Now that the Republican appointed Justices on the US Supreme Court have ruled against campaign finance rules and for corporations buying elections, the situation looks grim for those of us who want to protect democracy in this country. We've seen how difficult it is to pass anything through the Senate and I can't envision Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid passing campaign finance reform when he can't even pass a public option. And, yes, I think passing campaign finance reform would be tougher. Let's face it, the corporations own far too many Senators and Representatives.
The hope I see for our elections is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
In RCV elections, third party candidates can play a larger role and not as a spoiler. In RCV elections, there will be more discussion of the issues and less repeating of bull**** talking points. Massive independent expenditure ad buys would not have the same impact when the campaign is about the issues that matter.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of negative campaigning will be reduced because, in most RCV election scenarios, campaigns will most likely need to be the second choice of other candidates' supporters. If you've been slagging them for months, why would their supporters consider supporting your candidate?
FairVote MN contracted St. Cloud State University to conduct a poll about how Minneapolis residents liked Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). As you all probably recall, Minneapolis used RCV for the first time in the 2009 election. The results are good (and you can see them for yourselves here). Voters understood it, liked it and there weren't any problems.
"The findings of the impartial survey show what FairVote Minnesota has seen in other cities that have successfully made a switch to Ranked Choice Voting - with good voter education, a well-designed ballot and well-trained election judges, voters of all ages and income and ethnic groups understand the system and want to continue to use it," stated Massey pointing out the following facts from the survey:
95% of voters polled in Minneapolis said RCV was easy to use and 90% said that they understand RCV perfectly or fairly well
65% said they believe RCV should be used in the future
Only 3% of the people voting said they didn't understand RCV
(FairVoteMN email press release)
An even better finding is that opponents of RCV can no longer claim that people won't understand it ... cuz let's face it, only one ballot filled out incorrectly in an election is really rare.
There was only one defective ballot in the whole Minneapolis election.
I was confident that voting would go smoothly in yesterday's election in Minneapolis. I'd seen Scotland implement ranked choice voting and every other city in the US that implemented it reported that it went smoothly. Unlike Scotland, Minneapolis voting machines provided voters with an error message when they try to feed their ballot into the machine if they filled out their ballot incorrectly. Confused voters would get instant feedback and the spoiled ballot count should be very low.
"Implementation went so smoothly overall," said Jeanne Massey, Executive Director of FairVote MN. "Election judges could have handled triple the turnout. All credit to Pat O'Connor [Interim Elections Director] and [Council Member and Chair of the Elections Committee] Elizabeth Glidden."
"By the end of the week we'll know how long it will be before we know who won the closely contested elections," she continued. Massey went on to explain that the city set a conservative date that they could easily meet (12/21/09), but that we will now long before that date.
Since there is no nationally certified software for ranked choice voting, all the counting will be done by hand. Normally, low turnout is a bad thing, but in this case it will make counting easier. For example, it appears that only 40,000 people voted judging by the mayoral race.
The next factor in figuring out how long it will take in each race where there wasn't a first ballot victor is how many people ranked in multiple columns.
Minneapolis voters know by now that there was no primary election tonight. In 2006 voters approved a new system, Instant Runoff Voting. IRV is also known as ranked choice voting (RCV). In an RCV election, there is no primary. The runoff happens instantly when voters rank their choices.
For a full explanation of IRV/RCV, head on over to Fair Vote MN.
So to educate Minneapolis voters about the new system, three parties were organized for Governor straw polls.
Final Update
Straw Poll for Governor, 2010
September 15th Majority Rules Event
RESULTS
Round 1 (rounded to the nearest percent):
Matt Entenza
3%
Susan Gaertner
2%
Steve Kelley
1%
Margaret Anderson Kelliher
34%
John Marty
12%
Doug Peterson
0%
Tom Rukavina
2%
R.T. Rybak
30%
Paul Thissen
10%
Tim Walz
1%
write in, if any
0%
Exhausted Ballots
0%
TOTAL BALLOTS
271
Candidates eliminated and votes transferred in the following order:
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is constitutional and Minneapolis can move ahead on it's plans to hold the 2009 city elections using IRV. This is not particularly surprising considering how weak the opposition's arguments were.
"Today, in a unanimous opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court blazed a path that every community in our state can follow toward better elections and a stronger democracy," [FairVote MN Executive Director Jeanne] Massey said. "The Court's decision is a resounding endorsement of ranked choice voting. It gives a bright, green light for Minneapolis to implement RCV for this year's elections and for other communities around the state - Saint Paul, Duluth and others - to move ahead as well."
In its ruling, the Court explained that the RCV system satisfies constitutional requirements because all votes are treated equally: "[e]very 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." The Court also found that there was "no indication, much less proof" that RCV would impose a burden on the right to vote. Finally, Chief Justice Magnuson stressed in the opinion, "[t]he voters of Minneapolis chose to adopt the IRV method." Under these circumstances, the Court held that it would not interfere with that choice.
(FairVote MN press release)
Today the Supreme Court ruled that Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or ranked voting does not violate the constitutional principal of one-person, one-vote. While Minneapolis voters already have approved instant runoff voting, the petition for a St Paul ballot was held up by St Paul City Attorney John Choi's warning that IRV might not have the state constitutional support, based on a 1915 ruling where the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down another alternative voting system used in Duluth. John Choi said that this recent supreme court ruling satisfies his legal concerns.
I spoke with Melvin Carter, St Paul city council person who will be putting forth the IRV on the ballot resolution, along with my esteemed city council person, Russ Stark. Melvin is a long time supporter of "Every vote counts", the mantra of instant runoff voting.
That would mean that IRV would be on this year's St Paul November 9 ballot of mayor and school board elections, a very low turnout race. In the mayor's race, Chris Coleman is expected to have an easy win, along with Elona Street-Stewart, John Broderick and Tom Goldstein. However one more school board position just opened up, from a note on facebook from Darren Tobolt, Chair of the Saint Paul DFL:
Tom Conlon has announced that he will resign his seat on the Saint Paul Board of Education. There will be a special election to fill his seat for the last two years of his term. The special election will be on the same ballot as the regularly scheduled election this year.
The Saint Paul DFL Executive Committee has recommended to call the Delegates and Alternates of the 2009 Saint Paul DFL convention to a special endorsing meeting to be held on the evening of Thursday, June 25 at 6pm (Location to be determined).
Al Oertwig would definitely have a good chance if he wants to run. However, this is a wide open opportunity for someone who gets their supporters out.
So with the St Paul low turnout race, I expect this new school board candidate will have huge impact on the IRV vote and visa versa!
In the European universe, small parties have learned to leverage their additional votes with similar other parties to produce great changes. Minneapolis even has Instant Runoff Voting, to facilitate multiple party choices. So second and thirds choices on the ballot will really matter in close races. This means opportunities for small parties like the Green party, if they can take advantage of that. The question is whether internal politics will allow cross party alliances to happen.
Cam Gordon, City Councilman, Ward 2, is a fine statesman and a fellow Green Party Member. But there was a bit of a tempest in a green teapot over Cam's endorsement of Mayor R.T. Rybak. Keep in mind Rybak doesn't have any serious competition in the race, since Al Flowers doesn't count and, in the words of one Green Party activist who spoke to me anonymously, "Couldn't win the election against Rybak if Rybak dropped dead." ....
In the basement of a library, 41 members of the Green Party met for well over an hour, along with a few assorted guests who were not eligible to vote, to debate the lame and doomed proposal to take back the endorsement of Cam Gordon. If a vote had been held, then and there, by my reckoning it would have been 37 to 4. ...
All the same, do the math: if everybody contributes an hour, then roughly TWO DAYS OF HUMAN LIFE were burned up by this exercise in futility.
If you went with your first impression as you walked in the door at Saturday's St. Paul DFL convention you would have thought the endorsement of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) was a slam dunk. The pro-IRV contingent had signs, stickers and dozens of t-shirted floor workers. The anti-IRV crowd had two photo-copied fliers.
So, how did the question fail?
It failed because the opposition to it worked to construct a set of rules that made it fairly easy to defeat the motion.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to an "accelerated review" of Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis. They will hear the case in April or early May at the latest. Briefs are due on April 6, 2009.
"Now we can squash these meritless arguments once and for all," said Jeanne Massey, Executive Director of FairVote MN. "The prior ruling by Judge McGunnigle was very clear and thorough."
In his ruling, Hennepin County District Judge McGunnigle wrote, "The City of Minneapolis has an important interest in respecting the democratic process, and the citizens of Minneapolis democratically voted for IRV by referendum" and concluded that the plaintiffs "have failed to demonstrate that IRV is either unconstitutional or contrary to public policy".
(FairVote MN)
She expects to win the case so that Minneapolis can move forward with implementing IRV for November's city elections.
Despite their defeat in January, MN Voter Alliance is also confident of winning. I obtained an email they've circulated ... read on for a good laugh:
Hennepin County District Judge George McGunnigle ruled today that Minneapolis should be allowed to use Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in its 2009 city elections. He ruled on a summary judgment motion filed by IRV supporters. The judgment is that IRV is legal and constitutional under the Minnesota Constitution.
Today, Minnesota took a giant step toward better elections and a stronger democracy," [Executive Director Jeanne] Massey said. "Judge McGunnigle unambiguously rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that IRV does not comply with the Minnesota Constitution or state elections laws and found ample grounds to support Minneapolis' use of IRV for its municipal elections. This decision clears a major hurdle to implementation in Minneapolis and also moves IRV forward in Saint Paul, wherethe City Council voted to uphold a citizen's petition to place IRV on the ballot upon resolution of the law suit in Minneapolis".
(Fair Vote MN)
Hopefully, this means we get to use IRV this coming November. There could, of course, be appeals ... we shall see.
As someone who worked on the IRV campaign, I'm pleased as punch with this ruling.
While I personally have no experience with IRV, it's a concept that deserves to be looked at for the upside it brings. Among it's advantages, IRV will help to reduce the third party spoiler effect, reduce negative campaigning and the winner will win with a majority of the votes.
For whatever reason -- perhaps the upcoming municipal elections in which Instant Runoff Voting may or may not be used in the city of Minneapolis -- I've been hearing a lot of chatter about IRV and how it could be a godsend for DFLers worried about getting killed by a third-party campaign stealing just enough votes to hand another election to the Republican.
It's driving me a little nuts to hear this talk.
In a one-party-dominant situation, as exists in many cities like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, and others across the country, it might not be such a bad idea. I question the utility of the practice, since the DFL's index -- its bottom-line, we're-only-getting-hardcore-Dems-and-no-one-else vote expectation -- is at or above 50% in many parts of the cities, and turnout is already pretty high. But IRV wouldn't necessarily hurt anything in these areas.
However, in the suburbs? Statewide? Why would we want to give people any reason to consider a candidate from a party other than our own?
Sick of spoiler candidates ruining your candidates hopes and your dreams? There is a solution -- Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Any bitter Tinklenberg supporters out there? Independent Party candidate Bob Anderson took 10% of the vote in the MN-06 race. How many of you are wondering how much of the 10% would have gone to Tink?
Regardless of who ends up winning the recount in the Minnesota Senate race, this recount could have been avoided. What if this Senate race had used IRV? What if the Dean Barkley supporters had indicated a second choice? Do you think more would have gone to Al Franken or Norm Coleman?
In IRV elections, voters rank their choices. If nobody wins 50% +1, the bottom candidate is dropped and their voters votes redirected to their second choice. There are no wasted votes in an IRV election. You can vote your heart without worrying you might be wasting your vote and putting someone you despise in office.
Sick of dirty politics? IRV elections tend to be cleaner. Candidates tend not to go after their opponents because ... well ... they look bad. Imagine a major race any race in this state not being a dirty mud-slinging contest.
