IRV Answers in St. Paul
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 8:03 pm
- 8 Comments
The St. Paul citizens who have been pushing for instant run-off voting will have a longer battle in the Capital City than their counterparts faced in Minneapolis. Several significant problems have been raised about the possibility of implementing alternate voting, the biggest of which would be conducting school board elections.
“St. Paul is the only city that has school board elections during odd years,” said St. Paul IRV proponent Kathleen Murphy. If this practice could be changed back to even years, then there would not be a conflict with IRV in municipal elections. Resolutions have been introduced in the Minnesota House and Senate to allow school board elections to use IRV in voting, but neither bill is expected to pass this year. If IRV were introduced for St. Paul, it would currently just apply to the City Council and mayoral races. Thus, there would need to be two different types of voting because school board elections are held on the same years as municipal elections.
One strong argument for IRV is a more civil discourse and a broader candidate field, Murphy said. “A lot of the time the thing that I hear is that voters are disgusted with having to choose between two candidates,” she said. This problem stands out because there is low primary participation. With low primary turnout most of the people who vote in the general election only have the choice of the two winners of the primary. This lack of choice for most people who vote in general elections is cited as a reason to use IRV.
Although IRV opponents complain that the new system would be more expensive, Murphy said the expense could be mitigated because Ramsey County is expected to purchase new voting machines in 2011 and those machines could be bought with IRV capability. While there would be an additional cost for voter education, she said, it could be offset by the elimination of the primary, especially if the school district elections were moved.
“What is the cost of better government, better representation, higher voter turnout, and shouldn’t we be taking this into account as well when asking about the price tag?” said Murphy.
IRV would could remove the need for a primary because the it would allow the winner of the general election to be elected with a majority, not just a plurality. Removing the primary would be a small cost savings.
At this time, there is not expected to be any primary races for the St. Paul City Council elections because all of the wards have only one or two candidates. Several candidates are currently running unopposed since the DFL endorsements. In the nonpartisan city races there is no party designation on the ballot so only two candidates go on to the general election regardless of party distinction.
A Better Ballot Campaign information report for the St. Paul City Council.
Questions that were raised at the St. Paul City Council.
For more information on how IRV works click here.
8 Comments
Comment posted April 25, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
IRV Answers in St. Paul One strong argument for IRV is a more civil discourse and a broader candidate field, Murphy said.
Oh, really? And what is this based on?
This seems to be a very one-sided and lacking piece. I’d like to know:
*Why is Ms. Murphy qualified to make these statements?
*How will the county have its election judges provide information if partisan ballots and IRV both make it onto the November ballot?
Comment posted April 26, 2007 @ 8:27 am
More answers I had previously written something where a lot of questions were raised about IRV in St. Paul, difficulties and problems, so this was an opportunity for a response.
Link here I guess I should put a link to the questions since this one is about some of those answers. Sorry about that.
Murphy is a St. Paul advocate for IRV, she spoke at the Ward 5 convention in support of it.
I am not sure I understand your last question. I know that some people have linked re-partisaning the local elections and IRV but as far as I’m aware there isn’t a big push to actually have re-partisaning the ballot.
Comment posted April 26, 2007 @ 9:51 am
actually, I though tI read that they were trying to push the partisan thing again I’m trying to remember where I saw that.
Comment posted April 26, 2007 @ 10:21 am
oh yeah http://www.twincities.com/life/ci_5698576
Officially, St. Paul politics are nonpartisan, even though partisanship has long played a role in local politics.
It’s the same in cities across the state, but the Minnesota Voters Alliance wants to change that.
The group says it has collected enough signatures to ask St. Paul voters whether mayoral and City Council candidates should be identified as Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Wobblies or whatever political stripe they choose.
“Nonpartisan elections stifle debate,” said Andy Cilek, executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, because they often result in two candidates from the same party proceeding from the primary to the general election. In St. Paul, that usually means two DFLers.
“As an organization, we think we can and should do better than that. We think every party should be represented in the general election,” Cilek said.
The group turned in about 5,300 signatures to the Ramsey County elections bureau Tuesday. Elections chief Joe Mansky said he should know by the end of next week whether enough qualify to put the issue on the November ballot – 5,098 are needed. ….
Comment posted April 25, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
IRV Answers in St. Paul One strong argument for IRV is a more civil discourse and a broader candidate field, Murphy said.
Oh, really? And what is this based on?
This seems to be a very one-sided and lacking piece. I'd like to know:
*Why is Ms. Murphy qualified to make these statements?
*How will the county have its election judges provide information if partisan ballots and IRV both make it onto the November ballot?
Comment posted April 26, 2007 @ 3:27 am
More answers I had previously written something where a lot of questions were raised about IRV in St. Paul, difficulties and problems, so this was an opportunity for a response.
Link here I guess I should put a link to the questions since this one is about some of those answers. Sorry about that.
Murphy is a St. Paul advocate for IRV, she spoke at the Ward 5 convention in support of it.
I am not sure I understand your last question. I know that some people have linked re-partisaning the local elections and IRV but as far as I'm aware there isn't a big push to actually have re-partisaning the ballot.
Comment posted April 26, 2007 @ 4:51 am
actually, I though tI read that they were trying to push the partisan thing again I'm trying to remember where I saw that.
Comment posted April 26, 2007 @ 5:21 am
oh yeah http://www.twincities.com/life/ci_5698576
Officially, St. Paul politics are nonpartisan, even though partisanship has long played a role in local politics.
It's the same in cities across the state, but the Minnesota Voters Alliance wants to change that.
The group says it has collected enough signatures to ask St. Paul voters whether mayoral and City Council candidates should be identified as Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Wobblies or whatever political stripe they choose.
“Nonpartisan elections stifle debate,” said Andy Cilek, executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, because they often result in two candidates from the same party proceeding from the primary to the general election. In St. Paul, that usually means two DFLers.
“As an organization, we think we can and should do better than that. We think every party should be represented in the general election,” Cilek said.
The group turned in about 5,300 signatures to the Ramsey County elections bureau Tuesday. Elections chief Joe Mansky said he should know by the end of next week whether enough qualify to put the issue on the November ballot – 5,098 are needed. ….
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
