Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike Keliher
Joe LovelandChalk this up to me being an old fuddy-duddy, a conservative, but I voted today in Minneapolis using the instant-runoff ranking, and it felt stupid to me.
I wanted to be interviewed by somebody — newsies were interviewing voters about the new ranked-choice voting, and most of the comments were about whether it was clear or easy — because I wanted to say “It felt stupid.”
It felt like a toy ballot. It felt like I was voting for American Idol. (My wife points out I have no idea how voting for American Idol works — which is true — and I point out that I never need facts or information to form an opinion.)
Most of the arguments for instant-runoff voting seem to be about making the process easier. Well, I’m not sure “easy” should be the highest criterion for civic participation. With IRV we don’t have to have primaries. What’s wrong with primaries? They’re scrappy, they’re small, they’re closer to the voters. I have this nagging feeling that IRV is about making democracy more like fast food, more like a TV reality show, easier to vote people off the island. Ick. 
And any voting scheme that needs a flow chart feels to me like Chad hanging around with Ponzi.
And, as with many of the initiatives in California, the land of the “Cool, good idea, man, like let’s make it a law,” there are unintended consequences lurking beneath this cool idea. California has been dying since Prop 13, and each election in la-la land is packed with weird initiatives and propositions, making an election something like a political argument in a crowded bar. With IRV, we won’t know the outcome of some elections for weeks. When there is an opportunity to vote for more than one person, as with large boards and bodies, we vote for a first, second and/or third choice. I want to give first-place votes to two people, not give a first to one and a second to another. It diminishes the impact, the value, of affirmative votes for two people — these two people both are my choices to be on the board.
Enough. I’m just suspicious of easy democracy. I know, with ranked choice voting Tim Pawlenty might not have become governor, and W might not have won (air quotes around won) in Florida. Good argument. But I just think ranked choice voting feels like voting for homecoming queen.
Saint Paul disagrees — voters there chose IRV today, one cycle behind Minneapolis.
What do the rest of you think? How was it for you, dear?
– Bruce Benidt
Filed under: Government, Politics | Tagged: elections, instant runoff voting, ranked choice voting
I agree that IRV, aka the Hare system, is hair-brained. I felt cheated when I had to rank Park Board and Board of Estimate candidates when I should have had three votes for three slots and two votes for two slots. Also, I suspect the low turnout–207 in my precinct–was a result. That’s not democracy. The goal ought to be more participation on the part of voters, not long lists of candidates about whom we knew little. IRV may work for parliamentary systems where you rank your choices after you choose your party, but this election and ballot looked more like playing bingo or a lottery than a serious political endeavor.
Ambassador Fraser, if that’s really you commenting on our friendly little blog, we’re honored that you’re reading.
We have many people who sign their comments with other people’s names — I got excited when I thought Frank Luntz was really talking with us. So this may be someone playing with your name. But the comment sounds like the real Arvonne.
Ms. Fraser was US Ambassador to the UN Commission on fhe Status of Women, co-founder of the Humphrey Institute’s Center on Women and Public Policy, and — just as cool and telling as those major titles, she still seems to preside over and do the minutes for the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Association. She’s a true and dedicated activist, and wife of my former congressman and one of our great mayors, Don Fraser.
Thanks for the comment — love the bingo image.
IRV can encourage third-party participation, which I see as a good thing. It’s easier to vote for a third-party candidate based on your principles, and if you’re questioning the value of that vote, you can rest assured it’s not “wasted.” If your third-party candidate doesn’t win, your second-choice vote — presumably the person you’d have chosen if your third-party person weren’t a choice — still gets your nod.
I agree that it’s different, strange, perhaps even stupid-feeling. But that whole Franken-Coleman recount situation felt pretty god damn stupid, too, didn’t it?