How about a side of instant runoff voting?

Sorry, but I am 100% against instant run-off voting. This is a ploy by the left to gain more seats. The issue comes down to this: They want the option to vote for a third-party candidate (like the idiot 'green' party or some other idiocy), yet still have their mainstream candidate will the election, in case their vote for the mouth-breathing moron in the fringe party doesn't win.

Yet another left-wing idea that, IMO, violates the US Constitution, and stacks the odds in their favor. Thinking people will say "NO" to this idiocy.

Instant runoff voting is for those who do not yet understand the obvious pitfalls of this system. It sounds great but rarely is explained. Kind of like immigration reform, it isn't amnesty unless you know the definition of the word amnesty. Runoff voting is an example of the dumbing down of the education system. It's a scheme and a scam and God help us all if it gets instituted. Here's another good example of idiocy, school breakfast. It sounds like a wonderful idea but only removes freedom while giving the leeches of society a free ride. Imagine someone so condescending they think you are too stupid to manage life on your own.

Nota Sheep wrote:

Sorry, but I am 100% against instant run-off voting. This is a ploy by the left to gain more seats. The issue comes down to this: They want the option to vote for a third-party candidate (like the idiot 'green' party or some other idiocy), yet still have their mainstream candidate will the election,

The same could be said of the conservatives who wish to vote first for a Libertarian rather than the candidate of the ReligiousReich.

WTH, educate St. Paul voters about instant runoff voting? I guess we will have no choice right? This thing is gonna happen whether we like it or not. Sure shove more legislation we dont want down our throats!

Disgruntled Outstater wrote:

<quoted text>
The same could be said of the conservatives who wish to vote first for a Libertarian rather than the candidate of the ReligiousReich.

agreed. Republicans have become heavy handed religious fanatics and the Dems are socialist, hypocrite douche bags. But i'd have to say this IS more of a leftist idea aimed to achieve some quixotic election by claiming it is more equal by creating an ARTIFICIAL majority. Who ever said the winner of an election had to have the majority of total voters?? They are just supposed to get more votes than the other candidates PERIOD. IRV is a crappy, unfair, unconstitutional idea!

It's about time we began to use a little common sense and technology in our elections. The US is behind, even, Afganistan in our election laws.

Will president Obama be there? Then it would be all right. I think if he explained the process, everybody would be in favor.

LC Resident wrote:

It's about time we began to use a little common sense and technology in our elections. The US is behind, even, Afganistan in our election laws.

If you mean making people dip their finger in purple ink so they can't vote multiple times, I agree. We should do that here.

The IRV violates the "one-man, one-vote" principle. Voting for multiple candidates is essentially voting multiple times.

Disgruntled Outstater wrote:

<quoted text>
The same could be said of the conservatives who wish to vote first for a Libertarian rather than the candidate of the ReligiousReich.

Sure, the same could be said, but whoever would say it would be wrong. The fact remains that candidates from these fringe parties tend to siphon off votes from the Democrats, not Republicans.

If there was IRV at the senate level..... would Barkley be our senator?

this give me instant diarreah

Sheesh wrote:

WTH, educate St. Paul voters about instant runoff voting? I guess we will have no choice right? This thing is gonna happen whether we like it or not. Sure shove more legislation we dont want down our throats!

Actually, the whole idea of IRV is to provide you with more choice. In addition, the statement that "this thing is gonna happen whether we like it or not" seems a bit alarmist as this is coming to a vote during this fall. As an independent, I would welcome greater choices in the election cycle. Our system is mired in a two-party system that too often forces the voters to "choose to vote for a lesser evil". I would have preferred to have had the choice to exercise my true voting beliefs in the last election rather than have been left with Senators McCain and Obama.

As usual the comments explain the situation better then the article.

No wonder this city is in the crapper, its leading paper to as propagandist rag.

This is a serious issue, trying to foist something this unconstitutional down our throats and this fish wrap dresses it up as a feel good restaurant parlor game.

Shall Set You Free wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the whole idea of IRV is to provide you with more choice. Our system is mired in a two-party system that too often forces the voters to "choose to vote for a lesser evil". I would have preferred to have had the choice to exercise my true voting beliefs in the last election rather than have been left with Senators McCain and Obama.

But you do have a choice. As long as those other candidates and parties appear on the ballot, you have a choice. The only one preventing you from exercising that choice is you.

Bob the Bilderberg wrote:

<quoted text>
But you do have a choice. As long as those other candidates and parties appear on the ballot, you have a choice. The only one preventing you from exercising that choice is you.

A limited choice of two candidates that do not necessarily speak to my values or beliefs can be improved upon. I don't understand why this system is so hard for others to see the value. What is it about increased choice that seen as so negative to you? The two-party system has allowed state and local government officials to monopolize a system that too often falls into the category of "winner take all" in which our elected officials fail to work together and provide meaningful services to their constituents.

that's clever marketing, but instant runoff voting is still a bad idea. it would dilute your vote, essentially. the constitutional argument against it is sound also.

List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008

Presidential candidate/running mate Party

Barack Obama/Joe Biden Democratic
John McCain/Sarah Palin Republican
Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez Independent
Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root Libertarian
Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente Green
Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle Constitution
Alan Keyes/Brian Rohrbough Independent
Gloria La Riva/Eugene Puryear Socialism & Liberation
Brian Moore/Stewart Alexander Socialist
Róger Calero/Alyson Kennedy Socialist Workers
Charles Jay/Thomas L. Knapp Boston Tea
Thomas Stevens/Alden Link Objectivist
Gene Amondson/Leroy Pletten Prohibition

Would someone please explain to me in simple English what this is, and how will effect me if pasted?

Sue wrote:

Would someone please explain to me in simple English what this is, and how will effect me if pasted?

basically all the qualified candidates are listed on your ballot and you rank them from your first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. After all votes are counted if one candidate does not get over half of the votes they look at who received fewest votes overall and anyone who ranked that candidate as their top choice would have their vote RECAST for their second choice and votes are recounted and the process repeated til one candidate gets over half of total votes. Meaning someone's second, third or fourth choice will carry as much weight as your first choice. Basically giving them more than one vote. So its pure CRAP!

Before you all ring your alarms, lets watch and see how IRV works for the City of Minneapolis this year. Unfortunatly for St. Paul voters they vote on it this year and will not be able to see how poorly IRV works in Minneapolis. I hope you like waiting for an outcome, because the City of Minneapolis projects 3 weeks to total all votes. Currently no voting equiptment is certified at the federal of state level to count IRV ballots. So the city will be using a mix of ballot counters and hand counters. What a mess.