By Matthew Stolle

Post-Bulletin, Rochester MN 

If Rochester had instant-runoff voting, as was used for the first time in the Minneapolis mayoral and city council races last Tuesday, would Ardell Brede have been elected mayor in 2002?

As some push for the voter-ranking method to be adopted here, It's a tantalizing question to consider: Would our local political leadership class be different today, if voters had had the option of ranking candidates in order of preference rather than simply picking one.

A review of the mayoral races in Rochester over the last three decades shows that the victor usually wins, if not by a landslide, then by a large margin. Instant-runoff voting wouldn't have made any difference.

But the 2002 mayoral primary stands out as a possible exception, because the race pitting incumbent Chuck Canfield, Brede, Paul Myhrom and Al Schumacher was so close.

A mere 600 votes separated Brede and Canfield at the end of the 2002 primary. With neither having passed the 50 percent threshold, a runoff election would have been triggered under the voter-ranking method.

That means the second and third choices of voters for Schumacher and Myhrom would have reassigned to Brede and Canfield. And who knows, had a significant portion of those votes broken Canfield's way, he might have won re-election.

And, then again, probably not. Even Canfield rejects such a possibility. But the alternative-reality scenario raises a larger point: The way an office-holder is elected can play a role in determining who gets elected.

Gubernatorial, Senateraces may have changed

Indeed, it is possible to imagine a whole clutch of races, from recent governors contests to local Rochester school board elections, in which the outcome might have been different. At the very least, the hand-counting of ballots would have gone on for several days, if not weeks, as the election moved into a runoff round.

Rochester City Council Member Michael Wojcik, an IRV supporter, points to the last two gubernatorial races as prominent examples in which outcomes might have been different.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty won both elections in 2002 and 2006, but in neither case did he win a majority.

In the most recent U.S. Senate race, Al Franken won with only 41 percent of the vote. Instant-runoff rounds would have been required in all of them.

"You have a very strong third-party candidate, but people (were reluctant to vote for) a third party candidate, because they were afraid of the other party winning," Wojcik said in reference to the last two gubernatorial elections.

Wojcik also cites the Rochester school board elections. Board members Breanna Bly and Cris Fischer entered the race as "deeply unpopular incumbents," he notes, but were able to win with 39 percent and 35 percent respectively because the votes were split five ways.

Would outcome be more fair?

Rochester school board elections involve primaries when more than two candidates file. But a primary wasn't held last year, because district officials failed to notify the state of its intention to hold one in time.

"I guarantee you those would have been different," said Wojcik, who is trying to persuade the Rochester charter commission to endorse the idea for all city elections and send it to the city council.

Would the outcomes have been more fairer if instant-runoff voting had been used? Wojcik doesn't go that far, but he does believe it would be fairer for voters. They would have the option of weighing a wider range of candidates without feeling they were throwing away their vote.

Opponents question why the city should tinker with a system that has served it so well.

Brede, who opposes instant-runoff voting, said there are other priorities to occupy state and local officials.

"Until and if the Legislature decides to look at this, I think right now, whether it's state or local, we have bigger fish to fry than to change something that's withstood the test of time."

There are 9 comments - Display All Comments

Matt55901
Rochester, MN

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 10:32:32 AM

Here’s a real good video on how IRV works, and what it could have done for Rochester: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZGTnp3cgFY -- One problem I see with IRV is that candidates do not get elected with a majority: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJgK_GHM0_U Candidates should be elected with a majority, not a plurality.

Report comment as inappropriate

irishman
Rochester, Mn

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 10:49:35 AM

Being essentially lazy, I do not want to waste valuable couch time evaluating and ranking the entire field. I prefer to make my choice, stick with one and vote.

If Mr. “Rochester is racist” Wojcik is pushing this you know there is some acorn like scam involved where the crats see a poor or minority advantage.

Report comment as inappropriate

Atilla
Rochester, Mn

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 11:11:30 AM

irishman,
The only reason democrats desire instant runoff is because it provides them with one more way to steal an election. They want to change the rules to legitimize winning - throw a third party into the mix and the vote will lurch one way and then another based on a tiiiiiiny fraction of the vote.

There has already been a case where democrats DELIBERATELY RAN a “third party” candidate on the “Pro-life” ticket, with the sole intention of taking votes away from the Republican on the ticket.

Instant runoff will be exactly what they need to legitimize their tricks, the trick of stealing an election simply by running MORE THAN ONE CANDIDATE.

The two party system, has a great advantage, and that is it forces a choice between two candidates, both of which must have broad appeal, to get elected.

Report comment as inappropriate

artista
rochester, mn

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 11:32:03 AM

I vote for the candidate I want to win, period.  Ranking the ones I DON’T want to win would be like choosing between chicken pox and measles. It’s meaningless if I can’t stand either one of them. 

Report comment as inappropriate

Othelmo__
Rochester, MN

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 11:40:21 AM

“One problem I see with IRV is that candidates do not get elected with a majority”

That’s exactly why it’s being pushed. It gives leftist fringe candidates like Wojcik an edge they wouldn’t have otherwise. It’s a lousy idea which must be rejected outright. Tell Wojcik Rochester doesn’t want to become another Dinkytown.

Report comment as inappropriate

Ron_Burgu
ndy
Rochester, MN

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 12:12:41 PM

POP!

Report comment as inappropriate

apollo13
rochester, mn

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 9:07:28 PM

I think Michael Wojcik is worried about his own re-election chances.

Report comment as inappropriate

OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 9:15:55 PM

Brede is too busy worrying about catastropic global warming. He is a member of the Mayors for Climate Change. Or, I should say “against” climate change.

This is a serious issue.

Report comment as inappropriate

Othelmo__
Rochester, MN

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 9:23:29 PM

City council members are annoyed with Wojcik. He does nothing but waste the council’s time with these fringe leftist proposals.

Report comment as inappropriate