The purpose of this post is to speak to some of Steve Cross' concerns about Instant Runoff Voting.
Steve writes: "If I were a major candidate or supported on[e], the thought of eliminating a "spoiler" candidate sounds like a really good idea. However, I suspect that to people who don't like either of the principal political parties it's not going to sound all that good." Steve, I guess Iâd like you to explain why supporters of all the non-DFL/GOP parties support IRV. Iâm a Green partisan, and a strong IRV supporter. Libertarians, Socialists, Independence Party supporters, all like IRV. The major IRV opponents are reliably those in power: certain Minneapolis DFLers and Republican state legislators. So whatâs going on here? Are we supporters of alternative parties stooges and dupes? Of course not. From your self-described vantage point of strong DFL partisanship, youâre misunderstanding our political viewpoints. I often enter the voting booth knowing that the candidate I most prefer is not likely to win. I also generally have an idea that one âmajorâ candidate (almost always the DFLer) is preferable to the other âmajorâ candidate. Right now, those like me are told that weâre stupid to consider âthrowing awayâ our vote on the candidates we truly prefer. Evidence of the success of this rhetorical device is easy to find. Knocking doors for Tom Taylor (Green candidate for 59A state house) I heard many voters express the fear that they would unwittingly elect a Republican by voting for a Green. (Tom outpolled the GOP candidate.) Under an IRV system, no one would have to consult some strategic zeitgeist to see if it was âsafeâ to vote her/his preference. Weâd all vote our conscience every time. I have faith that more honest voting would lead to better representation and thus better government. Steve writes: "I don't think that [alternative party voters] will be satisfied knowing that their votes for 1st place are going to be chucked and their votes will be cast for one of the candidates that they don't like all that much to start with." Right now, when I cast a vote for a Green for, say, Secretary of State, my vote is truly chucked. I would be much more satisfied knowing that my first choice would be recorded (likely along with more votes cast by those progressives who have been scared off voting for non-DFLers), then my second choice would be apportioned to the DFLer who could maybe beat IRV-opponent Mary Kiffmeyer. Anyoneâs better than Kiffy, even someone with whom I donât agree 100%. Steve continues: "I predict that anyone voting for a "spoiler" candidate is going to vote for their candidate for 1st place and not vote for anybody for 2nd, 3rd, or other place. After all, the prospect of seeing their candidate reduced to a footnote in the returns isn't going to give them any satisfaction." Iâd argue that a candidate with 10% in a plurality election is more of a footnote than a candidate with 25% of first-choice votes in an IRV election. And I, as a strong Green partisan, would certainly vote for as many candidates as I could accept for the office, in order of my preference. Rather than conjecture and âprediction,â please find ONE alternative-party voter who agrees with you on this. Steve then writes: "As for always producing a majority, I frankly don't get why that's essential. If someone gets elected because the votes for whoever was in 3rd place were re-cast for the eventual winner doesn't change anything substantial from winning with 48% of the vote and knowing that someone way down the ballot only got 3%." As Jeanne pointed out, youâre contradicted by the last two Gubernatorial elections on this. Both have involved three fairly strong finishers, with the plurality winner garnering substantially less than a majority. Steve again: "I can see the voters for the mere plurality winner feeling very, very cheated." Better a minority bloc feeling cheated by IRV than the majority of voters (63% in 1998, 57% in 2002) feeling cheated under the current plurality system. The chief strength of IRV is that it produces a winner whom more voters support (whether intensely or tepidly) than oppose. Plurality elections, in a multiparty state such as Minnesota, reliably produce winners whom more voters oppose than support. And youâre right: having a group that size (63% of voters!) feel cheated is bad for government. As Jeanne points out, our nonpartisan primary in Minneapolis serves the same purpose, but does so less democratically and more expensively than IRV would. We should be making decisions as a public at the point of highest turnout. (Partisan primaries are internal party affairs, so low turnout isnât a public issue in the same way.) Steve: "And in the overall costs of government, I doubt that holding elections cost all that much. And, given the equipment that you still have to have for the general election, I doubt that eliminating the cost of a primary election is going to really save any significant money." Jeanne already supplied a dollar figure for an election. Thanks, Jeanne. Contrary to Steveâs doubt above, much of the cost of running an election is paying people, so eliminating the nonpartisan primary would certainly save money. In a time of budgetary stress, $200,000 shouldnât be viewed as a negligible sum. We could certainly put those dollars to good use somewhere. On to Steveâs prediction of his own behavior: "I am a died-in-the-wool [sic] DFLer. There is no way that I'm going to give even a 2nd place vote to a Republican or a 3rd place vote to a Green, and the same for Socialists, Communists, or any others who happen to be only the ballot." First, it seems you slightly misunderstand the way IRV would work in nonpartisan Minneapolis elections. Most city council and mayoral races in this town are between two or more DFLers. So youâd likely have a choice you could live with: DFLer A, B, or C? Second, it isnât fair or reasonable to assume that most voters are like you, or like me. Strong partisans, while quite vocal, are not the majority of voters. Third, as I wrote above, the vast majority of strong Green partisans I know (and Iâd wager I know a few more than you do) would cherish the opportunity to vote for a DFLer as a second, third or fourth choice. Fourth, though this may rankle your sensibilities, there are many, many DFL voters whoâd jump at the chance to âsafelyâ vote Green. This seems to be one of your unstated concerns, given the following quote: "[T]he prospect of votes being re-cast from someone who finished 3rd, 4th, or 9th in an election making the difference in an election makes me think that it just isn't fair." Isnât fair to whom? Those voters have been freed to vote their consciences, yet still give the consent on which representative government relies. This is a threat only to entrenched power that relies on distorted patterns of voting. In Minneapolis, that means a certain wing of the DFL. In Minnesota, it means the Republican party. Unsurprisingly, it is those in positions of power within Mpls DFL structures and those in positions of power in statewide Republican circles (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, for example) who are first to cry âunfair!â One last point. Steve, if you really believe that itâs unfair for the third-place candidateâs voters to influence the ultimate winner, intellectual honesty would demand that you oppose the current nonpartisan primary system in Minneapolis. After all, itâs set up to allow supporters of third-place candidates (Joan Campbell in 2001, for instance) to choose between the top two candidates in the general election after their candidate has been defeated. The only real differences between this and IRV, in my view, are an extra $200,000 outlay from the city and a reliably low turnout on the first round of balloting. Respectfully submitted, Robin Garwood FairVote Minnesota (fairvotemn.org) board member Cam Gordon supporter Seward REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
