FAQ
- Who opposes Instant Runoff Voting and why?
- Why not keep our two-election runoff system?
- Is Instant Runoff Voting constitutional?
- Does Instant Runoff Voting give some voters more than one vote?
- Does it violate the “one person – one vote” principle?
- Why can Minneapolis adopt Instant Runoff Voting through a change in city charter and Roseville cannot?
- Will there be two ballots on Election Day?
- You mean Instant Runoff Voting won’t be used to elect school board members?
- What happens if I vote for just one candidate?
- Are Instant Runoff Voting, Ranked Choice Voting and Single Transferable Vote the same thing?
- Won’t Instant Runoff Voting be confusing to voters?
- How does Instant Runoff Voting benefit communities of color?
- How does Instant Runoff Voting impact major and minor parties?
- Will Instant Runoff Voting eliminate party endorsements?
- Where is Instant Runoff Voting used?
- Does Instant Runoff Voting Work?
- What will it cost to implement Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis?
- How do we adopt a new voting method?
- Can a 501c3 nonprofit organization get involved in the Better Ballot Campaign? I thought they were prohibited from engaging in electoral activity.
- Will ballots be more difficult to audit using Instant Runoff Voting?
Answers:
Who opposes Instant Runoff Voting and why?
The only known organized opposition to Instant Runoff Voting is exerted on a state level by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), which is a lobby group who views their interests better met under the current plurality system. They helped defeat the Roseville effort to adopt Instant Runoff Voting.
A few individuals have vocally opposed the Instant Runoff Voting proposal. Questions they raise are addressed below.
[back to top]
Why not keep our two-election runoff system?
City Primary elections have persistently low voter turnout, undermining their democratic legitimacy and leading to doubts about whether the “will of the people” has been honored. Instant Runoff Voting increases the likelihood that the ultimate decision will be made at the election with the greatest level of citizen participation and ensures that low turnout elections cannot weed out candidates who could win in a high-turnout general election. Two-round elections are also costly, both to the taxpayers who must pay for the primary election and to the candidates who must fund-raise for two elections. By narrowing the field to two candidates for each office, the current two-round system also leads to polarization and negative campaigning. Instant Runoff Voting accomplishes the purpose of a two-round system, but without the flaws. By having more candidates in the races, voters will benefit from an enriched public debate. By having just one election, voters who have barriers to getting to the polls due to lack of transportation, child care, limited mobility or time, or other reasons, will benefit from increased convenience.[back to top]
Is Instant Runoff Voting constitutional?
Yes. The only Minnesota Supreme Court case on alternative voting methods declared another voting method unconstitutional (NOT Instant Runoff Voting). In its decision, the court gave principles of constitutionality which are met by Instant Runoff Voting.[back to top]
Does Instant Runoff Voting give some voters more than one vote?
No. Each ballot only counts as one vote. So, every voter gets only one vote. In each round of counting, all the ballots are counted, not just those that are transferred.[back to top]
Does it violate the “one person – one vote” principle?
[back to top]No. Every voter gets an equal vote. Instant Runoff Voting has been affirmed in court as meeting this principle
Why can Minneapolis adopt Instant Runoff Voting through a change in city charter and Roseville cannot?
Roseville, Minnesota, attempted to adopt ranked-ballot voting for a special election in 2001 and was not able to win legislative approval for this change. Roseville’s elections are governed by state law and must win legislative approval because it is not a “home-rule” city with a city charter. Minneapolis, like 106 other Minnesota cities, is a “home-rule” city with a city charter that governs our municipal elections. The Minnesota Supreme Court case mentioned above affirmed that home rule cities may adopt their own voting methods in their charter. The League of Minnesota Cities’ Handbook for Minnesota Cities includes proportional voting as an option for conducting elections in home rule charters.
Will there be two ballots on Election Day?
[back to top]No, a ranked ballot will be used for all of the city elections, which are held in odd years and not combined with any other elections. Elections for School Board and for state and federal offices are held in even years.
You mean Instant Runoff Voting won’t be used to elect school board members?
[back to top]That’s correct. School Board elections are governed by state statute, not city charter.
What happens if I vote for just one candidate?
[back to top]If you rank only one candidate, your vote will count for that candidate until that candidate is either elected or defeated. But your vote will not help elect any other candidates, since there are no other candidates ranked on the ballot. It’s like going to the primary and not returning to the general election if your candidate has been eliminated. There is no strategic advantage to ranking only one candidate because your vote always counts for your highest ranked candidate who is able to use it.
Are Instant Runoff Voting, Ranked Choice Voting and Single Transferable Vote the same thing?
[back to top]The Minneapolis charter amendment being considered in the November 2006 ballot question would adopt “Single Transferable Vote” as the voting method for municipal elections. “Single Transferable Vote” applies to single- and multi-winner elections and is the term with the deepest historical roots and use among political scientists who study voting methods. The term “Instant Runoff Voting” is relatively new. Even newer is “Ranked Choice Voting.” Both were created for the purpose of talking about the use of Single Transferable Vote in single-winner elections, of which there are many in American politics. However, “Instant Runoff Voting” has quickly eclipsed “Single Transferable Vote” in terms of public recognition, and so the campaign uses the terms interchangeably.
Won’t Instant Runoff Voting be confusing to voters?
[back to top]A new voting method may be unfamiliar to some voters. However, that need not translate into confusion. An assessment of Instant Runoff Voting in San Francisco following implementation in 2004 showed 87% of the voters surveyed indicated that they understood Instant Runoff Voting either “perfectly well” or “fairly well.” Any change in voting method requires adequate voter education, and there are now model voter education programs for cities adopting Instant Runoff Voting. The Instant Runoff Voting general election ballot will look more like the current primary election ballot with regard to the number of candidates appearing on it. The election officials are charged with creating a ballot format that is clear and helps the voter to cast an effective vote.
How does Instant Runoff Voting benefit communities of color?
Instant Runoff Voting benefits communities of color by:
- Making it possible for smaller populations to elect representatives in multi-winner elections. In elections for at-large seats on the independent boards, ranked choice voting means a change from winner-take-all elections to proportional representation, in which the threshold for winning is lowered as the number of seats to be filled goes up. So, instead of needing to be supported by the largest group of voters, candidates from communities of color can win with only support of a minority of voters. One-third of the vote would be sufficient to elect one of the three seats on the park & recreation board. Just one-sixth of the vote would be sufficient to elect one of the six seats on the library board.
- Broadening voter participation and choice on the ballot: Instant Runoff Voting eliminates low-turnout primaries and brings together in a single election the most voters along with the most candidates to choose from. Turnout in general elections is always significantly larger, more diverse and more representative than in primary elections.
- Expanding political access for underrepresented communities: Instant Runoff Voting ensures that candidates cannot be disqualified in primary elections who may otherwise win in a high-turnout, more representative general election. This advantages non-traditional candidates from underrepresented communities, which turn out to vote in greater numbers in general elections. Additionally, there need not be any struggle over “who should run” because candidates who appeal to the same constituency actually help each other rather than create a “spoiler” problem and splitting the vote. Lastly, Instant Runoff Voting eliminates one election, making running for office more affordable and accessible to candidates from communities of color.
How does Instant Runoff Voting impact major and minor parties?
Instant Runoff Voting helps both third parties and the two major parties. It helps third parties by removing the “don’t waste your vote on a spoiler” millstone from around their necks, allowing them to campaign on their issues rather than answering to the “horse race” odds makers and receive an accurate tally of support. Instant Runoff Voting helps the two major parties by enabling them to get votes back from third party voters in the form of second choices that would count for major party candidates in the event that a major party candidate was not elected in the first round of counting. This means the major parties won’t have their elections spoiled by dividing the vote with a third party.
Will Instant Runoff Voting eliminate party endorsements?
No. Each political party is in charge of its own endorsement process and Instant Runoff Voting does not affect that. Political parties and candidates for public office may choose to revise their strategies for campaigning under the new voting method. We expect these changes to be positive developments for the political process.
Where is Instant Runoff Voting used?
[back to top]Voting methods commonly used in the United States, including in Minneapolis, have been outdated for over a century. Most major democracies updated their voting methods about a century ago. Most emerging democracies today choose modern voting methods over the antiquated methods used in the United States. One of those modern methods, Instant Runoff Voting, has been successfully used for public elections around the world for nearly 100 years, most prominently in Australia, Ireland and more recently in the City of London.
In the United States, ranked-ballot voting has been used in Cambridge (MA) since the 1940s. While the current movement to adopt Instant Runoff Voting in the United States is relatively recent, it is growing rapidly. It is now in used in San Francisco (CA) and Burlington (VT), is pending implementation in nine other U.S. cities and is being considered for use in several other U.S. political jurisdictions. Louisiana, Arkansas and now South Carolina use it for overseas and military voters. Instant Runoff Voting ballot measures are underway in several other U.S. cities and states. Other uses include the Utah Republican Party for both internal elections and for nominating their candidates for U.S. Congress and many U.S. non-governmental organizations, including the American Political Science Association and the Minnesota Student Association at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Campus. It is a recommended voting method by Robert’s Rules of Order and the Minnesota and Minneapolis League of Woman Voters.
Does Instant Runoff Voting Work?
Exit poll studies of the 2004 and 2005 San Francisco elections and the 2006 Burlington, Vermont, election demonstrate overwhelming voter support for Instant Runoff Voting.
In San Francisco, the final report of the 2005 election conducted by the Public Research Institute of San Francisco State showed that voters were three times more likely to say voting with Instant Runoff Voting was easy than it was difficult, and preferred Instant Runoff Voting over the old two-round runoff system by a margin of three to one. (http://fairvote.org/media/irv/SFSU-PRIRCVFinalReport.pdf)
In Burlington, the 2006 election exit poll study conducted by the University of Vermont showed that over 63 percent of voters liked the new system and most voters would like to see Instant Runoff Voting expanded to statewide offices. (http://www.betterballotcampaign.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/burlington_exit_poll_results.pdf)
In Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Instant Runoff Voting has been in use for multi-seat elections for over 50 years, election officials point to strong voter preference and ease of use. Robert Winters, a member of the Cambridge Technical Working Committee, reports that Cambridge has managed to proportionally represent itself in its local elections since 1941 without any need for single-winner districts or primary elections. The local election method has been accepted by the citizens of Cambridge with minimal objection. Teresa Neighbor, former Executive Director of the Cambridge Election Commission, says that the City of Cambridge has full confidence in its proportional representation style of elections. The vote counting was successfully computerized in 1997, reducing the time for the vote tally from days to minutes. (http://www.betterballotcampaign.org/node/344).
What will it cost to implement Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis?
Equipment issues are complex and rapidly developing. The companies that make voting equipment are private, for-profit ventures and don’t share information freely. Costs must be negotiated between buyer and seller at the time of the transaction. All this is to say that future costs cannot be projected with any certainty. However, there are realistic scenarios to pursue that could keep initial set-up costs to a minimum and likely result in long-term savings from holding one election instead of two.
The recommended long-term scenario is to work with the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to replace our existing precinct-based optical scanners with the same type of scanners equipped to process ranked ballots used in Instant Runoff Voting. This would be done on the normal replacement schedule (sometime between 2015 and 2020), or as soon as the County Board is ready to make that replacement. This could very well happen without any additional costs due to Instant Runoff Voting.
There are municipal elections scheduled for 2009 and 2013. If the City Council decides the city cannot be ready to implement the new method in those elections, they will have the option under the proposed charter amendment to put off implementation by passing an ordinance stating the reasons why the city will not be ready. However, there are simple and inexpensive ways to implement the new voting system for 2009 and 2013.
In the short term, the existing precinct-based optical scanners could be used without modification to count first choices, provide error protection to voters, and name any winners who could be determined by a count of first choices. For those elections where further rounds of counting were needed, the city could buy or lease a few high-speed ranked ballot scanners to process all the ballots in a central location. The additional cost would be a fraction of what the city would save by not holding a primary election.
Voter education should be guided by the experiences of San Francisco and Burlington. A recently released report from the Public Research Institute at San Francisco State University shows that fewer than half of voters in the first citywide elections in San Francisco knew about instant runoff voting before they voted but only 2% found it "very difficult" and more than 99.6% of voters cast valid ballots. Similarly, exit polls during Burlington’s first IRV elections for Mayor in March 2006 show that the vast majority of voters learned about IRV from free media, far more than learning from publicly-funded voter education activity; still, the voter success rate was 99.9%. We believe the biggest keys are good ballot design and effective poll worker training.
According to the most recent report from the Minneapolis elections director, ranked ballots will be longer and cost more to print and that more training for election judges may be required at first, but that the additional costs are not expected to exceed the savings.
How do we adopt a new voting method?
City elections are governed by the Minneapolis City Charter, which can be changed by the approval of the voters. The Better Ballot Campaign has succeeded in getting the City Council to ask the voters on the November 2006 ballot if they want to approve Instant Runoff Voting for city elections. A “yes” vote from 51% of those voting on the question is needed to adopt the amendment.
Can a 501c3 nonprofit organization get involved in the Better Ballot Campaign? I thought they were prohibited from engaging in electoral activity.
Short answer: Yes! IRS regulations prohibit 501c3 organizations from electioneering or advocating for or against particular political candidates or political parties. However, ballot measures are not considered elections by the IRS. A ballot measure is a piece of legislation and the voters are the legislative body. Activity on a ballot measure is the equivalent of lobbying on a bill at the Capitol. Within limits, 501c3 organizations are allowed to lobby on legislation. That’s why 501c3 organizations may endorse the Better Ballot Campaign proposal and support the campaign in other ways.
Will ballots be more difficult to audit using Instant Runoff Voting?
Instant Runoff Voting does not require touchscreen voting and is used in several cities and other nations, all on paper ballots. The audit trail is better with ranked ballot voting. “Dumb” scanners, like the ones we have now, just click up the totals for each candidate as the paper ballot goes through the scanner. “Smart” scanners, like those used for Instant Runoff Voting, record the ballot image of each ballot – an electronic backup of every ballot, and a way to compare the paper ballots with the electronic copies. The software reports each stage of the count and can even tell you how each ballot was counted in each round. As an election integrity matter, we should upgrade our scanners even if we don’t switch to IRV.