Court decision just adds to arguments for IRV

This year I acted as an election judge at a precinct other than my own, so I had to vote absentee. My thanks to the Minneapolis election officials who processed my mailed-in ballot correctly and got it to my precinct, where it was counted.

I am flummoxed by the decision by the bare majority of those Minnesota Supreme Court justices who heard the case about counting the incorrectly rejected absentee ballots. It not only defies logic that they would insert the partisan campaigns into deciding whether to count all validly cast votes; it defies our democracy. I am not surprised that their reasoning is unconvincing, since I can't imagine how to justify their choice. I hope they feel the appropriate amount of shame in their decision.

This is also an appropriate moment to thank former Sen. Dave Durenberger and others who have written on these pages in support of instant runoff voting. I am more convinced than ever that the best result of the IRV system would be that a candidate's strategy has to include being an acceptable second choice for voters. What seems clear after having just suffered through this Senate campaign is that many voters ended up hard-pressed to find one acceptable, let alone two. It would be great not to have to put up with that again.

ROBERT FRAME, STAR TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 29, 2008

As a long-time advocate of instant runoff voting, I found it refreshing to read in the Nov. 25 Star Tribune opinion pieces by both former U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger and columnist Nick Coleman in support of IRV.

What is striking about their support is that, although the two represent different sides of the political spectrum, they both agree that IRV does not favor any one political party -- it is simply a better, fairer and, ultimately, more democratic method for choosing our political leaders.

JACK ULDRICH, MINNEAPOLIS;FORMER CHAIRMAN, MINNESOTA INDEPENDENCE PARTY - STAR TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 1

Why we need instant runoff voting

Thank you for printing David Durenberger's and Nick Coleman's columns supporting instant runoff voting (Nov. 25), and for Lori Sturdevant's thoughtful pieces on the same subject.

If ever there was an election that demonstrated why holding an instant runoff is superior to the first-past-the-gate system, it is this one.

While IRV would not absolutely preclude a statistical tie vote that would require a recount, it would substantially lower that likelihood and would absolutely preclude a candidate whom a majority of votes voted against from taking office.

IRV would therefore increase voter engagement because voters could campaign enthusiastically for their candidate and vote their consciences without having to partake in statistical guesswork. It would improve the quality of campaigns because candidates would have to persuade a majority of voters -- including those who aren't already committed to them -- and not merely a plurality of their hard-core partisans. And it would give winning candidates political and moral legitimacy that a plurality winner does not enjoy.

PAUL LANDSKROENER, MINNEAPOLIS - STAR TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 1

Back in the '90s, I was state issues chair for Common Cause Minnesota, a nonpartisan organization that promotes good government. At that time, one of the reforms our organization advocated was IRV.

IRV would avoid costly and contentious recounts, make campaigns and elections more inclusive, encourage third parties, lead to a more thoughtful discussion of the important issues and diminish the influence of special interests. It would reduce the number of negative campaign ads and the high cost of running for office.

IRV would, in short, make elections more democratic.

It's time for the Legislature and the governor to conduct a thorough public discussion of the issue.

MIKE KLUZNIK, MENDOTA HEIGHTS - STAR TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 1

Your View: Instant runoff cheaper than recount

Recent Your Views and Our Views talked about the recount. One suggested the candidates should cover the cost of the recount.

Both Al Franken and Sen. Norm Coleman raised $20 million of which $4 million was raised in Minnesota. Each campaign raised around $16 million from sources outside of Minnesota, according to campaign filings for each candidate.

We are still getting articles suggesting that Franken may win the recount, but still would be the loser.

We must demand that our state legislators do two things in the next legislative session. Start with campaign finance reform. If a candidate can’t raise enough money from in-state sources, maybe they shouldn’t be a candidate. Maybe we should cap spending at $10 million and make the candidates do more televised debates. I sure would like to see less attack ads on TV.

Second, would be to institute IRV voting — this is instant runoff voting or ranked voting. This totally eliminates the need for a recount. We would save over $100,000 on the need for recounts if we had IRV.

If you don’t understand how this works, you can read about it at Fairvotemn.com.
You can also call KEYC and ask them to talk about it on the news.

The League of Women Voters, DFL, Green Party and Independence Party all are in favor of IRV.

It’s time for a change in Minnesota: How we vote, and campaign finance reform.
I hope each of you contact your legislators and voice your opinion.

MICHAEL BURGER, MANKOTA FREE PRESS, DECEMBER 9