What Does RCV Actually Deliver? (Part 2 of 2)

In a previous post, I took a look at what ranked-choice voting did for some of our Minneapolis elections in 2013.  I wanted to see if RCV makes an actual impact or not, and if so, whether it contributes to a better or worse campaign season and election.

Since I covered most of the races I am familiar with, the remaining contests will fall into one of four categories: no change, improved election, worse election, and "the jury's out."  It should go without saying that these observations are entirely subjective and if someone more knowledgeable than I am has information to sway my analysis, I welcome that.

We've got ten city council races to go, and we start in numerical order with...

What Does RCV Actually Deliver? (part 1 of 2)

Not too long ago, the Star Tribune ran an editorial by renowned political scientist Larry Jacobs to the effect of how ranked-choice voting would disenfranchise minorities.  That article attempted to hide behind the veil of academic rigor while admitting a lack of sufficient data.  It was countered by a piece in Insight News that touched on a few benefits of the new system but mainly concentrated on hopeful platitudes.  The general consensus about RCV seems to be shaping up this way:  "Ok, 2009 clearly didn't count because the non-competitive mayoral race drove down turnout.  But 2013 is when we'll REALLY see what ranked-choice voting can do."

So I decided to take a good hard look at how this system is actually affecting the 2013 Minneapolis races.  Is it even making a difference?  If so, are the elections better or worse for it?  I've examined every single 2013 city race in the context of RCV vs. a single vote and primary system.  Full disclosure, I am not a fan of our current elections model and I won't feign neutrality.  But I will try to be fair, and some of what follows may surprise ranked-choice advocates.

Let's start with the big kahuna, the 35-person mayoral race.  In contrast to 2009, RCV has dramatically altered the landscape...

The Downside of Ranked Choice Voting

I am not a fan of ranked choice voting, and Saturday's Ward Five convention did nothing to endear me to this new process.

At another convention where I was volunteering for a mayoral candidate, I wound up talking with Kim Ellison for almost an hour about RCV, and much of that dialogue centered around aspects of this system that I *do* like--for instance, candidates are adopting a much more civil tone in their campaigns.  I just happen to think we're using ranked choice in all the wrong elections. (For instance, the lack of a primary makes it hard to weed out "vanity" candidates who have no chance of winning.  But look at last year's state representative primary election.  Ranked choice voting then would have saved us from a contentious recount.)  This voting process has its upsides, but Saturday revealed a few drawbacks as well.

At the fifth ward DFL convention, the chair brought up RCV as a possible way to facilitate the endorsement process.  Here's how it (I use the next word loosely) worked...