opinion

I prefer the systems where if the difference between the two candidates is not larger than the percentage of error + 5% then there is a runoff (example, percentage of error for a state wide vote is estimated at 3% then one candidate must have at least 8% more votes than the other candidate). What's so complicated about that? So what if someone gets elected with 35% of the vote? If the other 5 candidates got 10%,15%,10%,20% and 10%... it is still clear that a majority of some sort elected official X and that official knows that there exists a wide array of opinions that must be felt if that politician wishes to survive the next term.

they want to eliminate the partisan primary. Revise the proposal to have partisan primary elections, and to run in a party primary, you must also seek that party's endorsement and get at least 5 percent of the vote at the convention. Party activists are much better at vetting candidates than journalists. The party convention delegates endorse, the primary voters ratify that endorsement (or not!), and then in the general election, voters rank their preferences among the party candidates. Bypassing the endorsement makes it impossible for candidates without large personal war chests to get their message heard. Bypassing the primary prevents any party from fielding a candidate who is battle-proven. Those objections aside, I'm totally in favor of IRV. Next step: the legislature needs to write the final draft of the proposal, and put in on the ballot as an amendment to the state constitution. They are not obligated to use Fair Vote's wording. IRV has passed in the cities without addressing the question of the primary election being asked, because in city elections, there is no partisan primary. Now they want to use that experience to slap the same template onto elections for Legislature, Governor and Congress. It will kill the party process and allow only those candidates with personal wealth or a large donor base to run effective campaigns.

If the Ms. Sturdevant did her fact checking, she'd find that IRV is just like plurality, where a candidate can win with less that a majority. It was even reported in this paper on Nov. 19, 2009 "Kummer wins park board seat without a majority" IRV saleswoman Jean Massey, who has been fined for violating state election laws, has less credibility than late night infomercials. I would fact check anything she says. This is just one more example where IRV just doesn't live up to it's promises.

Majority winners have stronger support than plurality winners. IRV (aka Ranked Choice Voting) gets us to majority winners. Ranked Choice Voting is easy to understand for the voter and easy to count. It is expensive to administer runoff elections and they have traditionally low turnout that makes it less participative. It is easier for the voter to mark their ballot for their first and second or third choices (if they have additional choices) and have the ballot tabulated until the majority winner is determined, than to make repeated trips to the ballot box. I am unsure as to who in the public really wants to have longer campaign seasons or wants the state, cities and counties to have more elections. I think it is time to be more efficient, more participative and have the winners be the choice of more of the voters.

plus one, anything else requires a run off election. IRV is for lazy people.

One person-one vote-one time-period. IRV just opens the door wider for voter fraud proponents making it harder for conservatives to win in a free and fair election. Just make voter I.D. the law and be done with it please.

And so was Bill Clinton. Face it -- in a representative republic, the candidate with the most votes wins, and that's the way it should be. Unless you're Norm Coleman, but that's a discussion for another time. Republicans are the only ones to get IRV right, which is fine with me -- it's a bad idea. I don't want a second or third choice elected, I want my first choice to stand or fall, the way elections were intended to be.

If IRV is adopted it will guarantee Minnesota to be a ONE party state, Democrat.

#1 vote per person and someone who wins by one, still is the winner, otherwise, it opens the door for 'shenanigans'...........not hard to figure out.

There are two proposals here, wrapped into one. Fair Vote MN wants to abolish the party primary elections and institute IRV in the general election. The first isn't necessary to the second. I hope that the legislature will take up the two questions separately, or, only the second of them.