St. Paul chooses ranked voting

  • Article by: CHRIS HAVENS , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 4, 2009 - 2:05 PM

But opponents of ranked choice voting are taking the matter to court today, saying the campaign was unfair.

  • 19
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
MellersNov. 3, 09 9:00 PM

before voting on IRV in St Paul. As an election judge, I don't think it's the right way to go. For starters, it's only in local elections, therefore we're going to have to go back-and-forth from one style of voting to another, depending on if it's national/state or local elections. Ugh. Can we vote next year to go back to the way it is if we don't like it?

9
3
mntwins1Nov. 3, 09 9:29 PM

The article up here says "Minneapolis used the ranked-choice voting for the first time Tuesday, and there were no indications of major problems." and I believe that is all the evidence necessary to prove that it was a success in Minneapolis. Yes, the only downside is that it will take a few weeks to know all the winners. But if we are so needy as a society that we MUST know our election results as soon as possible, instead of a more democratic process. Well then I'm sad for us all...

4
3
paulskiNov. 3, 09 9:43 PM

it works fine

5
5
inrealityNov. 3, 09 9:52 PM

a new way to vote. Our government could barely administer "normal" voting and now they are in charge of this complex system? I don't like this voting method nor do I even think it is Constitutional. Let's cast 1 vote for 1 candidate and the person with the most votes wins. Simple, easy & tested through years of use.

8
6
garymcgeeNov. 3, 0910:42 PM

And NEVER have a second choice

4
5
scottvanNov. 3, 0910:44 PM

Why are some opposed to a more democratic process? Instant democracy is not always a good thing, but this doesn't track toward instant democracy, it just makes the will of the people more accurate in the current system of checks and balances.

7
4
gailkateNov. 3, 0911:06 PM

I'm glad to see IRV building momentum. Of course, there will be problems, but we already have plenty of problems. As cities decide to go with it, we can hone the system till it's ready for statewide races. Then we can avoid putting non-winners like Ventura, Pawlenty and Bachmann in positions of power. gailkate

4
2
elsamackNov. 3, 0911:07 PM

When people say things like "I'll never vote for more than one candidate," I wonder if what they really mean is that their vote is determined entirely by political party. I think anyone who would consider candidates from more than one party is likely to see the benefit of having your 2nd or 3rd choice count.

5
2
jansseNov. 3, 0911:08 PM

Why Now? Not so fast with this Ranked Voting otherwise known as Instant Runoff Voting. Again the marketing to cities and the voters tells us what we want to hear, but it results in squeezing out the third party. I suspect that is the goal. Is easy the objective? Wouldn't being fair be a more nobel objective. http://instantrunoffvoting.us/

3
4
mjjohnson47Nov. 3, 0911:21 PM

Longtime, no hear!! I agree with you. Down here in the state that all wish to denigrate, it's very simple. A runoff if no one gets more than 50% of the vote. Although it's probably a bit more expensive, I much prefer that to the "ranking" system. That's how the Baseball Writers work for HOF voting and it's probably why Bert Blyleven isn't in the HOF!!

2
2

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