Minnesota Representative Kent Eken (DFL-Twin Valley) has introduced HF 440, to amend the State Constitution to require a majority vote in general elections for congressional and state office. It reads, “The legislature shall provide by law for a mechanism that ensures that in order to be elected to any single member district office, an executive officer, judge, senator, or representative must receive a majority of the votes cast at the general election for the office sought.”
The author’s intent is to include Congressional elections. It appears from the wording that it would not apply to the presidential election. The bill is designed to be compatible with alternative voting systems such as Instant Runoff Voting.
Excellent. Majority voting speaks to the idea of majority rule, but also makes it easier for voters to vote sincerely — either through runoffs or, better yet, instant runoffs.
The proposed amendment is poorly drafted. Why include “single member district office” in the amendment itself but omit it the question presented to the voters? The ballot language replaces “senator or representative” with “legislator”, so are you sure that the intent is to include US Representatives, let alone US Senators.
And why include “district office” at all, especially if it is intended to apply to offices such as governor or US Senator.
IRV does not guarantee that the person elected receive a majority of votes cast. See Washington’s law, which redefines a “vote” in order to ensure that somebody gets a majority of the “votes”.
And why exclude presidential elections? In 1845, when Congress set the November presidential appointment time, they specifically provided that the appointment could occur on a later date so that States could require a majority vote.