Majority rule: Minnesota’s electoral system doesn’t work well in multi-party environment

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Can an electoral system designed for two major parties succeed in a state where three major parties regularly compete for statewide office?

In Minnesota, the answer increasingly appears to be no—which is why state leaders need to start taking electoral reforms, such as the instant runoff, seriously.

The hallmark of a democracy is supposed to be majority rule. But in recent years, many of our statewide officeholders have represented minority views, and a mere plurality of voters.

The rise of the Independence Party in Minnesota has been a major factor behind this trend. Following the election of former Gov. Jesse Ventura, it has offered the state’s voters a choice, and often a credible one. It has featured candidates like former DFL Rep. Tim Penny, former Minne-apolis school superintendent Peter Hutchinson, and in this year’s US Senate race, Dean Barkley, who briefly represented Minnesota in the Senate following Paul Well-stone’s tragic plane crash.

While these candidates have had their differences with the other two major political parties in Minnesota, they have all fit much more closely with the views of the state’s DFL party than the Republicans. Peter Hutchinson, it could easily be argued, ran to the left of Mike Hatch in the 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Hutchinson’s 6.5 percent of the vote, which came overwhelmingly from voters who opted for DFLers elsewhere on the ticket, made it possible for Tim Pawlenty to be re-elected, despite the fact that 54 percent of Minnesotans voted against him.

It wasn’t the first time for such a scenario, and it likely won’t be the last. Indeed, if the latest statewide polls are accurate, Dean Barkley could attract as much as ten percent of the vote this November, with the bulk of it coming from those who would otherwise support DFLer Al Franken in his quest to unseat Norm Coleman. If so, Coleman could well be re-elected even as a majority of the electorate votes to replace him.

That doesn’t say much for our electoral process and its ability to reflect the will of the people.

While some have blamed the Independence Party for playing a spoiler role, it would be fairer to point to our electoral system, and it’s inability to select the candidate with the most support, as the real problem.

The instant runoff could change that. By allowing voters to rank candidates, say their top choice plus their second pick, instant runoff would go a long way towards ensuring that the people we elect actually reflect the views of a majority of voters. Instant runoff has been used in many places, including in parts of the United States, and it’s been well-received.

Instant runoff not only ensures majority support for elected candidates, it also expands the choice offered voters by getting rid of the spoiler factor. How many voters opt for one of the two major parties’ candidates simply to keep the other party out of power? Such calculations happen all the time given our current system, and that’s a shame. Let’s let people vote for what they want, rather than against what they fear.

Instant runoff makes that possible, which is why it deserves serious consideration from the Legislature next year.