A flurry of campaign filings on deadline day increased Minneapolis’ candidate pool by a third and brought to 22 the number of races that could be decided by the city’s new system of instant-runoff voting (IRV).
Of 98 candidates who filed to run for city offices from mayor to park commissioner, 26 signed up on Tuesday, the final day to file.
Those last-minute candidates included John Malone, the lead individual plaintiff in a lawsuit to stop Minneapolis from using IRV for the first time in November’s municipal elections. The Minnesota Supreme Court decided last month to reject that effort and let the city proceed with the IRV system, also known as ranked-choice voting.
Ironically, Malone’s entry as the third candidate in the race for District 1 park commissioner opens that contest to potentially being decided by the very counting process he opposed in court.
In an election in which three or more candidates vie for a single seat, the leading vote-getter may be favored on fewer than half the ballots. Under the old system, the leader would win with a plurality. This year, under IRV, that situation would trigger a second round of counting in which voters’ second-choice preferences enter the tally.
(Minneapolis voters opted for the new system by referendum, a choice St. Paul voters will make with their own referendum this fall. IRV means Minneapolis won’t hold a primary election as it has in the past.)
Malone says he didn’t become a candidate to start another scrap over IRV. “I’m no fan of ranked voting,” said Malone, who contends the system “disenfranchises voters.” But with the lawsuit now settled, he told the Minnesota Independent, “there’s no use crying over spilled milk.”
A case built on math
But to Andy Cilek, Malone’s former co-worker who recruited him to join the suit, the fight goes on.
“We’re already getting ready [for new legal action],” says Cilek, executive director of Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA), the organization that took Minneapolis to court over IRV. “We want to drive this to the federal courts.”
It wasn’t part of MVA’s strategy to have an anti-IRV candidate run for office in Minneapolis this year, said Cilek, who expressed surprise at hearing of Malone’s candidacy. “I wish him luck,” he said.
Rather than an aggrieved candidate, all MVA needs for the next court battle is a close race and a few citizens from the right district willing to sign on to a lawsuit.
The organization has math experts on call who can break down IRV election results to demonstrate what he calls “the Michael Behrendt Effect.” In a St. Paul Pioneer Press op-ed today, Cilek rechristens the phenomenon — otherwise known as “nonmonotonicity” — after Behrendt, an Aspen, Colo. city-council candidate.
By Cilek’s account, Behrendt lost in a ranked-choice voting fiasco in which voters actually hurt their preferred candidates by ranking them first. IRV proponents contend the danger is impossibly small or even merely theoretical. (Aspen’s system differs from Minneapolis’ in that voters’ first and second choices carry equal weight in the first round of counting.)
Where IRV could hold sway
Indeed, said Jeanne Massey, executive director of IRV advocacy group FairVote Minnesota, even the scenario of a standard IRV-decided election is unlikely in most of the 22 (out of 25) races for 25 city seats in which it’s possible — races like the one for mayor (incumbent R.T. Rybak and 10 challengers) in which the vote will be divided among enough candidates to trigger, in theory at least, the tabulation of voters’ lower-rank choices.
Factoring in political probabilities reduces the likely number of races that could realistically see more than one round of counting to a mere handful, according to Massey, who made that assessment midway through the filing deadline day. Two open seats, in Wards 1 and 10, seemed to Massey to have the “best chance” among 13 city council races — “but the chance is not very great,” she said.
Massey is more certain that two multi-seat contests in Minneapolis will test the city’s new system of ranked-choice voting: park board commissioner-at-large (eight candidates for three seats) and Board of Estimate and Taxation (six candidates for two seats).
In the tax-board race, incumbent Carol Becker is likely to win re-election outright, in Massey’s view, leaving only one of two seats likely to be decided by counting lower-ranked votes.
The park board at-large race was already the most interesting in view of IRV — even before the final hour of filing, when District 6 incumbent Bob Fine jumped into the at-large free-for-all, instead of seeking re-election to his current seat.
The field includes the three incumbent at-large commissioners: the Green Party’s Annie Young and DFLers Mary Merrill Anderson, a former superintendent, and current board president Tom Nordyke. Then there’s DFLer John Erwin, a one-term commissioner whose term ended in 2003, and three newcomers — John Butler, David Wahlstedt and Nancy Bernard — in addition to Fine. (Anderson, Nordyke and Erwin earned the DFL endorsement at the party’s city convention in May.)
Such multi-seat races were the most contentious topic when the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments May 13 in MVA’s effort to overturn IRV in Minneapolis. Justices asked both sides whether they could rule differently on the comparatively simple use of IRV in single-seat races and the more complex process in races in which candidates are vying for more than one seat.
If MVA were to field a candidate for the purposes of later filing a grievance, for which the court left an opening in its June 11 ruling, Massey said she expected it to be in one of the multi-seat races.
Two last-day filers
Besides Fine, notables who surprised ballot-watchers with their filings on Tuesday were former City Council Member Natalie Johnson Lee, who will try to return to her old post, and current park board commissioner Carol Kummer, whose planned retirement went awry when a chosen successor got sick.
But perhaps more typical of people who put off filing for office until the last day are relative political ingenues like Malone. A 30-year-old Northeast Minneapolis homeowner who designs websites for a living, Malone is passionate about dog parks.
While his name appears on a Supreme Court case over IRV (pdf), it’s another issue that inspired Malone to run for office — his belief that the city’s dog parks are “great, but there’s lots of room for improvement.”
He would like to reduce the $60 annual permit fee, which he says prevents some people from bringing their dogs to the parks.
A Peace Corps volunteer who served in Samoa, Malone’s main political experience was student government in college. That’s also the case for Butler, one of the contenders for the park board’s three at-large seats who also filed for office on Tuesday.
But that experience is further back for Butler, a retired postal service worker, who is 68. A self-described “ultra-conservative” aligned with the Minneapolis Property Rights Action Committee, Butler said his friend Bill McGaughey, a mayoral candidate, persuaded him to run.
“The honest truth,” Butler said, “is you caught me on the way to the library to read up on the park board and what they do.” He also expressed curiosity about park commissioners’ compensation.
A tennis player, Butler enjoys city parks but says they could be more “senior citizen-friendly. It wouldn’t hurt to put in a shuffle board.”
Candidates who change their minds have until Thursday at 5 p.m. to withdraw from city elections.














10 Comments »
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 10:21 am
It’s more likely that any election that goes beyond the 1st column votes to determine a winner will not result in a winner who won a majority of the 1st column votes! IRV vote counting is like ENRON-accounting methods – very hard to understand with sliding thresholds and targets.
And since IRV delivers a real majority winner using IRV tabulation only a small minority of cases where it is used – it’s more likely that you’ll have voters who thought they were screwed. Voters in Aspen, Burlington, Peirce County WA and San Francisco are considering dumping IRV. The Cary NC Town Council didn’t want to be a lab rat in yet another IRV experiment when the first didn’t deliver as promised.
St. Paul voters would be smarter if they waited to see just how badly IRV performs in Minneapolis before they vote on using it in their town. Better yet – just vote “No” on IRV!
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 11:16 am
IRV is an important pro-democracy reform. My own city of Burlington, VT has used IRV since 2006. In the 2006 and 2009 mayoral elections we had five candidates with no concerns about “spoilers.” Exit polls showed that voters overwhelmingly preferred IRV to the former election method. And voters had no difficulty with the ranked-choice ballot. Fully 99.9% of the votes cast in the mayor’s race were valid. IRV worked great. I hope more jurisdictions adopt it.
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Ranked Choice Voting is hardly new and hardly untested. It’s been used for decades to elect the highest offices of Australia and Ireland, say, and many other uses as well. Check out instantrunoff.com
Nice to see all these choices for Minneapolis voters in November too — usually almost all the choice is gone after a low turnout primary.
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
It’s new to Minneapolis, JB.
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Aspen Colorado tried IRV earlier this year, with only a few thousand votes to count, and it was such a mess they are thinking about scrapping it. Cary North Carolina tested IRV in their Oct 2007 Election and chose not to use it again this year after holding several public hearings.
CO. Aspen voters to vote on how they vote — again
The Aspen City Council on Tuesday agreed to put an advisory question to voters on the fall ballot on whether the IRV election method — a system never tried before in Aspen until this past May — should be scrapped or kept in place.
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20090722/NEWS/907219970/1077&ParentProfile=1058
Learn more here:
Instant Runoff Voting does not work as well as advertised, and has unintended consequences . Promises that IRV will save money, reduce negative campaigning, simplify elections, or provide a majority all in one election – are just not true.
http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/2009/06/truth-about-instant-runoff-voting-it.html
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
Terry Bouricius’ claims that there were “no concerns about spoilers.” in Burlington elections is belied by the true facts, where in the last mayoral election there, a “spoiler” caused the most popular majority-favored candidate to be eliminated and an extreme leftist candidate won the election instead.
Elimination of the majority-favored centrists and the election of extreme rightist or leftist candidates who are opposed by a majority of voters, is a common occurrence in the worst of all possible voting methods – IRV.
Terry Bouricius should disclose that he is paid by IRV’s well-funded proponent organization Fair Vote.
For more info on the “Realities mar IRV, 18 flaws and 4 benefits” see these sources:
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf
and for the TRUTH about the Burlington, VT election see this page that provides actual data and analysis:
http://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html
In Aspen recently, the most popular, majority-favored candidate for City Council was eliminated in IRV – and if he had received 75 *fewer* votes, he would have won.
Oh yes, another *feature* of IRV is that it removes the voter’s right to know the effect (positive or negative) his vote will have on his favorite candidates!
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Chris, Kathy, what you’re claiming is impossible. A majority favored candidate CAN’T be eliminated because then there would be no second round. The candidate supported by the majority just wins. Kathy, I did look at your links, but they don’t support your case. Burlington clearly had a close three way split. Your remark about a far left candidate winning suggests that your objection is that your candidate lost. Since there were several left-leaning candidates, if we assume the first round votes would have been the same in a plurality election, then the Republican would have won with 33%. However, we can’t actually assume that, nor can we rely on polls that asked about just two candidates. What we can assume is the majority wanted someone to the left of the Republican, since not only were the Democrat and Progressive very close to the Republican, but second choices went to other left-leaning candidates. It looks, from the data I got from your link, like the voters of Burlington picked the candidate most like them.
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Eric,
I did *not* say “majority out of only 1st choice votes”. I said “majority-favored” candidate out of all rank choice votes. In other words if you take all the pairwise preferences of all voters, there is often a majority of voters who prefers a particular candidate over all other candidates. This was true in Burlington, VT where a majority preferred the Democrat over the other candidates, but the Republican candidate acted as a spoiler, causing the left-wing candidate to win. Many many variations on this scenario occur in IRV.
Top two runoff elections are much better because they do find majority winners, do let all voters participate in the final counting rounds, do give voters the right to know that their vote for a candidate has a positive effect on that candidate’s chance to win, etc.
READ the links I gave you above for the Burlington election or the long, but easy-to-read report. Do due diligence to investigate what IRV *really* does, rather than believe blindly what you’ve been told.
IRV commonly eliminates the majority-favored candidate and OFTEN elects a candidate that is *opposed* (or even the 2nd to least favored) by a majority of voters.
IRV does *not* treat all voters’ ballots fairly because it counts only the 2nd choices of some voters, giving the voters of the least popular candidates the most power to decide early eliminations, and never counting the 2nd choices of the very large group of voters whose 1st choice makes it to the final counting round and then loses.
IRV prohibits many voters from participating in the final counting rounds.
IRV does *not* find majority winners.
IRV does *not* solve the spoiler problem.
IRV removes the right of the voter to know that a vote helps, rather than hurts his favorite candidates.
ETC. There is truly not a worse method for counting votes that has been tried in the US. You must do some studying to learn the realities of IRV before making false claims about it, as I’m sure you do not want to be a part of spreading fabrications and misinformation that have emanated from the “Fair” Vote group.
Comment posted July 25, 2009 @ 10:42 am
This is incorrect:
“In an election in which three or more candidates vie for a single seat, the leading vote-getter may be favored on fewer than half the ballots. Under the old system, the leader would win with a plurality. This year, under IRV, that situation would trigger a second round of counting in which voters’ second-choice preferences enter the tally.”
Under the old system, the top 2 candidates in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their standing, even if one had a majority (the primary was skipped, if 2 or fewer candidates had filed).
In 2005, 4 of the park commission district races had two filers, so no primary was held. In the other 2 districts, the two leaders had 74% and 63% of the vote, yet still had to face a second election.
In the 2005 city council elections, in only 3 wards did a candidate fail to win a majority in the primary. In 7 wards a candidate had a majority in the primary, and in the other 3 wards, 2 or less candidates filed, so the primary was skipped.
In Ward 2, the candidate with a majority in the primary, lost in the general election.
Pingback posted August 16, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
[...] New instant-runoff voting could factor in 22 Minneapolis races, Minnesota Indepedent [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment