A couple years a go I was part of a group called the Minneapolis Election
Reform Coalition. We drafted two charter amendments aimed at improving
Minneapolis elections.
With one the City Council would be elected using proportional representation
with some members coming from single-member wards and some from "party" lists.
They call this "mixed member" because it provides for both geographic and
idealogical representation.
The second idea would have the Mayor elected using preference voting and the
instant runoff voting method.
While more complex and a little different from what we are used to in the United
States today, most everyone who has taken a serious look into democratic
election systems seems to agree (at least I do) that these options would greatly
improve our democracy. These ideas are and have been used successfully
throughout the world.
Here are some more details about the two ideas.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR CITY COUNCIL
Proportional representation allows groupings of voters to win seats in
proportion to their share of the popular vote. The reform proposed for
Minneapolis is modeled after proven systems used in democratic nations
throughout the world. It ensures that the highest percentage of voters possible
has representation and that each party�s representation reflects as closely as
possible its proportion of the vote.
Through its proportional representation proposal, we are convinced it can:
* Ensure both majority rule and minority representation
* Provide for more varieties of political ideas, not just the views of the
majority
* Give better representation to citizens from all cultural and ethnic
backgrounds
* Preserve geographical representation while offering city-wide perspectives
* Produce more exciting issue-oriented campaigns with higher voter turnouts
* Offer alternative parties a fair chance to elect candidates.
Under the new plan, the City Council will still be made up of 13 Council Members
but only six will come from wards and be elected by the people who live in those
wards. These wards could match the six Park Board Districts already in place,
simplifying city government and ensuring that all areas of the city are
represented. The other seven �at large� council members will be elected from
among independents and party lists by all the voters in the city. We could use
a flexible and open definition of "party" in this case to include any registered
group or campaign committee, thus encourage citizen activitsm and organization.
In this way, howeverm the election would be "partison."
Com election day, each voter will have two votes�the first for the ward council
member, the second for one of the lists of up to 7 city-wide �at large� members.
A party�s (or list's) number of council members will be determined by its share
of the total vote. One thirteenth, or approximately 7.7 %, of the vote will be
enough to elect one candidate. If a party receives 16% of the vote, they win
16% (or 2) of the seats on the council. If the receive 56% vote they win 56%
of the seats.
INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING FOR MAYOR
Unlike the two-round system we use today � with the primary/run off campaign and
election in September followed by a second election in November, � instant
runoff voting finishes the job with only one election. It is cheaper. Election
officials and taxpayers don�t have to foot the bill for a second election and
candidates don�t have to raise money for two races. Even more importantly, the
decisive election occurs when voter turnout is the highest.
Instant runoff voting, also known as �majority preference voting,� is not new.
It was invented in 1870 in Massachusetts and is used successfully in countries
throughout the world including in Ireland to elect their president and in
Australia to elect their parliament.
On the instant runoff ballot, voters simply rank candidates in order of
preference or choice (1, 2, 3, etc.) or, if they prefer, they can just vote for
one candidate as they do presently.
The way ballots are counted stimulates a series of runoff elections. If no
candidate wins a majority of first choices, the last place candidate (who had
the fewest first choices) is declared defeated. Ballots of the voters who
ranked the defeated candidate first are then redistributed to the next choice
candidate as indicated on each voter�s ballot. Last place candidates are
successively eliminated and ballots redistributed to next choices until a
continuing candidate has won over 50% of the votes or only one candidate
remains.
These reforms are all about fairness, opportunity and choice. I think that
Minneapolis voters want more and better choices and an election system that is
fair to all voters, all parties and all candidates.
I would certainly be delighted to share more details and even the specific
language of the proposals with the Charter Commission or anyone else who is
interested.I do hope that the Commission will take a serious look at alternative
voter methods and Instant Runnoff Voting and Proportional Representation
specifically as they continue the serious work of improving our city charter.
In peace and cooperation,
Cam Gordon
914 Franklin Terrace
Mpls. MN 55406-1101
612 296-0579, 332-6210, 339-2452
Seward Neighborhood, Ward 2
=====================================
"Significant, enduring change will require an institutionalized
shift of power from corporations and government to ordinary
Americans."
- RALPH NADER
www.jimn.org/gpm/gpm.html (MN Green Party)
www.mngreens.org
www.votenader.org
