Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
I agree with everything former Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has to say in his March 31 commentary arguing that ranked-choice voting's time has come. Yet, one piece was not been covered in the commentary, nor has been in the discussion at the Legislature:
How does all of this relate to presidential elections?
RCV is complicated — particularly complicated to implement statewide in Minnesota, according to current Secretary of State Steve Simon. Under the proposed legislation, the earliest RCV would apply to presidential elections is 2028, but even that is not certain.
For presidential elections, there is a far simpler method that can be implemented immediately and at no cost — a runoff election. This would involve two steps.
- Step one: By midsummer, the parties have nominated their candidates for president and have designated their presidential electors. In late summer, Minnesota conducts its partisan primary election for state and other federal offices. Step one of the presidential election could be held at the same time. It would winnow the presidential field to the top two.
- Step two: The top two would move to the November general election. There, the will of the actual majority of the electorate governs. It's called democracy. Just like RCV, an actual runoff eliminates the "spoiler effect."
This wonderfully simple idea is the brainchild of presidential election law expert Edward B. Foley ("Presidential Elections and Majority Rule," 2020). Election of the president by majorities was a guiding principle both for the framers of the Constitution and for those who crafted the 12th Amendment. Foley urges that the most important, achievable reform of the Electoral College is for states to apply the wisdom of the framers by assuring that their electors are chosen by majority vote — either through an "instant runoff" under RCV, or by an actual runoff.
The "spoiler effect" is doubly pernicious in presidential elections. First, as in Florida in 2000, it can change the result of the election, both locally and nationally. Second, if a third party is strong enough, it can deny any candidate an Electoral College majority and send the election to the U.S. House, with each state having one vote — the most appallingly undemocratic system imaginable.
