Mpls-Issues tip: please delete as much of this message's text as possible if replying to the list. Thanks! ----------- I'm obviously a believer in the caucus process, but I also believe we can make it much better. At the DFL convention, just down the row from Lynnell Mickelsen's wonderful Minneapolis-Issues table sat the hardy band pushing Instant Runoff Voting (list member Ken Bearman & friends). In IRV, you rank your choices and the lowest first-ranked vote-getter's votes are reapportioned among remaining candidates based on second, third, fourth choices until you have a winner. Now, I'm a fan of IRV, but as an idea it's a little like vegetarianism in 1950s America -- still too strange for most people's tastes. The IRV folks often tout Cambridge, Mass., where IRV is used to elect council members - but let's face it, as much Minneapolis is a progressive mecca, Cambridge is too zany to reassure most locals. So it struck me on Saturday: we need to demonstrate this system short of an actual election ballot. A place like the city DFL convention - especially in the library, school, and park board seats where there are lots of candidates and lots of ballots. Instead of several ballots for these seats, we can cast one and use IRV rankings to redistribute votes of the low-ranked candidates. If we can quash three or four extra ballots during the course of a convention, we can save a couple of hours and lots of teller time. (I would suspect we'd need to use a computer ballot similar to the Minneapolis election ballot, an idea whose time has come, but that's another post.) Now, there are a couple of wrinkles I'm not quite sure about. You need 60 percent to be DFL to be endorsed - does this screw up IRV at all? Also, what would happen when you're down to two candidates who are short of 60, a la RT vs. Sharon? (I assume you just continue balloting like you do now - this is why I think IRV would show more advantages on multiple-candidate endorsements. And trying this out on so-called "minor" boards also lowers the risk.) Now, I'm not sure how the campaign pros would feel about this. If IRV cuts down on the number of ballots - or reduces them to one - you lose the chance for inter-ballot "persuasion." Would that be a major demerit? Personally, I'd trade extra ballots for this, but I'm curious how others feel. Last thing: I think one of IRV's prime advantages is that it reduces the chance for also-ran candidates to block. As I understand it, IRV offers delegates/voters the chance to rank multiple candidates, or just vote for one as they do now. I suppose an also-ran, going in, would instruct delegates to vote only for him/her. Still, I believe many delegates would still rank multiple acceptable candidates, if they have more than one. Anyway, I'm looking for folks who can paint a picture of how this would play out, if tried at a future convention. I guess I just can't get enough of caucus reform these days. It can only help attendance if we preserve the substance while bleeding out the wasted time. David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
