Instant Runoff Elections:
Minneapolis voters recently approved a little understood and poorly described voting system called Single Transferable Vote, also known as Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for its mayoral and city council offices. Its proponents now want to foist the same scheme on the unsuspecting voters of St. Paul.
Mayor Rybak said this was a “tremendous grass-roots effort” and, “this city will accept change, if presented well.” This was NOT a grass-roots effort; it was a well-funded special-interest endeavor pushed by the City Council-not average citizens! NOR was it presented well. (see Ballot and Survey)
We weren't surprised to see IRV pass considering the failure of the local media to cover opposing arguments and the Star Tribune's active promotion of it under the guise that it would help third-parties. It's too bad the Tribune's 2006 endorsements didn't reflect this same compassion for third-parties as nearly ALL of their support went to DFL candidates!
- For multiple seat elections, the counting process involves a few more steps. The difference is that when a candidate exceeds the number of votes required to be elected, the surplus votes are distributed proportionally to the next choice on each of those ballots. (The threshold is derived from a mathematical formula based on the number of open seats and the total number of first choice votes.)
The current push to implement such elections (nation-wide) was started by a largely partisan group in order to minimize the effect of their own third party factions, without regard to the negative effect on the electorate.
The following list of arguments was taken primarily from Better Ballot Campaign, a front group for FairVoteMN.org, which promotes IRV. Our analysis of each argument is shown in the shaded blue boxes. We believe that none of their arguments hold water, but YOU be the judge!
Note: The fact that IRV is supported by R.T. Rybak, Geo. Latimer, Mike Hatch, Arne Carlson, the League of Women Voters and media darlings David Schultz of Hamline and Larry Jacobs of the Humphrey Institute is all well and good, but it does not validate their arguments.
1. Proponents claim IRV is constitutional even though the 1915 Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Smallwood that preferential voting is “contrary to the intent of the Constitution.” They claim the ruling was “...not because it was preferential voting per se, but because it involved the Bucklin method of counting which had the effect of giving some voters more than one vote.” (see FairVote letter)
Their argument fails to address the real issue, which is NOT how votes are counted, transferred or otherwise manipulated, but rather how many votes each voter is allowed to cast!
The state's highest court emphasized that the Constitution, by implication, forbids any elector from casting more than a “single expression of opinion or choice.” Since IRV, like the Bucklin method, allows voters to cast multiple votes (choices), it too shares this fatal flaw!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IRV has a 2nd fatal flaw; all ballots are not counted equally! While the Bucklin method counts all secondary votes when necessary, IRV only tallies the second choice votes on the ballots cast for defeated candidates.
This means some voters' have their first AND subsequent choices counted while others have only their first choice votes counted. This is highly undemocratic! (see Example)
Brown vs. Smallwood concludes; "...The decision is sound; we do right in upholding the right of the citizen to cast a vote for the candidate of his choice unimpaired by the second and additional choice votes cast by others.”
Note: As a Home Rule Charter city Minneapolis has the power to adopt a new voting method, but they do NOT have the power to adopt one that violates this franchise right.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The (STV) IRV method has a 3rd fatal flaw: In elections with more than two candidates, voters are placed in the precarious position of not knowing whether they are helping or hurting the cause of their favored candidate. (see NONMONOTONICITY Paradox)
IRV is NOT as easy as 1-2-3 as proponents suggest. Voters shouldn't need a calculator to figure out whether they are helping or hurting their cause by how they rank candidates. Instead of IRV, this method of voting should be called SITD for “Shot in the Dark” or PIAP for “Pig in a Poke.” This is the 'Hanging Chad' problem times a thousand!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Additional notes:
1) Prior to IRV being placed on the 2006 MPLS ballot, City Attorney Burt Osborne advised against it citing the Brown decision. The Council and Mayor failed to heed this warning and pushed it through anyway. (Also, in 2001, the City Attorney advised a petition group that IRV was unconstitutional, according to a League of Women Voters report.)
2) The MN Attorney General recently said (see 08/07 letter) that IRV was "probably" unconstitutional, despite failing to accurately identify the primary concern of the Court and the true impact of IRV on the voters.
The letter (referring to a 2003 letter from then Attorney General, and IRV supporter, Mike Hatch) incorrectly stated that the Court's primary concern was with an election format that placed voters in a position where THEY could ultimately cause harm to their favored candidate.
A closer look at the court's conclusion reveals that their primary concern was an election format (such as IRV) that placed voters in a position where they could ultimately be harmed by second and additional choice votes CAST by OTHERS.
The AG report also fails to mention that IRV (unlike the Bucklin method) places voters in a position where they could harm their favored candidate SIMPLY by ranking them as their first choice, see 3rd fatal flaw above.
A more accurate and comprehensive report would have undoubtedly led to a much stronger conclusion.
Proponents also point to a 1974 Michigan decision which attempted to validate preferential voting simply by rejecting a weak 'equal protection' argument. It failed miserably. (see Michigan)
2. IRV advocates say the current primary system is flawed because: "it undermines the 50% +1 majority-winner requirement."
Second, IRV doesn't solve this imagined "flaw" anyway, it merely creates the illusion of a majority (and a false mandate). Once 2nd & 3rd choices are tallied (because nobody got 50% + 1 of first choices) the winner has only an artificially fabricated majority. (See Example)
Third, IRV fails to ensure an accurate measure of voter intent because some voters have secondary choices counted while others do not, AND, voters cast votes NOT knowing who the runoff candidates will be or how their votes will be affected by other voters. Thus, any claims of a true majority victory have to be considered false and misleading.
We believe a plurality system better reflects the will of the voters than the "fabricated" majority likely created by IRV. This is NOT to say we prefer representatives who agree with only a minority of voters; merely that a plurality winner is perfectly acceptable in a three-way (or more) election, especially in a representative republican form of government.
Food for thought - Ironically, IRV doesn't even guarantee a majority will be elected! If no majority is produced after all rankings are tallied, the one with the most votes is declared the winner!
Note: Nonpartisan elections (in Mpls.& St. Paul) already have a 50%+1 majority requirement because two candidates advance to the (runoff) general election, but unlike IRV, voters know who the candidates are!
FairVote says they want "majority rule with fair representation for all" but they don't tell us how you can have fair representation if the 'majority' infringes upon the rights of the minority.
3. "...the primary can weed out candidates who could win in a high-turnout general election."
Our response - This argument is conveniently directed at nonpartisan elections in which primaries have become almost meaningless. However, rather than being an argument in favor of Instant Runoffs, it's actually a good argument against nonpartisan elections.
The purpose of primaries is not merely to find someone who can win, but to allow voters to nominate candidates who will represent their views in the general election, to make candidates prove they are worthy to serve, and to reduce the field of candidates to a more practical number.
Primaries are where key issues are identified and examined. They provide an organized environment for debate and have proven to be essential to Democracy. Eliminating them will further weaken the electoral process.
4. "...the narrower candidate field limits post-primary political debate."
Our response - A narrower candidate field (all other things being equal) would lead to MORE post-primary debate, not less, and make it easier for voters to identify candidates and the issues.
IRV could easily create huge candidate fields and turn elections into name recognition contests, virtually eliminating any chance for meaningful debate.
If the 2008 Presidential election used IRV, there could be dozens of candidates in the race. This would be no where near practical! Any result from such chaos would be questionable; and the voters will pay the price.
Note: The fact that third parties aren’t always included in debates is a separate problem which can't be solved by IRV.
5. Proponents say that IRV elections are better because they: "...eliminate low-turnout primaries and bring the most voters together with the most candidates to choose from at the same election."
IRV will likely produce less voter participation rather than more, especially among those who feel under-represented, once the novelty wears off and the public begins to realize that their votes carry even less weight.
IRV is also more likely deter many serious candidates who would otherwise run but lack the necessary name recognition to overcome the activist factions who have stacked the deck against them.
In addition, you could end up with many (or all) candidates from the same party, which would be bad for obvious reasons. Also, some voters would feel compelled to rank candidates that they highly dislike.
In the end, IRV will cause more elections to be decided by otherwise disengaged voters rallied by last minute "get-out-the-vote" campaigns.
6. "...empower (voters) to vote sincerely without being concerned about wasting their vote."
Our response - Our Constitution guarantees the right to vote, but it does not guarantee the right to cast a bunch of “just in case my candidate loses” votes.
Whether voting for a favorite candidate that best represents their views or casting a legitimate vote of protest, voters have a right to 'vote sincerely' for any candidate as they see fit, or none at all, if they choose to protest.
Therefore, the objection to the so-called “3rd Party spoiler effect” is completely unfounded and dubious, and the idea of “wasting one's vote” is a false concern that IRV wouldn't solve anyway!
7. "...save money by eliminating the cost of the Primary elections."
Our response - This claim is simply false. The fact is, as election experts have recently stated, that while the cost of primaries may be eliminated, any savings would be offset by the many other costs associated with IRV.
In any event, the government is obligated to hold elections and cost is not a valid constitutional argument to eliminate an election, i.e. a primary.
Our right to select our candidates and our representatives at all levels of government is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, if it's a little more costly...it's well worth it!
There are much better areas where the city could reduce spending other than the democratic process itself! (The ideal situation would be to require each political party to conduct their own primary election.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SAY WHAT? In a November-07 MN Senate hearing, FairVoteMN President Jeanne Massey told the Senate that IRV would ONLY eliminate primaries in nonpartisan races, not partisan races.
If saving money is really their goal, why wouldn't they advocate for eliminating ALL primaries? Their inconsistent arguments and lack of explanation are troubling and revealing!
8. "It will reduce the role of money in politics because candidates have to campaign in only one election." - Tony Solgard - 2006 Star Tribune Voter's Guide.
Even if the overall cost to run elections was reduced because of having no primary, it still would not reduce the role of money in politics. Candidates will still need to spend money to get their message to stand out.
Note: There is, in fact, no correlation between money in politics and a flawed system. It really boils down to a free speech issue. Therefore, the money argument (as long as it's legal money) is a phony issue.
9. "...invigorate campaigns and reduce polarization by bringing multiple viewpoints into the debate, and promote positive, issue based campaigns."
Our response - How does IRV "invigorate campaigns"? It doesn’t, it suppresses them. The phrase “reduces polarization by bringing in multiple viewpoints” sounds good, but it's actually meaningless rhetoric.
Since IRV provides a poor format for healthy debates in the first place, having multiple viewpoints doesn’t do much good. Besides, the current Minneapolis nonpartisan elections frequently see two Democrats in the general election and polarization can't be reduced much further than that.
AND, Why is it such a good idea to reduce polarization anyway? It's NOT! As Jefferson said, "In “In every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords.”
IRV does no more to ensure that candidates will run on the issues than any other election format. In fact, it does less. Once candidates see that the way to get elected is simply to appeal to as many voters as possible, they will be more inclined to pander rather than to persuade which will lead to popularity contests, rather than strong and open, issue-based campaigns.
In summary, IRV is confusing, undemocratic and unconstitutional, and should be opposed by anyone who values citizen-run government.
IRV serves only to suppress viewpoints (especially the minority), limit accountability by diminishing party influence, create more opportunities for irregularities and manipulation, and further disenfranchise voters by removing them one more step away from the electoral process.NYU's Department of Politics concludes, in an in-depth examination of alternative voting methods, that the primary purpose of STV or IRV is to prevent a strong minority candidate from winning which is undemocratic; And that these methods are highly vulnerable to fraud and manipulation.
In an increasingly diverse political environment, a plurality system, (where the candidate who receives the most votes wins, even if its less than 50%) is far superior to one that creates only an artificial majority. If we want “3rd” Parties, we should embrace pluralities. If IRV became the norm, we could end up with a tyrannical “one party” ruling elite.
Despite optimistic claims of IRV success, these stories paint a different picture: See San Francisco, Vermont, Scotland. Voters in Raleigh, NC got lucky; their City Council flatly rejected IRV in the first place! (see Raleigh)
All in all, IRV is a terrible idea. To improve our election process and voter confidence in it, we should support measures that empower the citizens, not career politicians and the bureaucracies they seek to control.
Additional note: There are several other "non-traditional" voting methods currently being advocated around the country. Among these are Range Voting and Approval Voting. (See the NYU report linked above) While these schemes are better in some ways than IRV, they retain the same fatal flaws which make IRV unconstitutional.
We are currently challenging the constitutionality of IRV.
“The ostensible purpose
of a runoff election is to prevent a
strong minority candidate
from winning.”
“IRV
is bad for voters... they
will have no idea how their
preference ranking will
actually work in a run off."
