[Mpls] Caucuses - IRV resolution

[Jeanne Massey]

Michael Atherton:
...but what are the objections to letting
all party members select nominees through a general
election as California does?  Caucuses seem about as
truly representational as the NRP


Reply:
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) wouldn't change the DFL endorsement process, but
it would eliminate primaries, sending all candidates (remaining after
endorsements) to the general election. The party could change its
endorsement process - with or without IRV - but that's up the party. 

The resolution to support a charter amendment for the use IRV for municipal
elections got a start at last night's caucusing event. It passed nearly
unanimously and with some good discussion in the two precincts in my
building - Ward 8, Precincts 6 and 7. It was a show of support to open the
dialogue on IRV for the city. 

It was also adopted in one of the precincts in Ward 2, with a full house
attendance. There was a big discussion about it in one of the precincts in
Ward 11, with a resulting split vote against. I'll let those in attendance
speak to the debate there.

Any resolution proposed or adopted at this stage is primarily educational as
it doesn't carry over to, and needs to be introduced independently at, the
ward and city conventions. That said, it was a first step to begin
introducing the idea and provided a good educational opportunity.  

Some concerns I heard inside and outside of the discussion of the resolution
in my room:

1) Ballot complexity.  One person who has been involved in ballot recounts
shared his concern about the complexity of the ranked-choice ballot. Some
people have difficulty following ballot instructions now without adding in
ranked-choice. I agree that this is an important issue to address.  We don't
provide sufficient education to voters NOW about how to fill out ballots,
which should be happening, and it would need to happen with any change to
the ballot for IRV. 

I have seen several IRV ballots and they appear straight forward, but then I
don't have any difficulty filling out our current ballot. San Francisco
implemented IRV last November after two to three years of working out the
mechanics of the system and an all-out voter education campaign. It worked,
and that same kind of campaign would be needed here. 

FairVote's Flash Animation Demonstration on IRV provides a good
demonstration of the IRV ballot and counting process.
http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/

2) The current plurality system - the person who wins is the person who gets
the most votes (even if the vote falls short - in some cases way short - of
a majority) - is fine. 

The obvious problem with this is that the majority of voters are unhappy
with the outcome. There is a reason that most bodies (including our
electoral college) require a majority of votes to make decisions - it's
democratic.  

Locally, we do elect majority winners for city council and mayor because we
have a primary runoff. IRV would combine the primary and general election,
eliminating the need for a two step voting process. This is a huge advantage
because of the unacceptably low turnout in primary elections. More voters
would determine the outcome of the election.

To clarify the impact of IRV - it doesn't instantly promote alternative
parties into office. We would need Proportional Representation to accomplish
that goal. But IRV does promote third party or minority candidates in the
process, growing the base of alternative and minority platforms.   

Anyone else on the list in attendance last night where the resolution was
introduced, please share your experience.

I'll report on the outcome of other precincts as I hear about them.  

Jeanne Massey
Kingfield