The Crystal Charter Commission met to discuss Ranked Choice Voting in April of this year. I attended that meeting and wrote about it here, and expressed my disappointment that only one side of the issue was presented. This time the commission invited a member of the Minneapolis Charter Commission, Devin Rice, to present the opposition side.
Commissioner Rice did a great job laying out the case against Ranked Choice Voting based on empirical data, not based on flashy videos or glossy handouts.
When Ranked Choice Voting was sold to Minneapolis, they used four arguments to sell the idea:
- RCV would save money
- RCV would increase voter turnout
- RCV would eliminate plurality winners
- RCV would promote minority representation
In all four cases, RCV has failed to deliver. Elections in Minneapolis have been more expensive, turnout has not increased, many candidates still win with a plurality of the vote (including the most recently elected mayor), and the number of minorities in office has stayed the same.
In addition, Minneapolis has seen wide disenfranchisement of minority and lower income voters under this new system.
There is simply no reason for Crystal to adopt an expensive and confusing new method of voting, particularly one that disenfranchises minorities. There is no upside. As I have said before, RCV is a solution in search of a problem and I will remain opposed to the implementation of RCV in Crystal.
Here are four links to articles in the Star Tribune which lay out the data about RCV in Minneapolis: