Proposition 1 supporters present a case for voters ahead of election

Local area voters had a chance to listen and clear up any questions about the open primaries proposal under the title of Proposition 1 on this November’s ballot at a conversational forum held at Dude’s Kitchen in Weiser on Wednesday, Oct. 9.

 In the popular local coffee shop, field director with Reclaim Idaho Abi Sanford opened the forum to a nearly standing room only audience. Sanford told the audience Idaho’s current primary election turnout averages as low as 30 percent statewide.

 She said people may not agree that Proposition 1 is the solution to a minority of Idahoans choosing the candidates that show up on the general election ballot, but “the vast majority of people really do agree that closed primaries are a problem,” Sanford said. “In Idaho, by the time a majority of voters cast their votes in November, most of these elections have already been determined.” 

 Sanford described the result leading to “elected officials who aren’t responsive to the needs and desires of voters.”

 Within the information given during the two hours, Reclaim Idaho’s Director Luke Mayville described how Idaho’s elections and ballots would both change under an open primary and ranked choice voting system.

 “It doesn’t apply to presidential primaries, because that selection process is national,” he said. “This would apply to U.S. House and U.S. Senate races, and it would apply to all statewide offices, such as governor, lieutenant governor, etc. It would apply to all state legislative races and it would apply to county races, because they are also currently decided through partisan primaries.”

 Mayville said ballots under an open, nonpartisan primary system would include all of the candidates running for office on the same ballot. Voters simply would select their one preferred candidate in each race and cast the ballot. 

 As an example, he said there might be four Republicans, two Democrats, and two Independents in a race on the same ballot. 

 “All you do as a voter is choose your favorite candidate (in each race),” Mayville said. “That’s it.”

 Speaking of ranked choice voting, the second part of Proposition 1, Mayville said the top four vote-getters in each race from the primary will be on the general election ballot.

 “It doesn’t matter what party they are from,” he described. “So, in Idaho, typically it will be three Republicans and one Democrat, or it might be two Republicans, a Democrat, and an Independent.

 “As a voter, you can, if you want, just vote for your favorite candidate, but, if you want to, you have the freedom to rank your second, third, and fourth-choice candidates,” he said. “The underlying principle behind ranked choice voting is that we want the candidate we elect to always be the candidate with the broadest support.”

 Breaking down how votes would be tabulated, Mayville said if a candidate wins over 50 percent of the vote in the first round they will be declared the winner. If none of the candidates receive more than the 50 percent threshold, the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated and only the votes cast for that candidate move to those voters’ second choice, while the candidates remaining in the race hold with their first-round tallies as the second choice votes filter into their vote totals. 

 “If you understand that basic process, you understand the whole thing, because all that happens from there is at any point in that process, the moment someone gets over 50 percent of the vote they’re declared the winner,” Mayville said. While answering questions, Mayville aligned ranked choice voting with runoff elections, as have been seen recently in Eagle’s mayoral election, or previously in mayoral elections in Boise, Idaho Falls, and Mountain Home. In those cases, out of a field of candidates where no one received over 50 percent of the vote, the top two vote-getters moved to a second special or runoff election, held 30 days later to allow voters to choose between the two.

 “Another name for ranked choice voting is instant runoff,” Mayville said. “It achieves the same function as a runoff election, but it does it quickly. All of the information is on the ballot.”

 A question over Idaho’s urban population carrying more influence in statewide elections was cleared up by another member of the audience, who pointed out Idaho’s legislative districts are divided as closely as possible to hold equal population numbers.

 Another question on how votes are tabulated was clarified in the fact that nearly all of Idaho’s ballots are already machine counted.

 “Nearly every county in Idaho tabulates votes on machines,” Mayville answered. ”We vote on paper ballots and tabulate on machines. We’re not changing that with this reform. Those machines will not be connected to the internet. By Idaho law vote tallying equipment cannot be hooked to the internet and this reform will not change that.”

 Asked what downsides he sees in the proposal, Mayville pointed to two lines of thought on the potential cost of the reform. Secretary of State Phil McGrane has estimated a high cost of $25 to $40 million if all of the state’s vote tallying equipment would have to be replaced. 

 “We believe it will cost far less, because we’ve had followup analysis, including a former Utah county clerk who actually implemented ranked choice voting,” Mayville said. “That county clerk found that Idaho’s current vote tallying equipment is capable of doing ranked choice voting with some software upgrades that would probably be in the $1 to $2 million range.

 “But there is a debate about the cost, and you could say it’s a minus that it will cost anything,” he added. “From our perspective it’s worth it, especially given it’s a one-time investment to secure the voice of every voter and improve the election system.”

 Mayville added thoughts on the worries of some that the influence of political parties would be weakened with the reform.

 “Political parties can still do their jobs effectively under this reform, because the basic role of political parties is to organize like-minded people under one banner then try to persuade the public in support of an agenda,” he said. 

 “In order for parties to be effective and play their role, they don’t need to have that power of determining who’s on the general election ballot. We think we can afford to give voters more power over that process and that parties will still be okay even if they don’t have the power to restrict who’s on the ballot.”