The Minneapolis Star Tribune cited Andrew Koebrick's enthusiastic support for instant runoff voting (IRV) as one of its reasons for endorsing him for Secretary of State (Star Tribune, October 20, 2002 --http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/3374762.html). Koebrick was the Green Party nominee. The other major party candidates also expressed support or interest in investigating instant runoff voting. However, Koebrick made it a central theme of his campaign. Now that there is a clear political advantage to be gained by supporting IRV, expect more candidates to support it in the future.
...while Duluth News Tribune is skeptical of IRV
Koebrick was also endorsed by the Duluth News Tribune (October 29, 2002 --http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/opinion/4393704.htm). But that endorsement came in spite of his support for IRV. Mentioning work by "rational-choice theorists," the paper essentially claimed that there is no perfect voting system. This is a straw man, since election reformers readily acknowledge this fact. The editorial did not report that other voting systems are similarly imperfect. Nor did it report the consensus among theorists that our current plurality voting system may be the worst of all available systems. It is not a question perfect versus imperfect. Rather, it is a question of better versus worse. Instant runoff voting is clearly better than the current plurality system and a good case can be made that it is better than other alternative systems for electing single winners. For further information on mathematical analysis of voting systems seehttp://www.fairvote.org/pr/perfectsystem.htm,http://www.fairvote.org/irv/various1.htm,http://www.sciencenews.org/20021102/bob8.asp and alsohttp://calirv.org/about/faq.htm.