Voters Alliance concern is misplaced

I am one of those senior citizens (age 77) for whom the Minnesota Voters Alliance believes that instant-runoff voting would be too complicated to figure out. My goodness, I can't understand how I learned to use a computer, a VCR, a DVD player and the multitude of other push-button gadgets that have entered our lives. That does not include the countless forms and questionnaires having to do with retirement, health care, etc., that older adults have to complete.

The insult is made worse by saying that we wouldn't have the brains to consult an election judge with any questions that we may have.

I have been waiting my entire adult life for a fairer voting procedure and finally we have it.

VONNIE THOMASBERG, MINNEAPOLIS

Published in Star Tribune, January 4, 2008

###

IRV LAWSUIT: It should be rejected

I don't understand the recent lawsuit against instant-runoff voting, raised by the Minnesota Voters Alliance. Its argument is weak and its motives misguided.

Instant-runoff voting is the only system in which people can choose exactly who they want. Many times in our bipartisan system, voters are afraid of "throwing their vote away" on a third-party candidate. Instant-runoff voting allows you to choose your first preference, and if that person doesn't get a majority, you have a say in who subsequently gets your vote.

How many more votes would we have seen for Peter Hutchinson in the recent gubernatorial race if Independent-leaning Democrats weren't afraid of reelecting Gov. Tim Pawlenty?

The lawsuit says that the instant-runoff voting system is too complicated, "especially for senior citizens," and that the people of Minneapolis "didn't understand what they were voting for." What a slap in the face to voters in Minneapolis! How hard is it to rank a list of candidates? It's literally as easy as 1,2,3!

I hope the court rejects this ridiculous, misguided lawsuit. Instant-runoff voting is a much fairer, more open system that allows for greater choice, and greater power to the voter. And right now, we the people need as much power as we can get.

BEN SWANSON, MINNEAPOLIS

Published in Star Tribune, December 28, 2007

### 

Cilek's odd claims

As an active member of the Minneapolis Better Ballot Campaign, I must respond to Andy Cilek's Dec. 31 letter on instant-runoff voting.

First, for Cilek to deny that he has stated that Minneapolis voters did not understand IRV when they voted for it in the last election is very strange indeed. I attended the Nov. 20 Senate Elections Subcommittee Hearing on Ranked Choice Voting and listened to Cilek's testimony. At that hearing he quoted (actually misquoted) a Minneapolis City Council member as saying, "IRV would confuse a core group of senior citizens -- what a (horrible) thing to do!" This quote, by the way, is also on the website of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, the organization that is suing the city of Minneapolis and various elected officials for moving forward with the voters' wish to use IRV in the next city election. It also says "In summary, IRV is confusing, undemocratic and unconstitutional, and should be opposed by anyone who values citizen-run government."

Second, Cilek has claimed his organization to be nonpartisan, but he had appeared on radio stations representing his organization where he has criticized the Democrats and the Greens and has called Secretary of State Mark Ritchie "sleazy."

Finally, whenever Cilek appears in public or is interviewed, he characterizes IRV as difficult to understand. Having seen him testify at the Nov. 20 Senate Elections Subcommittee Hearing, and seeing how rude his conduct was, I would say that his lack of understanding of Senate rules and decorum would indicate that he will find any election process confusing or hard to understand.

TINA M. WADE, MINNEAPOLIS

Published in Star Tribune, January 7, 2008

###

Response to IRV Lawsuit

Hello, this is in response to the 31 Dec. 2007 letter titled "IRV Lawsuit: Clearing the Air." The author makes the argument that even without the "confusion" surrounding the process, Minnesotan's right to cast a vote for their preferred candidate is blocked by the second or third place votes of others. To my understanding, current IRV proposals do not violate legal principles highlighted by the Minnesota Supreme Court case of 1915. That voting process in effect gave more weight to some voters than others which goes against the constitutionally protected right of one person one vote, and was thus possibly unfair.

I'll let the lawyers and judges hammer out the legal issues, but here is where the author's argument falls apart logically. In current IRV methods, each person gets to select their top two or three choices. We all have the same opportunity to cast our votes. If I pick my top three candidates and you pick your top three candidates, then there is no way possible for one of us to have less weight in the results. This is entirely consistent with the "one person one vote" concept. Only if someone chooses not to pick their second and third choices will it be possible for them to have less of a say in the outcome. That is no different than some people choosing not to vote in either a primary or general election. They would also have less of a say because they chose not to fully participate.

Here are the basic facts. IRV gives everyone an identical opportunity to vote. IRV is more democratic because it more fully reflects the opinions of each voter. IRV eliminates the need for a separate primary election or other "tie-breaker" type of redundant costly voting effort. IRV makes it possibly for more independent candidates to have a fair chance at winning an election against the two entrenched political parties.

When I handed out fliers about IRV in Minneapolis last summer, the people I spoke to had no problems understanding the basics of IRV within about 30 seconds. People are smart enough to pick their favorite, second favorite, and third favorite of anything -- we've been doing it since Kindergarten. Constitutionality and precedent in law surrounding IRV are fair debates, but attacking IRV as too confusing is a red herring.

JOE COLIHAN, MINNEAPOLIS

Submitted to Star Tribune, December 31, 2007

###