To The Honorable Governor of North Dakota 

Dear Governor Armstrong:

Thank you for your consideration of this letter regarding House Bill 1297, which addresses the supersession of state laws in home rule counties and cities. I am Nina Taylor representing The Center for Election Science, an organization dedicated to advancing approval voting methods to improve democratic outcomes.

We hope to provide educational information that may be valuable as you consider the implications of this legislation, particularly as it relates to voting methods under home rule jurisdictions.We believe that approval voting is being unfairly targeted due to reasonable concerns regarding ranked choice voting. 

Distinguishing Between Alternative Voting Methods

In recent discussions about voting methods across the country, we have observed that ranked choice voting (RCV) and approval voting are sometimes conflated, despite being substantively different systems with different implementation requirements and outcomes.

Key differences include:

1. Simplicity of ballot design and voter experience:

   • Approval voting uses a standard ballot where voters can select any number of candidates they approve of

   • RCV requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference, often requiring specialized ballot designs

2. Tabulation process:

   • Approval voting uses a simple counting method similar to our current system: each approval counts as one vote, and the candidate with the most approvals wins

   • RCV requires a more complex tabulation process involving multiple rounds of counting, elimination, and redistribution of votes

3. Implementation requirements:

   • Approval voting can be implemented using existing voting equipment in most jurisdictions

   • RCV often requires new voting machines, software updates, and more complex administrative procedures

4. Voter understanding:

   • Research indicates that approval voting has lower rates of spoiled ballots and voter confusion. Outcomes are easy to understand: there is a clear measure of how much support each candidate has.

   • The multi-round counting process of RCV makes it difficult for voters to understand how their vote ultimately affects the outcome. There is no measure of how many voters are satisfied with the outcome.

Home Rule Considerations and Bipartisan Support

We understand the state's interest in providing clarity on the relationship between state election laws and home rule jurisdictions. We respectfully suggest that any consideration of alternative voting methods should acknowledge the substantive differences between various systems.

The citizens of Fargo provide an instructive example of home rule in action. When concerned residents identified fundamental issues with plurality elections in their city, they engaged in a thorough educational process about potential solutions. After careful consideration of alternatives, they implemented approval voting with over 60% voter support. This exemplifies civic innovation at its best—citizens identifying challenges in their electoral system and working together to implement thoughtful solutions.

Importantly, approval voting enjoys true bipartisan support across the country. Strong conservative Republicans have championed approval voting bills in Utah, New Hampshire, and Maryland, while the method also receives support from across the political spectrum. This broad appeal demonstrates that approval voting addresses fundamental electoral concerns that transcend partisan divides.

Approval voting has demonstrated several benefits that align with North Dakota's values of good governance:

• It eliminates vote splitting that occurs in plurality elections.

• It fosters community consensus in election outcomes.

• It tends to improve candidate quality and strengthen the connection between elected officials and their constituents.

• It prevents "spoiler candidates" that can sometimes be used to manipulate election outcomes.

The success of approval voting in Fargo presents an opportunity for consideration across North Dakota. A statewide approach to approval voting could provide homogeneity in election methods while addressing the very issues that motivated Fargo's reforms. This would allow for consistency in ballot design and voter education while eliminating the problems associated with plurality voting that can undermine truly representative outcomes.

While we appreciate potential concerns about ranked choice voting, we encourage you to consider that approval voting represents a distinct alternative that addresses many of the complications often associated with RCV while still providing municipalities the flexibility to implement voting methods that best serve their communities' needs. Restricting municipalities' ability to implement citizen-supported electoral reforms may inadvertently impede local innovation and democratic engagement.

Conclusion

As you consider HB 1297, we hope that this educational information helps clarify the important distinctions between different alternative voting methods. Our organization remains available as a resource should you wish to discuss these distinctions further or require additional information about approval voting.

We believe that North Dakota's tradition of local governance through home rule charters has served communities well, and we support thoughtful consideration of how municipalities can continue to innovate in service of their citizens' democratic participation. We urge you to not disregard a popular and transparent reform due to your concerns over another. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Nina Taylor, MA
Chief Executive Officer
The Center for Election Science
nina@electionscience.org