.

We hope this additional information is helpful in correcting the inaccuracies presented by Andy Cilek and responding to concerns you may have. You may also find helpful the FAQs provided by FairVote Minnesota and the City of Minneapolis regarding the RCV election in Minneapolis.

The Duluth RCV Steering Committee is currently discussing next steps and developing recommendations for moving RCV forward in Duluth. We look forward to being in touch again soon and working with you to bring better democracy to Duluth.

Sincerely,

Bob Wahman and Mary Evans, Co-Chairs of the Duluth RCV Steering Committee

 

On behalf of Duluth RCV Steering Committee members:Mary Evans, Bill Dinan, DonnLarson, Rebecca Covington, Lauren Larsen, Mark Eckman, David Vose, Scott Yeazle, Scot Bol, Henry Helgen, Liz Johnson, Jeanne Massey (FairVote Minnesota)