Let's get some issues straight about IRV. 1. IRV need only be used in *partisan* races to sort out winners when the leading party's candidate receives less than 50%-plus-one vote. This is to convert plurality victories to majority victories ONLY in the general election - and two months after the party primaries have whittled their fields to a single candidate each.
2. IRV does nothing to assist *non-partisan* contests - which pertain to all Minnesota counties and municipalities. (Only state and federal offices are partisan races.) In non-partisan races, the general election is the automatic run-off of a narrowed primary field, never matching more than two candidates for any local office, therefore *always* yielding a majority for the winner of that office, no matter how many originally filed in July. Now, if you'd like to rid the system of nonpartisan local primaries in September altogether and have only one election - in November - in which multiple candidates for a given office would vie for a majority through an instant run-off, that's a different matter. Some think it might be considerably less expensive. I think it's better at the local level if the two finalists left standing from a September primary can debate their way to a more educated vote. Do *not* be fooled by party endorsements at the local level. That does NOT make them partisan races in the eyes of the law. In all communities but Minneapolis, no party or organizational definition appears with candidate names on the ballot. 3. For the first several years following the enactment of IRV, we will see much higher voter turnouts, but the eventual winners of those first elections will still likely come from one of the two major parties. The Republicans no doubt see Green votes becoming DFL votes after Green candidates are eliminated in the run-off, and DFLers probably envision most independent votes becoming Republican. Who should be more afraid? And yet the Green and Independence parties are the two "good government" parties primarily pushing IRV. Will it given them an edge for run-off victories? Not likely in the short run. Perhaps later if and when they become more viable as major parties in the state. As Dave Shove indicates, Proportional representation, while an ideal set-up for better democracy following many models across the US and many other countries, would nevertheless be a major upheaval in governance structures and change comes glacially when tradition-bound citizens are asked to consider such significant change in type of representation. REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
