Guy-Uriel E. Charles: Nice fight, Norm, but it's over

  • Article by: GUY-URIEL E. CHARLES
  • Updated: April 13, 2009 - 7:08 PM

There's nothing wrong with going to court, but the case being made in the U.S. Senate race was always going to be a tough one to win.

  • 7
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 7 of 7
dakmarkApr. 13, 09 9:13 PM

This was a lose/lose proposition for Minnesota no matter who one. Neither Norm or Al is fit to represent this state. One would hope that both major parties could nominate a worthy candidate for the next go round or we, the voters, should embrace the independent on the ballot. When will we say "Enough" and take our state and country back from a corrupt political system?

1
10
ebfauvelApr. 13, 09 9:42 PM

Instant Runoff Voting could have helped avoid this entire fiasco. We'll never know how many people would have voted for Dean Barkley had they not feared a "wasted" vote. We also need to elect office holders at all levels of government with a majority instead of a plurality; this senate race is just the latest example of more people voting for someone other than the winner! IRV would solve that problem, too.

7
5
misternApr. 13, 0911:22 PM

by continuing your insane court challenges, Normy. You are doing to your party what Republicans want to do to the federal government. Shrinking it down until it can fit into a bathtub...

10
2
electopiaApr. 14, 09 2:14 AM

Anyone who suggests that IRV would alleviate this kind of near-tie/recount nightmare is being short-sighted. In a statistical sense, IRV makes them MORE likely, even if it may have prevent this _particular_ scenario. To see this statistically explained by a Princeton math Ph.D. with expertise in election science, check out this page: http://scorevoting.net/TieRisk.html

2
2
johnnyonspotApr. 14, 0912:43 PM

Prof. Charles, a current U of M prof and from whom I took conflicts of law, and Prof. Michael Stokes-Paulsen, now at St. Thomas though formerly of the U of M and from whom I took civil procedure, disagree on this. Both are great profs, especially Stokes-Paulsen. I would never have known Stokes-Paulsen was as right wing as he is had I not attended a joint lecture he gave with a left-leaning prof. and then heard him espousing faith-based conservative views on MPR. I do not recall Stokes-Paulsen's ideological views ever coming out in class. He always kept things interesting and entertaining, which is why he was a great prof. Unfortunately for Norm, however, Prof. Stokes-Paulsen is wrong in his view that this election amounts to an Equal Protection violation. Perhaps he is blinded by his ideology and wishful thinking. There is no comparison between FL in 2000 and MN in 2008. Minnesota has everything FL did not. Prof. Charles has quite ably described in easy-to-understand terms why Norm has virtually zero chance of prevailing. His base argument does indeed prove too much.

3
0
ericgus55Apr. 16, 0912:37 PM

Instant Runoff or special elections may help out the next election, but not this one. They may cause more problems than just clarifying the current laws. The election between Mr. Coleman and Mr. Franken was conducted under the laws we have and the winner has been determined. There is a difference between losing a close election in an imperfect system and being cheated.

0
0
streamsideApr. 17, 0912:46 PM

For Mistern: Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann for the ticket and Normy for Attorney General. Laughter heard all the way to Pluto!

0
0
  • 1 - 7 of 7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT