My View: Instant runoff voting would hurt, not help, our electoral system
Proponents say that the current primary system is flawed because:
1. It undermines the 50 percent +1 majority-winner requirement.
Our response: IRV does not solve this perceived "flaw" because they merely use the gimmick of "2nd and 3rd choices" to create the illusion of a majority vote. They don't change the fact that the winner received less than 50 percent of the original vote.
For example, using the 1998 governor's race, they complain that 63 percent of the voters did not want the candidate who won, Ventura. What they conveniently leave out is that 66 percent didn't want Norm Coleman and 72 percent didn't want Hubert Humphrey III. If Humphrey had received enough "second choice" votes to win, we would have had a winner who only got 28 percent of the original votes.
2. The primary can weed out candidates who could win in a high-turnout general election.
Our response: The purpose of a primary is to provide voters with the opportunity to "select" the candidates who best represent their views to run in the general election. As a result, the number of candidates who advance are reduced to a practical number. IRV "weeds out" the entire primary which is a vital part of the election process.
3. Narrowing the candidate field limits post-primary political debate.
Our response: This argument makes no sense because a narrower candidate field (all things being equal) leads to more meaningful and inclusive post-primary debates, not less.
Proponents, who make their case at www.betterballotcampaign.org, say IRV elections are better because they:
1. "... eliminate low-turnout primaries."
Our response: This is total nonsense. Where does it say that low primary turnout is a bad thing? The people who show up get to decide who the candidates are. If people don't show up, it must mean it's not that important to them, and that's their right, too. Our Constitution guarantees the right to vote, but it does not grant us the right to cast a bunch of "just-in-case-my-candidate-loses" votes.
2. "... provide results that better reflect the voters' intent. It also empowers voters to vote sincerely without being concerned about wasting their vote and, in turn, allows candidates to run on the issues."
Our response: How can you really tell a voter's intent? By whom they vote for! The fact is that IRV would produce a "less accurate" reflection of voter intent because the second, third and fourth choices only water down and dilute results.
Wasting their vote? Not true! The idea of someone having to "waste" their vote is ridiculous. This is just another gimmick used by the IRV folks to undermine the franchise rights of the voters. Whether voting for a favorite candidate or casting a legitimate vote of protest, voters have a right to cast their vote as they see fit.
Once candidates see that the way to get elected is to appeal to as many voters as possible, they'll be more inclined to pander rather than to persuade, which will lead to popularity contests rather than strong and open, issue-based campaigns.
3. "... eliminate the cost of the primary."
Our response: Elections are the cornerstones of our democracy. If it's a little more costly, it's worth it.
4. They also argue that IRV "... invigorates campaigns and reduces polarization by bringing multiple viewpoints into the debate."
Our response: How does IRV "invigorate campaigns"? It doesn't. It suppresses them. Besides the fact that polarization is usually not a bad thing, it is already reduced to the lowest level possible in many nonpartisan city elections as we consistently see two candidates from the same party advancing to the general election. And, it doesn't do much good to have multiple viewpoints if you have an election format such as IRV that is not conducive to healthy debates in the first place.
IRV is a misguided attempt to suppress viewpoints and disenfranchise voters by removing them one step farther from the election process. If it passes, it has to be challenged.
Andy Cilek of Eden Prairie and Matt Marchetti of North St. Paul are co-founders of Minnesota Voters Alliance, (www.MNVoters.org), which argues that all nonpartisan elections should be abolished.