Credit: MinnPost photo by Corey Anderson

Minnesota is known for being a leader in civic engagement and democracy, but we believe our state can do even better. We have the opportunity to make our elections more inclusive and fair for all Minnesotans by expanding ranked choice voting (RCV) in our local and state contests. As a state representative and former state senator, respectively, we have seen firsthand how RCV can improve our democracy and benefit communities of color.

RCV is a simple change to the ballot that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference instead of choosing just one. In a traditional election, a candidate doesn’t necessarily need to win a majority of votes – just more than their opponents. With RCV, if no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are assigned to the remaining candidates based on the voters’ second-choice preferences. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes, ensuring the winner is supported by the broadest cross section of voters possible. What’s more, RCV does this by eliminating the need for costly, low-turnout primaries in our local nonpartisan elections – and Georgia-style runoffs in our partisan state and federal elections – and consolidating two elections into a single higher-turnout election, ensuring a more inclusive democratic process.

This is especially important for communities of color, who historically have been marginalized and underrepresented in our political system. In traditional elections, candidates often cater to a narrow base of supporters to secure a plurality of votes, leaving communities of color feeling ignored and disempowered. With RCV, candidates have to appeal to a wider range of voters, including those from communities of color, to win. It also incentivizes candidates to build broad coalitions of voter support that span differences in background and political ideology. In Alaska’s first statewide RCV elections last fall, Rep. Mary Peltola (D) won her election by building a broad coalition of bipartisan support made possible by RCV, making her the first Alaska Native and first woman to represent her state in the U.S. House.

RCV also helps to reduce negative campaigning and promote civility among candidates. In a traditional election, candidates may attack their opponents to differentiate themselves from their competitors. However, with RCV, candidates need to consider how they will appeal to their opponents’ supporters as well. This encourages candidates to focus on their own positive attributes and policies rather than tearing down their opponents.

In addition, RCV has proven to be easy to use and a boon to voter turnout among all demographic groups. In Minnesota, cities that have adopted RCV such as Minneapolis and St. Paul, the overwhelming majority of voters have consistently said RCV is simple, and voter turnout has increased. This is likely due to the fact that RCV gives voters more options and fosters more competitive campaigns, giving voters more reason to believe their vote matters and a greater sense of control over the election outcome. Communities of color, in particular, have historically had lower voter turnout rates, so any method that can increase turnout and engagement is a positive step towards greater inclusivity.

State Rep. Cedrick Frazier
[image_caption]State Rep. Cedrick Frazier[/image_caption]
RCV also allows for more diverse candidates to run for office without splitting the vote among them and, therefore, have a chance at winning. Under a traditional system, too many aspiring public servants have been told to “wait their turn” and prospective candidates feel discouraged from running because they are seen as “spoilers” who will split the vote and help the least-preferred candidate win. However, with RCV, voters can rank their preferred candidate as their first choice without fear of wasting their vote. This opens up the field to a wider range of candidates to represent a broader set of values and interests of communities of color.

[image_caption]Former Sen. Melisa López Franzen[/image_caption]
Finally, RCV aligns with Minnesota’s values of fairness and equality. Our state has a rich history of championing social justice and inclusion, and adopting RCV would be another step towards creating a more equitable society. We believe that Minnesota should lead the way in implementing this innovative and proven system of voting. We urge our fellow legislators and citizens to support RCV and join us in creating a more inclusive and equitable democracy for all Minnesotans.

Rep. Cedrick Frazier, DFL-New Hope, is a member of the Minnesota House. Former Sen. Melisa López Franzen, DFL-Edina, served in the Minnesota Senate for a decade after her first election in 2012 and was elected Senate Minority Leader in 2021. 

Join the Conversation

15 Comments

  1. No thank you,!! I don’t want mamby pamby politicians trying to appease every whim of every voter to get elected and then legislating how they truly believe. I want a clear choice between law and order versus the lawlessness we see today. I want someone for school choice for parents or not. I want someone who respects the fact that taxpayers deserve services for their dollars not just hyperbole..
    Tell me who you are and how you will vote, let me decide if I like you or not. This junk of “rank choice “ and getting more 3rd place votes so you win does absolutely nothing for me.

    1. If you’re against lawlessness, you won’t be voting for the GQP next year. So who will you support?

    2. In other words, you need to have it made very clear whom you hate. Learning about individual candidates and making a judgment on their positions is too much.

  2. OK, I’m willing to consider this argument, but let’s have some examples of how “we have seen firsthand how ranked choice voting can improve our democracy and benefit communities of color.”

    1. Voter turnout has increased, making it likely that more non-white voters have turned out. Correlation, not causation.

  3. “It also incentivizes candidates to build broad coalitions of voter support that span differences in background and political ideology. ”

    So there we have it. In a nutshell. The authors of this piece don’t like the standards by which we choose candidates so they have taken it upon themselves to substitute different standards which are more to their personal tastes. For myself, I don’t necessarily like candidates who water down their views in order to appeal to a broad coalition of voters. I don’t thin the candidates who are everyone’s second choice should necessarily be the winners. And while spanning differences of background is a laudable goal, the candidate who wins has his or her own personal background, one that doesn’t necessarily span anything.

    Our electoral system is under attack. It’s credibility is being challenged. Our current system of voting, although not perfect, is widely seen as fair by members of both parties and across the political spectrum. Why would we substitute a system that does have support for one that doesn’t? Why should we choose a system that favors one political party, and one set of values over another?

  4. It’s instructive that only democrats are pushing for this. Show me one republican office holder in Minnesota who supports it. Otherwise it’s a partisan voting scheme that benefits one party over another.

    1. It’s instructive that only members of the republic party are pushing for voter suppression laws. Show me one Democratic lawmaker that supports voter suppression. They’re just a partisan voting scheme that favors one party over another.

      Amiright, Dennis?

  5. “It also incentivizes candidates to build broad coalitions of voter support that span differences in background and political ideology.”

    I am all for all of that. It is the rhetoric I regularly hear when I go to DFL events. My problem isn’t with the standards and goals of the Democratic Party. My issue is with incorporating my goals, or what would be far worse, and what could happen in the majority of state that don’t elect Democrats, the incorporation of the other party’s standards and goals, into state election law.

  6. RCV is an attack on our democracy!

    Are you in favor of a person who gets the 3rd highest first place votes potentially winning an election?

      1. Aren’t you the one who used to sneer about mob rule?

        How about you post an actual opinion, instead of snark?

  7. “RCV also helps to reduce negative campaigning and promote civility among candidates.”

    Civility is not necessarily a bad thing, but what is negative campaigning and why is it so objectionable? If a candidate lies or indulges in other ethical lapses, shouldn’t the voters know about it?

  8. I might be weird, but I like the idea of RCV. We just had a mayoral primary, and then another special election between the two candidates with the most votes. The unofficial cost of the primary was around$50,000. Of the four candidates, the bottom two received 10 and 15 votes respectively. RCV would have settled the issue and saved the city’s taxpayers money. I don’t think voters would have been confused about how to fill out the ballot. Obviously, it was a non-partisan contest, but we managed to figure out where each candidate stood on important issues.

Leave a comment