Author
This letter is provided as opinion/commentary from the author. You can submit your own: editor@citydesk.org
Prior to 2013, Albuquerque had an election system that allowed a minority of voters to elect a candidate even if a strong majority of voters wanted someone else. In most elections, like for state legislature or governor or county commission, there is a primary system that results in two major candidates facing off in November, virtually guaranteeing a winner who has the support of a majority of voters. Seems like a pretty core concept in a democracy.
Unfortunately, before 2013 Albuquerque had a system where a large field of candidates doesn’t get narrowed before November, resulting in the possibility–which happened in the 2009 mayor’s race–of an unpopular candidate winning an election with as low as 40% (Mayor Berry won with about 43% of the vote that year). If no one had 40% there was a run-off, but a candidate who had the support of only 40%, or 43%, of voters would automatically take power — even if a strong majority wanted someone else.
So in 2012, tired of the majority of voters’ voices being silenced, the New Mexico Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO led a large coalition of groups who believe strongly in democracy to gather signatures for a ballot initiative to require that a candidate must receive 50% of the vote to win. So in a race with more than two candidates, if no one gets 50% of the vote on the first ballot, we have a runoff.
Make no mistake–this proposal isn’t about saving money. It’s about allowing a minority party in Albuquerque to game the election system to install candidates that the majority of voters wouldn’t vote for. It puts our democracy in the hands of slick political operatives who will put up candidates to split a majority’s vote (whether cynically recruiting candidates to run according to party, ideology, ethnicity, gender, or any other factor to keep the majority’s voters split) so that their unpopular candidate slides through with a minority of voters supporting him or her. And even if it did result in one extra runoff every four years or so, that is a drop in the bucket of the city’s budget.
By the way, there’s no reason that runoff couldn’t be immediate with “instant runoff voting (sometimes called “ranked choice voting”), where the voter fills in a bubble for his or her second choice. If cost were really the concern of the advocates of this anti-democratic proposal to turn back the clock, they’d be supporting instant runoff voting to avoid any runoffs. But cost isn’t the real reason for this, and every single person who knows the history of Albuquerque elections knows it.
Why does the New Mexico Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO care so much about this issue? It is absolutely because we come from organizations where the majority of members’ votes decide our leaders–we deeply believe in democracy both for ourselves and our country. But it is also because we have faith that a majority of Albuquerque’s voters are supportive of working people, whether in a union or not, and we want that majority of voters to decide who leads the city. It’s a core principle of democracy and one that we also believe is good for workers.
Ashley Long is the president of the NM Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
