If we think the majority should rule, we need ranked choice voting

It is a basic tenet of democracy: The majority rules. And, yet, not since 1994 has the governor of Minnesota, the state's highest elected official, received an electoral majority.

It does not have to be this way. There is a better and more democratic method for electing our governor -- and every other elected official in the state. It is called ranked choice voting (RCV).

Consider the latest election. The results of the likely recount notwithstanding, DFLer Mark Dayton has received roughly 43.6 percent of the vote, Republican Tom Emmer 43.2 percent, and Independence Party candidate Tom Horner 12 percent. This outcome raises the unfortunate -- and, I'd argue, faulty -- question: Whom did Tom Horner "take" votes from: Mark Dayton or Tom Emmer?

The honest answer is that nobody knows. Under RCV, however, we would know, because it allows individual voters to rank their candidates in preferential order. If, as has happened in the past four gubernatorial elections, no candidate receives an outright majority, the system eliminates the last-place candidate and continues to tally voters' next preferred candidate until one candidate receives a clear majority.

For instance, under RCV, after the various minor candidates were eliminated from contention, Horner would have been eliminated; if more than half of his supporters listed Tom Emmer as their second choice, the additional 6-plus percent would have been added to his total, making him governor. If the numbers were reversed, and more of Horner's supporters selected Dayton as their second choice, then Dayton would have claimed a clear victory. It is important to point out that RCV doesn't favor any political party over another. It is simply a better and fairer method of voting.

In addition to yielding majority winners, RCV also has other beneficial attributes. For instance, instead of candidates only "going negative," the system encourages candidates to say positive things about some of their opponents in an effort to get the supporters of those candidates to list them as their second choice.

This, in turn, not only offers some relief from the incessant attack ads, it also highlights policy areas where there is some agreement. In short, RCV nurtures common ground and makes compromise -- another basic tenet of democracy -- possible.

RCV also eliminates the specter of the "wasted vote." It is not uncommon for third-place candidates to poll less than their true level of support. In this past campaign, an untold number of Minnesotans supported Tom Horner's policies and believed he was the most qualified choice for governor, but when they saw he was trailing in the polls they opted not to vote for him, for fear that such a vote would elect the candidate they least preferred. (In this sense, our existing system could be said to "take" votes from certain candidates by encouraging voters not to support their first choice.)

The bottom line is that any system which actively encourages individuals to vote against their convictions is deeply flawed and deserves to be replaced. This is something I am sure a majority of all Minnesotans, regardless of their political persuasion, can agree on, and it is why I sincerely hope that whoever becomes our next governor will place ranked choice voting on the top his political reform agenda.

----

Jack Uldrich is the chair of the Independence Party of Minnesota. He is a longtime member of the advisory board for FairVote Minnesota, which promotes ranked choice voting. He is a source in MPR's Public Insight Network.

Gallery

Fullscreen SlideshowPrevious Slide

1 of 1

Next Slide