FairVote Minnesota

Making every vote count

What's your favorite benefit of Ranked Choice Voting?
Rank your preferences: 1st Choice2nd Choice3rd Choice
Less partisan polarization
More choices for voters
Upholds majority rule

Park Board Candidate Jason Stone Responds to Star Tribune Op-Ed

Unpublished Letter to the Star Tribune in response to the March 4th Op-Ed by Andy Cilek and Matt Marchetti, Minnesota Voters Alliance.

___________________________________________________________________________________

On March 4 in an anti-Ranked Choice Voting Counterpoint, Andy Cilek and Matt Marchetti raised some questions deserving clarification. I was the second place candidate in the race they reference- Minneapolis Park Board District 5.

Despite my election loss, I accept the outcome of a system, Ranked choice Voting, that I continue to enthusiastically support. Contrary to Cilek and Marchetti's assertions, Kummer won our race with a majority of votes from those who chose to express themselves and the system fulfilled a central goal of electing the candidate who has majority support amongst voters.

Ours was one of the most closely contested races. Kummer and I received 37.8 percent and 35.5 percent of first choices, respectively.

In an RCV election, the winning candidate always receives the majority of continuing ballots in the final round.

About 12 percent of voters did not have a preference for either of the top two candidates- myself or Carol Kummer; their ballots were exhausted before the final round. That was their preference, as in any election.

The same would be true in a traditional primary-general election. Carol and I would have advanced to the general election and voters who  cast a ballot for one of the defeated candidates would have returned to the general election to vote for one of us. Those who didn't prefer either of us would sit out of the race.

With a single spoiled ballot and high voter approval ratings, the transition to RCV in Minneapolis was a resounding success. Calling out unrealized promises that were never actually made and then using these points to paint a picture of failure is unfair. To improve the quality of our electoral process, I suggest we set our sights on reducing special interest influence over campaigns, eliminating incumbents' conflicts of interest, and raising the bar for truthful campaigns.

Jason Stone, Minneapolis