MinnPost, March 17, 2010

Last month, Eric Black put forth the proposition that ranked-choice voting (also known as instant-runoff voting) "would help two of Minnesota's three parties." As card-carrying, "big tent" members of that third party, the Republicans, permit us to make the case that ranked-choice voting (RCV) will actually benefit all parties and all Minnesota voters.

First, though, a little background. Without much fanfare, over the last two decades our state has slipped into the habit of electing plurality winners to office. Only in 1996 and 2006 did we send our U.S. senators to Washington with support from a majority of the state's voters. Our last governor elected by a majority was Arne Carlson in 1994.

Some may think little of this phenomenon, but the truth is that minority status puts a hobble on our elected officials at a time when we have a profound need for leaders who can lengthen their stride enough to step across partisan lines. Far better for them — and for us — that our officeholders serve with the benefit of knowing that they were elected with the support of a majority of voters.

Ranked-choice voting can do that.  Under RCV, voters choose the candidate they prefer — as they would on a traditional ballot — but also designate a second choice and additional choices if they wish. If a candidate receives a majority of votes in the first counting, that candidate wins. If not, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and his or her ballots are divided among the remaining candidates based on voters' second choices. If there's still no majority winner, the process repeats until one candidate gains a majority of support.

Like a traditional runoff, but simpler

Simply, ranked-choice voting is like a traditional runoff but conducted in a single election, making the process far simpler and more cost effective than holding a second election to achieve the same purpose.

Ranked-choice voting benefits all parties and voters: It negates the rationale for "tactical" voting, it increases participation, and better reflects the diversity of our state. RCV provides voters greater candidate choice, expands the range of debate and discourages the worst tendencies of today's attack politics. Any one of these advantages could be the subject of its own discussion, but since Black's analysis looked instead at the question of political benefit, it's here where we'll focus the balance of our attention.

Black endorsed the conventional wisdom that RCV would favor independent candidates first and Democratic candidates second, basing this belief on the lopsided support for RCV by Independents and Democrats in Minnesota.  There's a circularity to that logic — it must be true because nearly everyone thinks it must be true — that is somewhat less than persuasive to us.

Instead, we subscribe to the notion that Minnesota is a middle-of-the-road state, a view supported by a recent Gallup poll, in which 37 percent of Minnesotans surveyed called themselves "moderates," an equal share "conservative," while 22 percent called themselves "liberal."

GOP, Democrats have moved away from centrism

It appears to us that both the Republican and Democratic parties have moved away from our state's inherent centrism and are no longer willing or able to appeal to a majority of voters.  Independent candidates have attempted to step into this vacuum, and some have captured enough votes to split the electorate enough to produce minority electoral outcomes.

As moderates, we are troubled by this trend and by a voting system that encourages extremism on both sides of the political aisle. We believe it is in the long-term political interests of both Republicans and Democrats that we adopt measures that counter those tendencies toward extremism. Ranked-choice voting provides this balance. Under an RCV system, candidates win by appealing not only to their political base but by reaching beyond the base as well. A candidate behaves differently when he or she knows that being someone's second choice is a tangible benefit.

Promoters of the conventional wisdom will point to Minnesota's lopsided party identification numbers — our electorate identifies itself as more Democratic than Republican by a sizable margin — as an indication that such a system will benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans, but — as Black noted in passing — nobody really knows for sure that this is the case.  They also will probably fail to note that party identification has never been weaker in modern times than it is today. What today's voters really care about are proposals and programs that work, about solutions that actually fix problems

RCV discourages attack politics

RCV discourages the kind of attack politics we've seen over the last several elections and instead promotes campaigning based on ideas and positions. It is a benefit to candidates of any political stripe with ideas and proposals and who want the interests and preferences of their community to be reflected at the ballot box. Let the parties put their ideas forward, let them stand in the light of an issue-oriented electoral process and be judged by the voters.

Ranked-choice voting is a tested and successful system used in cities across America and in democracies around the world, including Ireland, Northern Ireland and Australia. It had a successful rollout last year in Minneapolis and is on track for implementation in St. Paul. It's time to take this idea to the state level for consideration and — we hope — adoption.  Such a development would be good for all parties and citizens regardless of their political leanings.

George Pillsbury is a former state senator (1971-82). The Pillsburys have been active for many years in the Republican Party and civic life in Minnesota.