IRV is better

The Pioneer Press got it wrong when it urged voters to defeat instant runoff voting on the ballot Nov. 3 ("IRV: No, but we appreciate the debate," Oct. 29). As someone who served 10 years on the St. Paul City Council, I agree with former Mayor George Latimer and have concluded that IRV would be far better than the system we use now.

Voters would be a lot more engaged in our elections if they felt they had more viable choices and could vote for candidates they feel represent their concerns and wishes. Most voters are tied between the "lesser of two evils," and vote their fears, rather than their dreams, when they step into the booth.

IRV is not complicated at all. I believe that voters can easily rank their choices, 1, 2 and 3. IRV opens up the political process and encourages the greatest number of voters making decisions that will affect the services and policies city residents count on and are subject to.

How can anyone honestly believe — when only 7 percent of the voters voted in the primary — that the voices of St. Paul, all citizens, have been heard?

IRV will increase turnout and finally make elections more representative and democratic.

The city of St. Paul faces an enormous budget problem as it struggles to fund basic city services: roads, police, fire, parks and recreation centers. Holding a primary for just 7 percent of the voters is, pure and simple, a waste of money and resources that should be put to better use. I urge a "yes"vote for IRV.

Jay Benanav, St. Paul

IRV Works

Instant runoff voting allows a sharply polarized electorate to agree where it can and begins the process of putting our democracy back into the hands of the electorate.

Our current system no longer works. My one vote at the primary is worth a hundred votes — two hundred? — resulting in skewed outcomes. With our present system, Election Day becomes a forced either-or decision based on unfair choices. We wouldn't buy a car, choose a school or order at a restaurant that way, and it's time we stopped choosing our elected officials, who make so many decisions about our lives, that way.

We all use the IRV concept many times daily, because it works. Let's put it to work for us here in St. Paul on Nov. 3.

Barbara Sarapas, St. Paul

Clarifying election costs

Concerning the cost of implementing instant runoff voting, let's be realistic about how to count the cost of new equipment.

No government or business attributes all the cost of new hardware or software to the single year it is purchased if it has a longer life than that single year. It's generally amortized over its expected lifetime.

More importantly, new voting equipment has long been scheduled for purchase in Ramsey County in 2011, whether IRV is used or not.

Roger Brooks, St. Paul