Pro: More choice, more influence, more participation

http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_8654691

What if an election were held tomorrow and only 5 percent of voters showed up — is this the type of democracy we want?

What if an election were held tomorrow and the majority of voters didn't vote for the winner — is this the type of democracy we want?

These are the realities of our current voting system.

The way we winnow local candidates — in primaries — isn't fair. For one thing, primary voters are few — just 5 percent of registered voters in the last city primary election. These votes are far fewer, and much less diverse, than those who participate in the November general election. A small voter pool shouldn't decide who will compete head-to-head in the general election.

At the state level, where we have partisan elections, low turnout in the primaries is also a problem, but there's another hitch, too: Since 1998, in most statewide elections in Minnesota, the winner did not get a majority of the vote. We have here a winner-take-all election system that works fine if there are only two candidates, but often fails when the vote is split among three or more candidates and the winner often tops out with less than a majority — sometimes far less.

We are not prone to tinker with democratic processes that seem to be working well. But the evidence mounts that people are increasingly frustrated by the loss of a full choice when more than two candidates are presented to the voters.

Other states and municipalities and some foreign democracies use instant runoff voting (IRV), which gives each voter more control over his or her vote and greater voice in the outcome of elections.

IRV is a constitutionally proven voting method that accomplishes a runoff in a single election. It allows the voter to consider all the candidates for each office and rank them in order of preference — first choice, second choice and so on.

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. Rather than having a later runoff election — which the general election essentially is under our current voting method — an instant runoff is achieved by the ranking of candidates. And the ultimate winner is chosen by a majority of the voters.

The best voting system for a particular situation depends on what you value and what you are trying to accomplish. Most supporters of IRV, ourselves among them, view the following as important:

-- Majority governance. Third parties are now a permanent part of our political landscape, and without a change, pluralities, not majorities, will decide the winners in more and more elections.

-- Voter participation. By eliminating low-turnout primaries in local elections and presenting the most choice of candidates at the general election, the most voters get to choose among the most candidates. That's more representative. More choice is likely to increase turnout. Greater voter participation means better representation.

-- Positive campaigns. While candidates need to distinguish themselves from their rivals to secure as many first-choice votes as possible in an IRV election — as they do now in our plurality elections — they also need to be concerned about getting second- (and perhaps third-) choice votes. This means they are more likely to conduct positive, issue-oriented campaigns and build coalitions with rivals.

-- Electoral efficiency. The jurisdiction spends less money with only one election to administer, and the candidates can spend less money with only one election to campaign for.

-- Balancing intensity and breadth of support. Most voting systems favor either intensity or breadth of support. IRV offers a compromise between two extremes: it requires sufficient core support to avoid elimination and enough broad support to win a majority of votes.

-- Eliminating "wasted" votes. Under plurality voting, many voters who prefer third-party candidates choose not to vote for them for fear that a vote for their first choice will mean their third choice will be elected rather than their second choice; in their terms, their vote will have been "wasted." When voters are allowed to rank their votes, they will know that their vote is likely to be "reassigned" if their first-choice candidate does not win.

Reform for better elections must start locally, and there is a strong campaign to bring Instant Runoff Voting to St. Paul. St. Paul's Better Ballot Campaign is collecting petition signatures to authorize asking St. Paul voters in this fall's election whether to use instant runoff voting for municipal elections.

We think instant runoff voting will improve elections in St. Paul, and hope the Legislature will ultimately approve this method for state elections. In the meantime, we have joined in signing the petition and believe a ballot initiative this fall will afford St. Paul voters a great opportunity to discuss and decide upon this important reform.

We urge the St. Paul City Council and charter commission to support this citizens' drive and help put IRV on the ballot.

Ruby Hunt is a former St. Paul City Council member and Ramsey County commissioner. George Latimer is a former mayor of St. Paul.