Comments on: Anti-IRV group calls claims of Obama, DFL endorsement ‘evil’

By: Jesse Mortenson

Jesse Mortenson — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:06:31 +0000

These complaints are silly: The League of Women Voters, the Minnesota DFL party and Obama have endorsed Instant Runoff Voting. They’ve said it’s a good way to run elections. All the literature is claiming is that those people/groups support Instant Runoff Voting as an election method.

Chuck Roepke and company faced a problem in this election: a broad array of well known and trusted organizations and people support the notion of using Instant Runoff Voting in elections in the US or in Minnesota. That’s a fact. This fact tends to be persuasive to voters. Roepke and company want to find a way to prevent IRV supporters from communicating this fact to voters. It’s pretty obvious why Roepke and company would come up with this sort of spin: it potentially takes a very useful and persuasive (and factual) argument off the table for the campaign they oppose.

By: Erik Hare

Erik Hare — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:52:23 +0000

I’ve been involved with campaigns long enough to know how these last-minute charges go. In 1989, Dave Thune’s opponent claimed support from Jim Scheibel, and at about 5PM the night before the election Scheibel gave Dave a letter countering that claim in the assumption that we couldn’t get the word out. We had it at every door in the Ward by midnight thanks to the raw energy that fueled Dave’s supporters. Thisngs get that intense.

It’s reasonable for people to be skeptical with pre-elections emotions always running high, but in this case I think it’s pretty clear that the pro-IRV people went way too far. The LWV weighed in that they thought their name was used improperly, which is to say that the written prior authorization was not obtained.

This is a very unique case as far as I can tell because I also can’t recall any race I’ve been involved in going this far over the line. False “support” or “endorsement” charges are somewhat common, but in this case they were specifically refuted and the pro-IRV people continue to insist that they acted properly. The “Halloween scare tactic” press release was, to me, the final straw – if this isn’t illegal, I don’t know what is.

I think we can reasonably bet that Saint Paul will not have IRV. Even if this election goes the way the pro-IRV groups want, it will likely be thrown out by a court unless the margin is overwhelming. Since it’s probably going to be close. This taint would make an IRV win on Election Day a drawn out drama that will make the Franken election seem very tame. I am NOT looking forward to the long lasting divisions in Saint Paul and the DFL that will result.

By: RickDFL

RickDFL — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:23:17 +0000

Bob Spaulding should look at the mailer in question. It says “Vote Yes for Instant Runoff Voting Nov. 3″ is “DFL Endorsed” and “Endorsed by President Barack Obama”. The law is extremely clear. You can not make these claims unless you have written permission from the person or party. The DFL consititution is clear that only the St. Paul DFL can give that permission.

Whatever the SPBBC might have been able to say legally is beside the point. What they did say violates the law.

By: Chris Telesca

Chris Telesca — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:53:26 +0000

FairVote and other IRV supporters are very fond of claiming that someone famous endorses IRV when that person may have only thought IRV sounded like a good idea and they don’t really know how it has worked in practice.

Barack Obama’s so-called “endorsement” of IRV doesn’t mean a thing. He endorsed single-payer health insurance back in 2003. He doesn’t endorse it now.

No one has asked McCain, Dean or anyone else thrown up by FairVote if they still endorse IRV. Has anyone shown them Kathy Dopp’s work, or the results of the Aspen, Peirce County, Cary or Burlington elections? No one who studied those elections or the problems with them would ever endorse IRV.

Several members of the Cary Town Council voted to be lab rats in a 2007 IRV pilot program. They no longer support IRV because they didn’t have confidence in the manner in which the votes were tabulated. That’s why Cary didn’t want to participate in the IRV pilot in 2009.

The voters of St. Paul are foolish if they vote for IRV before they see how it goes in Minneapolis.

By: Bob Spaulding

Bob Spaulding — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:47:29 +0000

What Chuck misses is that most of the cases he refers to – such as the President – refer to support for IRV, not the specific ballot initiative. That’s a critical difference under the law. The Minnesota DFL and League of Women Voters-St. Paul does support IRV, but they haven’t given support this specific ballot initiative.