You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Ranked-choice voting is an equalizer. Perceived problems are misstated.
The main objections to ranked choice voting come from the DFL and GOP. They know that a lot of voters don't like either of them but have nowhere else to go. They're afraid of real competition.
Ranked choice voting deprives the voters from a thorough, pointed general election campaign, by doing away with the primary and having far too many people on the general election ballot, as happened in Minneapolis in the last mayoral election. Something like 12 candidates for mayor were on the November ballot. It was impossible to have pointed debates or extensive enough media coverage. Rybak won partly by default, benefitting from the dilution of his challengers. Is this what people really want??
Protestations to the contrary, it is absolutely true that there is no guarantee of a majority outcome in RCV. The "majority of the continuing ballots" may be well less than a majority of the total ballots cast (as was the case in both San Francisco and Oakland elections for mayor). It's hard to see how the increased complexity and obscurity of the virtual runoff results in benefits that would not be surpassed by having an actual runoff in the less than usual event that the top vote getter has only a plurality of the vote.
Note to hermajesty who posted at 9:15 a.m. March 10: Actually, the DFL supports IRV along with the other smaller parties. The only party in Minnesota which is consistently against IRV is the GOP. I think this is because the GOP has benefited the most from third party candidates who split the DFL vote and help Republicans: witness Tim Pawlenty, who was helped in each of this victories by third-party candidates.
Tim Pawlenty, who was helped in each of this victories by third-party candidates*** and Dayton won for the same reason.
I support RCV/IRV because it gives "unanointed" candidates a chance, including candidates of color, and because it encourages positive campaigns and better debates.
Right on tiselfar. Especially in Mpls., the DFL party chooses the winners not the voters. The two party system is the biggest political problem in this country and any attempt to disseminate their power to the people will benefit the citizens.
"I support RCV/IRV because it gives "unanointed" candidates a chance, including candidates of color, and because it encourages positive campaigns and better debates." ++++++++++ How, praytell, does it encourage better debates? I think it is just the opposite. Did you pay attention to the last mayoral race in Minneapolis?
It would not be helpful to see 10 candidates on the general election ballot for Governor. For those who might not want to support the incumbent, do you think you are really going to get very well filled in on 9 challengers? What's wrong with a primary? Why institute this costly and complicated system?
Ginny6, the last Mpls mayoral race had a popular incumbent up for reelection; that had nothing to do with the voting system. This year's wide open race is an entirely different matter . . . and already you have top competitors (Hodges, Andrew, Schiff) posing for pictures together at events and/or remarking publicly how RCV will give them the chance to focus positively on ISSUES. You can't go around slamming your opponents in this system when you may well need their supporters' second-choice votes; THAT is what tiselfar is talking about.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
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.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks