Pass on voter ID, but add ranked-choice

  • Article by: TOM HORNER, TIM PENNY
  • Updated: October 6, 2012 - 6:20 PM

Let's make technical electoral changes in the Legislature, not the Constitution.

  • 28
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
davehougOct. 6, 12 8:49 PM

Why RCV? First, a successful democracy is built upon the principle of majority rule. Giving too much power to a minority of voters through plurality elections distorts the will of the electorate. - - WRONG. The guy with the most votes wins. SIMPLE. Ranked choice = majority is as meaningless as taking it to another round and declaring the winner was unanimously voted in.

a6699fOct. 6, 1210:32 PM

For once I agree with these two fellows -- especially the part about voting NO on the Constitutional amendment.

hobie2Oct. 7, 1212:05 AM

Wow. Been a long time since I agreed with either of these two, but they hit this one on the head. I would add that the top priority of the next legislature, once these amendments are defeated, is to propose an amendment requiring 2/3 of the legislature and 2/3 of the county boards and a majority of the voters approving any amendment to the constitution.

whallingOct. 7, 12 7:39 AM

The issue is so clear. Citizens should be allowed to vote. Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote. It is not an undue burden to require voters to identify themselves as citizens. Whenever a non-citizen votes it diminishes the value of a citizens'vote.

gener7Oct. 7, 12 7:43 AM

I'm all for protecting people's vote. Let's protect the vote of those college students living away from home, the poor who use public transportation. Let's protect the vote of my 92 year old father who has Parkinson's Disease so is not very mobile, but who's mind is perfectly clear. Today he can mail in an absentee ballot request, get the ballot in the mail, vote using his Social Security number, and mail it back in. He never has to leave his residence. Requiring him to go stand in line somewhere for an hour to get an ID will effectively steal his right to vote - unless you provide for house calls. BTW, this 92 year old man earned a Silver Star in World War II for saving the lives of members of his platoon. I hope all you chickenhawks feel real good about preventing a man like that from voting.

northhillOct. 7, 12 8:39 AM

Every photo ID Minnesotans might be asked to produce in order to vote DO NOT prove you are an American citizen.A US passport does;however,it does not prove where you live.Yes,we have had very lax voter registration but voter fraud is a felony.A non-citizen who votes in a US election commits a felony.I have no problem requiring a birth certificate when a person registers to vote,however, requiring already registered voters to produce an ID is absurd.

gop4cavemenOct. 7, 12 9:16 AM

Not too surprising that, having run as independents, these two would be in favor of ranked choice. However, notwithstanding any bias that might be expected as result -- doesn't mean their wrong about it. It certainly has more merit than the phantom, red herring issue we're actually going to be voting on.

gener7Oct. 7, 12 9:30 AM

I've just been watching the beginning of the debate the other night between Dan McGrath of MN Majority and Doran Schrantz of ISAIAH. I've got to say the Mr. McGrath's initial statements are great spin doctoring. First statement: MN leads the nation in voter fraud convictions with 200. Wow, 200, out of 2 million votes. Terrible problem. And we lead the nation in convictions because our system works. And what were those 200 convictions for? Most if not all of them were for felons voting. Felons can have a MN DL. Voter ID will do nothing to prevent or fix that problem. His second claim has to do with 6000 voter day registrations being challenged. Challenged by MN Majority. The State of MN challenges 2 million registrations every two years when they send out those postcards. The card can not be forwarded and if undelivered is returned to the state and the voter is in fact "challenged" the next time they appear to vote. Nobody disputes the need for ID. When a person initially registers to vote, they are required to provide a photo ID. When I'm on the phone with my banker I have to provide proof of who I am, but there's no photo involved on the phone, usually my social security number or a PIN. How many millions of dollars are we willing to spend to prevent problem that doesn't exist? Voter ID does NOT prevent felons from voting, it does NOT prevent illegals from voting. The only thing it prevents is somebody pretending to be you. That doesn't happen because "you" vote every 4 years or "you" have to reregister and show an ID again. Oh, you moved? Re-register, show ID again. Right now the only people who do not show photo ID are those people who have already shown a photo ID at some point and have not moved and have voted recently. The amendment prevents none of the current problems, disenfranchises many, and costs us millions. Like the marriage amendment, it's discrimination in another form.

CarrieJ64Oct. 7, 12 9:38 AM

whalling - what does having a drivers license have to do with proving you are a citizen? Non-citizens have drivers licenses and state issued IDs. Plus, before the last two decades or so, you didn't even have to prove you were who you said you were to get a drivers license. All the drivers license did is state that the person with the picture on the card was eligible to drive in MN. Showing photo ID (unless its a US Passport - which is absurd) is not going to prove citizenship anymore than a voucher system already does.

elmore1Oct. 7, 12 9:44 AM

These are two separate issues it is not either or. Voter modernization makes sense as witnessed by the progressive states and countries who have all adopted it. I would love to see a moderate, common sense, independent party emerge. The extremes offered by the DFL and GOP do not make any sense and are taking us no where.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters