Minneapolis is electing a Mayor on November 5, 2013, using ranked-choice voting. Because no incumbent is running, and because ballot access is so easy (no petition, just a $20 fee), there are 35 candidates. The ranked-choice system only lets voters rank three candidates. This thoughtful article in the Southside Pride, a monthly neighborhood newspaper, discusses some of the problems with this year’s mayoral election.
How many usual suspect MORONS in liberal MN ???
Nominating petitions for SERIOUS candidates.
Approval Voting for executive/judicial officers.
There is actually quite a bit of misinformation in the article by an author with a not-so-subtle anti-RCV perspective.
A few examples:
— An “undervote” is not when a voter ranks only one candidate. At the ballot level, it is when the voter doesn’t rank any candidates for the contest, or at a ranking level (e.g. third choice) it is when the voter doesn’t rank any candidate at that ranking level. If a voter ranks only one candidate (especially only as the first choice), that is known as bullet voting.
— If you don’t know (or haven’t defined) what a spoiler is, you are premature to claim that RCV only reduces, but doesn’t eliminate the spoiler effect.
— The spoiler effect is a separate issue from the no-show paradox. The 2010 mayoral race was a great example of RCV overcoming the effects of vote splitting. It was not an example of the no-show paradox, not even after the fact with 20-20 hindsight, let alone a real-world practical opportunity.
— If the author isn’t familiar with models or real-world behavior of RCV with more than five candidates, she really needs to read more.
— Single-winner RCV always elects a winner with a majority. It also often elects a winner without a majority. That’s not a contradiction, just a reflection of the rhetorical tricks the author is using and that there is more than one kind of majority. Put the myth of a ‘”true” majority’ on the shelf with Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.
No matter how challenging the 35 candidate field is with RCV, the alternatives without RCV very likely would have been worse. I’ll be keeping an eye on the author’s prediction that turnout will be less than in 2009. Too bad comments weren’t allowed on her article.