Whichever side they’re on, citizens making their case in St. Paul this spring for and against ranked-choice balloting share one thing: They care deeply about voting.

That’s a good basis for discussion that could result in a measure on the November ballot to repeal the system in St. Paul that allows voters to rank multiple candidates in order of preference and eliminates primaries in city council and mayoral races.

For or against, we’re inclined to think that people committed to the ideal of fair, free elections shouldn’t mind an opportunity to employ a process they hold sacred to further examine the issue. St. Paul residents approved the voting system in 2009, but questions have lingered.

Opponents of ranked-choice voting who took the matter to the city’s Charter Commission earlier this year argue that ranked voting has failed to live up to claims that include increasing turnout and cutting costs, and that its complexity discourages participation.

Supporters — who defend the system’s simplicity and voters’ ability to grasp it — say it’s too soon to pull the plug on a method that hasn’t yet had a full citywide test. It’s set for that this year in the race for St. Paul mayor. Ranked voting was used in St. Paul elections in 2011, 2013 and 2015 but came into play in only a few races with enough candidates for the ranking process to be used.

As the pros and antis make their case, we sort some key points, with help from Ramsey County Elections Manager Joe Mansky. He takes no position on the matter, stressing that his office is prepared to conduct elections based on whatever method voters choose.

Turnout: Mansky puts it succinctly: Based on data from recent city elections, he wrote in an email, “it would be hard to argue that the voting methodology has had much impact on our voter participation, one way or another.”

Cost: With primaries eliminated under ranked voting, there must be some savings, right? Actually, in St. Paul so far, it looks like a wash.

Election costs have been about the same as under the former election system, Mansky wrote. “While we did not have to conduct a city primary in 2011, 2013 or 2015, we have spent a considerable amount of staff time and money, equal to or perhaps more than the cost of the three primaries combined, to develop the ranked voting system, enact the ordinance, educate the voters, and so on.”

Complexity: We wondered about the number of voters who ranked candidates on their ballots, as opposed to those who opted out of the process, voting only for their first-choice candidate and no others.

Mansky said his office looked at that issue fairly closely in the first ranked voting election in 2011 and reached two conclusions: 1. Based on the rate of “spoiled” ballots being similar to other elections, voters “probably understood how to vote in the ranked voting system,” and 2. The number of voters who decided not to do any ranking “was significant, even in competitive races.”

His office observed a similar pattern in city council races in 2013 and 2015.

It’s food for thought as we weigh what we hear from both sides.

Ranked-voting opponents include St. Paul Votes Smarter — stpaulvotessmarter.com — a political action committee formed by Shawn Towle of St. Paul.

Towle, founder of the “Checks and Balances” political blog, emphasizes that ranked voting has failed to deliver on its promise, noting that “anything that makes the system more complex” has the effect of taking people out of the system.

Ranked-voting supporters — including FairVote Minnesota at fairvotemn.org — raise questions about timing and process. The system was placed before the voters in 2009, after citizens petitioned to do so, collecting 7,000 signatures, FairVote executive director Jeanne Massey told us. She argues that it’s wrong for the Charter Commission, “with as few as eight votes, to put a question back on the ballot that the voters haven’t asked for.”

Massey maintains that if change is desired, ranked-voting opponents should go out and collect signatures under the same process advocates used in 2009.

Charter Commission Chair Richard Kramer told us that proposed ballot language would require three “readings” before that body, one of which also would serve as a public hearing. No meeting dates have yet been scheduled, but he is confident that the requirements could be accomplished to meet a July deadline for ballot measures.

Whatever transpires, we’re inclined to think that a conversation about making voting better is one well worth having.