Ron Leurquin writes: IRV would be a wonderful thing this fall because it would wake a lot of folks up that their voice and vote make a difference.
Jeanne Massey adds: The mayoral race this year underscores the value of IRV - Instant Runoff Voting - which would eliminate the low-turn out primary runoff and allow voters to rank the candidates in order of preference at the higher turn-out general election. The mayoral outcome of the upcoming primary election is predictable, making the primary redundant in the electoral process. Following the primary then, the narrow field of two candidates will define the campaign discourse until the general election, without the benefit of a broader debate brought by the diversity of minority candidates in the pre-primary race. Low turn-out primaries is BIG problem of our current two-stage local elections. Average voter turnout for municipal primary elections was 18% in 1997 and 27% in 2001. (Average turnout for the general election in those years was less than half at 47% and 41%, respectively.) A small minority of voters consistently determines the candidates on the slate in the general election. IRV solves this problem by combining the primary and general election in nonpartisan races, allowing voters to elect a majority winner in just one election, avoiding the added cost and low voter turnout, typical of municipal primary elections. The decisive election takes place when turnout is highest. Additionally, turn-out at the general election may increase because IRV gives voters greater incentive to participate. This is because their vote still counts even if their first choice candidate is eliminated. Even if their favorite candidate comes in last, IRV allows their next favorite candidate to be counted. An ordinary person's participation and vote matters until and in the final tally. The voting method is simple and straight forward: Voters rank their choice of candidates by preference as 1, 2, 3. If a candidate receives a majority of first choices, that candidate wins. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second round of counting occurs. The votes cast for the eliminated candidate are then transferred to the second choice listed on each ballot. Rounds of counting occur until there is a winner with a majority of the votes This method allows more candidates, including independents and third parties, to get involved in a race, without being accused of "spoiling" the elections. Campaign debates would be opened to more than two candidates, giving boost to a broader debate throughout the campaign season and allowing voters true preferences to be measured in the general election. In turn, IRV has been shown to decrease negative campaigning because IRV may require second and third choice votes to win, giving candidates incentive to focus on the issues to attract voters to their positions and to form coalitions. Negative campaigning and personal attacks are much less effective in an IRV election. The money-saving benefit of IRV makes IRV even more appealing. The City of Minneapolis spent about $200,000 in the last municipal election primary, which it would save if the primary were eliminated. Eliminating the primary also saves candidates the expense of running for two elections and shortens the length of the campaign season, reducing the amount of money candidates need to raise and spend. While saving money is a big plus of IRV, its overriding value is that it advances voter enfranchisement throughout the election process. IRV is not a cure-all for election reform, but it is an important step toward a better functioning democracy. IRV allows for preferences in voting, establishing a true majority (as opposed to a plurality) that is more reflective of the voters' will. For this reason, following a year-long study of alternative voting methods, the Minnesota League of Woman Voters endorsed IRV for use in local and state elections. The most recent IRV success is in San Francisco, where voters elected their city council members last November in one IRV election, saving the city over a million dollars by eliminating its traditional runoff election. Cambridge MA has long been using an IRV-related proportional representation form of ranked ballots. Several cities and some states throughout the country - in California, Vermont Michigan, Washington and others - have passed or are working towards IRV ballot measures. Australia, Ireland and London now all use IRV for their highest offices. FairVote MN is holding a training session on Saturday, September 17th for Minneapolis residents interested in learning more about or becoming involved in efforts to amend the Minneapolis city charter to make Instant Runoff Voting the method by which city officials are elected. On-line registration for the training session can be done at www.fairvotemn.org/node/109. www.fairvotemn.org is a good starting place to learn more about IRV. Jeanne Massey Kingfield 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
