While instant runoff voting may not have changed much in the recent Senate race (although it might have unseated Bachmann), IRV (PDF) has been kicking around for a while as an option in Minnesota elections. The Minnesota Voters Alliance opposes it, and mounted a legal challenge that was today rebuffed by a Hennepin County District judge. From the PiPress: Hennepin County District Judge George McGunnigle wrote that there was no evidence IRV “causes any citizen to be deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and its laws.”
One Step Forward for Instant Runoff Voting
Jan 14 2009 — 3:23pm
4 Reader Comments
4:24 pm
I’m still for IRV, but it’s a real shame that people couldn’t find it in their hearts to just vote straight up for Barkley (or Aldrich, or whoever else was running) without a worry of “wasting their vote.”
This whole IRV thing comes off more weaselly now. “Oh, praise be to IRV – NOW I can vote for Dean because I also have a chance to put in a #2 vote in for Norm or Al.” Ha ha, I said “number two” – that joke writes itself when Norm and Al are involved.
I guess what I’m saying is IRV looks like more ways to vote AGAINST somebody… when we should be finding more ways to vote FOR somebody.
5:18 pm
There are umpteen-million ways to complain about IRV. But at its heart, I think it’s a way to fundamentally shift what has become a bipolar body politic. It’s ridiculous that we only have two truly viable national parties in the U.S.
And don’t try to tell me that the Libertarians and the Greens count.
8:08 pm
Just. Pick. One.
9:32 am
Well, with a thorough analysis like that, I guess I consider the discussion over.