First? Second? Third? Choices and confusion for Minneapolis election

  • Article by: Eric Roper , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 13, 2013 - 6:52 AM

The city ramps up education efforts, while mayoral campaigns strategize.

  • 21
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
nessmessOct. 13, 13 5:47 AM

What???? you can't vote for one candidate 5 times.... That's not fair!!!

9
1
SwiftBoatOct. 13, 13 6:15 AM

Really? Wow! And the pro IRV folks said we were stupid! Imagine that!

10
2
dtmonkeyboyOct. 13, 13 6:56 AM

I don't understand the previous comments on here. The article says "second and third choices are considered only if a voters’ first-choice candidate is knocked out of contention.... Seems simple

9
9
Grumpy42Oct. 13, 13 7:17 AM

Why on God's green earth would they change it at all? Many senior citizens are going to be greatly confused about this change. The voting process should be made very simple and easy to understand for ALL people. Good Lord save us from ourselves!

14
7
monkeyplanetOct. 13, 13 7:40 AM

I'm so tired of people whining about this. It isn't calculus. I suspect that activists and supporters of the DFL (and maybe a few Republicans) are the ones stoking the discontent. After all, they have the most to lose from a diversity of candidates on the ballot. And really, if you're not smart enough to understand ranked choice voting, you shouldn't be voting at all.

11
16
ryanwilliOct. 13, 13 7:53 AM

Typically the newspaper endorsement process is a bit of a gimmick, since the electorate often knows the major candidates background quite well before the vote. With the Minneapolis mayoral race, I think that the Star Tribune owes it to the community to hold a session of interviews and resume reviews, much like atypical job interview, before making their endorsement. As a reader, I would value that, despite a flaw or two to that approach.

7
1
briechersOct. 13, 13 8:09 AM

I don't understand how RCV advocates convinced anyone that narrowing the field was a waste of time and money...this is a pretty basic method of good decision making. The overselling of RCV will likely be its downfall.

7
1
rogerbOct. 13, 1310:29 AM

In a country where some people have a hard enough time figuring out how to vote for one candidate, do we really expect these same people to figure this out?

7
6
snyde043Oct. 13, 1310:34 AM

I find it somewhat difficult to believe that “The majority of people have no idea where this came from or why,” as Anissa Hollingshead said. We voters made the decision to approve this change by a two to one margin in 2006. We knew exactly what we were doing when we made that choice. And the 35 candidate field for Minneapolis mayor has less to do with RCV and more to do with the ridiculous $20 campaign filing fee. St. Paul also has RCV and only four candidates for mayor because their filing fee is $500, which is high enough to encourage the "Captain Jack Sparrow"-types to find another outlet for their attention-seeking.

15
6
rochfanOct. 13, 1310:56 AM

Wow Eleven cities across the country are using this system. The makes nine plus Minneapolis and St. Paul. A very quick search includes San Fancisco, Oakland, San Leandro, Berkeley, Burlington vt, Aspen, Telluride, Hendersonville, NC. Limited but big experiment. Elections are too important to change for the purpose of change. Tests will be cost-- both upfront and execution, software, continuing education of officials and would be voters, TURNOUT, voter satisfaction with results, candidate diversity and quality. One person, one vote. Primary. Run off if no one gets more than fifty percent.

8
6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT