I'm rooting for Colin Firth and Helena Bonham-Carter.

Not necessarily at the Oscars — both are up for Academy Awards for their fine work in "The King's Speech": Firth for his sensitive portrayal of stammering King George VI, Bonham-Carter for her role as the Queen Mum. (My first choice for best actor is James Franco for his amazing, nuanced work in "127 Hours." My second choice is Jesse Eisenberg, who played the not-very-sympathetic Mark Zuckerberg in "Social Network" and elicited compassion from me.  For best actress, my vote goes to Annette Bening in "The Kids Are All Right"; my second choice is Jennifer Lawrence for "Winter's Bone.")

But more important, I'm cheering Colin Firth and Helena Bonham-Carter for their support of "alternative voting" in the U.K. — or what we reform-minded Minnesotans call ranked choice voting (RCV).

As a lifelong film buff and former member of the Minnesota Film Board, I look forward each year to Oscar night: a glorious, glamorous three-hour reprieve from the late-winter doldrums. And now there's another reason to celebrate the Oscars: As of last year, the Academy selects 10 nominees and uses ranked choice voting — a smarter, fairer, more broadly representative system than the old plurality method — to determine the best picture winner.

With RCV, winner has broader, deeper support
Without RCV, it would be possible for a movie to win best picture with just a tiny plurality — even 11 percent — of votes while being opposed by most voting members. Allowing Academy members to rank films in preference order ensures that the winner has broader, deeper support.

In an industry often dominated by splashy, big-money epics, RCV or "preferential voting" gives quieter, deeper, more thoughtful films — films like "127 Hours" and "The Fighter" — a fighting chance. And voters, moviemakers and viewers alike have the satisfaction of knowing that the winner has majority approval.

RCV's effect on electoral politics is the same: It's a smarter, fairer, more broadly representative way to choose our policymakers. That's why enacting this sorely needed reform at the state level is one of the causes closest to my heart. We've now endured four consecutive gubernatorial races — not to mention a protracted, disputed, exorbitant U.S. Senate race — yielding winners with less than 50 percent of the vote. Alternative viewpoints are silenced, drowned out by cries of "spoiler!," and worthy, lower-profile candidacies are never able to gain traction.

Under RCV, the playing field is leveled a bit. Take the recent example of Oakland, Calif., where reform allowed Jean Quan — with a focus on door knocking and coalition building — to become the first Asian-American woman elected mayor of a major U.S. city. Quan was outspent 5-to-1 by the "blockbuster" candidacy of establishment power broker Don Perata. But her emphasis on positive campaigning and old-fashioned face-to-face organizing, both of which tend to yield results in a ranked choice voting system, brought Quan a Hollywood ending.

Minnesota at the forefront
Here in Minnesota, we've been at the forefront of electoral reform. Minneapolis showed in 2009 that transitioning to RCV can be a positive experience for candidates, election officials, and, most important, for voters. St. Paul is about to implement RCV, and Duluth and Red Wing are taking decisive steps toward voting reform as well. We can — we should — enact RCV statewide and bring our voting system into the 21st century at last.

Meanwhile, I'll be voting in FairVote Minnesota's ranked choice voting Oscar poll and making popcorn on the big night. And thinking of my favorite line by one of my favorite actors, Colin Firth — not uttered in "The King's Speech," but in real life, about the single most important political innovation of our time:

"The referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change our clapped-out politics for good. I'll be voting yes."

Karla Ekdahl is a community activist living in Minneapolis. She is a former film producer and member of the Minnesota Film Board.