So who here wants to wager how quicly MN Congress inacts a change to their election process

[LynneSin]

With the vote that close and no candidates even getting 45% of the vote let alone 50% - that race should have gone into a runoff with the top 2 candidates facing a 2nd election in December. THEN have the recount if it's that close again but hopefully the picture would have been a bit clearer.

[elocs]

1. It would be a good idea considering MN's history of third parties which impact elections

and win them. Even if only rarely used a runoff law would be good for "just in case". Who in MN would ever want to go through this kind of nightmare again?

[Occam Bandage]

5. I think Minnesotans would rather have a few segments on the evening news

updating them about the recount than have to deal with a super-condensed second campaign season.

[Bjorn Against]

2. Maybe we can finally get instant runoff voting

Having a second election is too expensive and it depresses voter turnout, instant runoff voting is the way to go and we have been trying to get it for years. After this race some Republicans are even starting to come around to the idea. Third parties have long played a big impact in our election, and there are very few statewide politicians that have actually one with a majority of the vote in recent years. The majority of our elected officials got in with a mere plurality of the vote, I believe Ventura only had something like 38% for example. We actually currently have one of the most transparant and accurate voting systems in the nation, but it is not without its flaws and I fully expect that we will see some big changes proposed soon.

[Occam Bandage]

3. MN will not have a runoff. There may be increased oversight rules,

and we might even have a push for touchscreen voting, but a runoff? No.

[Bjorn Against]

6. There will not be a push for touchscreen voting.

Right now touchscreen machines with no paper trail are illegal in Minnesota, and there is no way that we will allow that law to be overturned. Instant Runoff Voting is far more likely, and there are many of us here who will fight hard for it because it would be a far better system.

[Occam Bandage]

8. IRV is "illegal," too, in that both would require a legal change to be implemented statewide.

Moreover, only touchscreen machines would directly address what people perceive to be the problem: that paper ballots get lost, and that it is often difficult to discern voter intent in paper ballots. I believe neither IRV nor touchscreen voting will come to MN, but if we were to have one of the two, it wouldn't be IRV. After all, both major parties stand to lose state legislature and mayoral seats (and maybe even the governor's mansion) if IRV is implemented statewide. There's no advantage for either party to push it.

[Bjorn Against]

10. There are a lot more people pushing IRV than touchscreen here...

You are right that IRV is not currently legal here either, the difference is IRV actually has a lot of popular support while eliminating paper ballots does not. The Republicans and the anti-choice group MCCL vehemently opposes IRV (although that may be starting to change with former Republican Senator Dave Durenberger coming out in favor of it), but many Democrats support it. Minneapolis even voted to implement it in their local elections. Third parties have cost the Democrats seats more than once in this state, so many Democrats feel that IRV would benefit them.

I have never heard anyone push for touchscreen voting in this state, most people who I have heard talk about it are vehemently opposed to it. (And for the record I actually worked with MPIRG on voting rights issues quite extensively in college, so I have communicated with many people on these sorts of issues). This state values transparancy, and I don't think any efforts to make the system less transparent would go over well at all.

[S_E_Fudd]

4. Why?

The recount is being run in an efficient and transparent manner....

I think it is working just fine

[Bjorn Against]

7. It is being run very well...

Even well run systems do have their flaws however, and if we would have had Instant Runoff Voting there would have never had to be a recount because Franken would have easily passed the 50% mark based on the second choice of all the Barkley voters.

[S_E_Fudd]

9. I don't really see the point of a runoff...

Either you force people to vote for someone they don't support, or more likely, those people simply don't vote at all in the runoff and the person wins with a lower percentage of voters than they got in the original race...

[Bjorn Against]

11. I am not talking about a runoff, I am talking about Instant Runoff Voting

There is a big difference between a runoff election and Instant Runoff Voting. In a runoff election you actually have to have a second election to determine the winner. With Instant Runoff Voting there is only one election in which people can rank their choices (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). If no candidate manages to get 50% of the vote in the first round, then the lowest vote getter will be eliminated from the race and all those who voted for them will have their second choice counted instead. This goes on until one candidate has a clear majority of the vote, and it ensures that no candidate can win without some level of support from the majority.