Emmer concedes

[hammAR]

50 years ago it was common for people to drive if they were too drunk to walk.And no one thought too much about it. Not saying it was the best thing, but that was the conventional thinking.

Yea, and we could carry a gun without a permission slip......................

[nyffman]

It's only a matter of time. Scoundrels! They take breaks, but they are just so lovable they can never step away for long!

But, I disagree. While Tom has killed no one, Teddy ain't coming back any time soon.

[fotog54]

What is really pathetic is Minnesota gets stuck with a governor the majority of people did not for!


Mark Dayton 919228 44%


Tom Emmer 910479 43%


Tom Horner 251489 12%

55% of the voters did not want Dayton as governor!

[autobahn]

What is really pathetic is Minnesota gets stuck with a governor the majority of people did not for!

I don't really have a problem with this. 3 parties > 2 parties. In our current system, that's the way it's gonna work.

But it's a good argument for IRV!

[Heffay]

What is really pathetic is Minnesota gets stuck with a governor the majority of people did not for!


Mark Dayton 919228 44%


Tom Emmer 910479 43%


Tom Horner 251489 12%

55% of the voters did not want Dayton as governor!

57% of the people didn't want Emmer to be governor. What's your point?

[goalie]

What is really pathetic is Minnesota gets stuck with a governor the majority of people did not for!

I don't really have a problem with this. 3 parties > 2 parties. In our current system, that's the way it's gonna work.

But it's a good argument for IRV!

NOTHING is a good argument for instant runoff voting.

[Heffay]

NOTHING is a good argument for instant runoff voting.

Well, if you're against it, then that's good enough for me!

[autobahn]

NOTHING is a good argument for instant runoff voting.

Maybe if you're partisan and see the writing on the wall that IRV would = third party candidate being elected rather than a precious Republican.

How about some good arguments against it?

[goalie]

NOTHING is a good argument for instant runoff voting.

Maybe if you're partisan and see the writing on the wall that IRV would = third party candidate being elected rather than a precious Republican.

How about some good arguments against it?

I didn't vote for Emmer.

As for arguments: you vote. You vote for ONE person in each race. If they want to make it a requirement to get a majority and do another election with just the top-two after the original election, while I would not support it 100%, I would support it more than allowing someone's 2nd choice vote on the first ballot to change the election, especially when the didn't know who that 2nd choice would be used against when they cast it.

[Heffay]

I didn't vote for Emmer.

As for arguments: you vote. You vote for ONE person in each race. If they want to make it a requirement to get a majority and do another election with just the top-two after the original election, while I would not support it 100%, I would support it more than allowing someone's 2nd choice vote on the first ballot to change the election, especially when the didn't know who that 2nd choice would be used against when they cast it.

None of that is a reason to not do IRV. Just because we do it one way today doesn't mean there can't be a better way tomorrow. Why is IRV a *bad* idea?

[goalie]

I didn't vote for Emmer.

As for arguments: you vote. You vote for ONE person in each race. If they want to make it a requirement to get a majority and do another election with just the top-two after the original election, while I would not support it 100%, I would support it more than allowing someone's 2nd choice vote on the first ballot to change the election, especially when the didn't know who that 2nd choice would be used against when they cast it.

None of that is a reason to not do IRV. Just because we do it one way today doesn't mean there can't be a better way tomorrow. Why is IRV a *bad* idea?

Because it makes it really easy to vote for a person you don't really think can win, because in the back of your mind you know your "other' lesser evil vote will still count. Which, in the end, takes a lot of the power away from third parties.

[Heffay]

Because it makes it really easy to vote for a person you don't really think can win, because in the back of your mind you know your "other' lesser evil vote will still count. Which, in the end, takes a lot of the power away from third parties.

Your logic doesn't track. You would think *more* people would put a 3rd party candidate down if they knew they had a backup. The only issue would be ensuring that the money allowed to parties is determined after the first count, not the final one (which would limit all state funding to just the top 2 parties).

[goalie]

Because it makes it really easy to vote for a person you don't really think can win, because in the back of your mind you know your "other' lesser evil vote will still count. Which, in the end, takes a lot of the power away from third parties.

Your logic doesn't track. You would think *more* people would put a 3rd party candidate down if they knew they had a backup. The only issue would be ensuring that the money allowed to parties is determined after the first count, not the final one (which would limit all state funding to just the top 2 parties).

You hit the nail on the head.

[fotog54]

My point is no elected official can make any claim to having the support of the people if he did not win the election with a majority of the vote! He limped into the position of governor due to poorly designed election system which places cost of election above the will of the electorate.

In a head to head battle I believe Mark Dayton would have lost.

So now Minnesota has 2 socialist senators and 1 not well adjusted governor!

Good Grief!!

[Heffay]

My point is no elected official can make any claim to having the support of the people if he did not win the election with a majority of the vote! He limped into the position of governor due to poorly designed election system which places cost of election above the will of the electorate.

In a head to head battle I believe Mark Dayton would have lost.

So now Minnesota has 2 socialist senators and 1 not well adjusted governor!

Good Grief!!

Using that logic, Pawlenty would have lost in 2002 and 2006.

There is nothing wrong with using a plurality instead of a majority. If you're going to let people vote for who they want, you can't limit who they can vote for.