Just like all other Minneapolis elections, this one will feature a non-partisan primary - scheduled for 12.30. Whoever wins the general election on 2.3 will have at least a 50%+1 majority. Thus, the primary serves as a runoff election.
Is there a better way to conduct elections? I think so. If Minneapolis converted to an Instant Runoff Voting system, we would still end up with majority (50%+1) representation in every ward, yet every candidate would be able to run until the general election. The benefits would be manifold: a) The important electoral decisions would be made when voter turnout is highest. We would no longer have a relatively small group of people deciding what candidates will even be available for the larger group of voters to choose among. b) The city would save the cost of the primary election. I'm not certain how much money this represents, but I'm fairly certain it's substantial. c) The public debate about the issues facing our neighborhoods would be broad and multifaceted up until the general election. In my opinion, this will improve the quality of the public policy created by eventual election-winners. The other benefits of IRV (voter freedom, the death of the "spoiler" factor, more issue-oriented campaigns, etc.) would come with these more primary-centric windfalls, of course. Robin Garwood Seward _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
