Seriously, after what is happening in Minnesota - all states need to have run-off elections!!

[LynneSin]

Look, I for one am grateful that every single vote is being counted - congrats to the election officials of Minnesota who are making this happen. Hell if a Kenneth Blackwell or Katherine Harris were the Secretary of State in Minnesota, they would have said "FUCK YOU" to the voters and just gave the seat to Norm Coleman (who looks like HE might be indicted within the year anyways).

Georgia was smart - neither voter cracked 50% and therefore they had a run-off with the top 2 vote getters (Chambliss the asshole and Jim Martin the democrat). The irony about Minnesota is neither of the top 2 candidates even got 45% of the votes - clearly there was a 3rd party candidate spoiler. There should have been a run-off setup for the top 2 vote getters (Al Franken the democrat and Norm Coleman the

I think every state needs to re-evaluate their election process to ensure that there is some for of run-off when there are elections this cloe. Personally, I think having a runoff will also help 3rd party candidates become more viable - because at least if you can't stand either candidate and go 3rd party; if there is a close race like Minnesota they can then drop all the candidates but the top 2 and do a run-off.

[dsc]

1. There is a reason so many southern states have runoffs

because they didn't want blacks to win statewide office. While what is happening in MN isn't ideal, I do prefer it to a system designed to make sure minorities couldn't hold office.

[fasttense]

2. Be careful what you wish for.

Run-off elections tend to get low voter turn-out and less voter participation. They tend to get less media attention even in the state affected by the election. Because of these facts, most run-off elections are won by Republicons.

The fewer people that participate in an election, the more likely a Republicon will win. And Republicons tend to win run-off elections more often than Democratic politicians.

[n2doc]

5. Yep. See Georgia.

With Obama in the mix, we had a big turnout and nearly got rid of Chambliss. Without Obama, Chambliss won easily on poor turnout.

[davidpdx]

3. I don't know about runoffs

But the situation in MN will eventually work out and Franken will prevail.

[Township75]

4. I agree. GA got the election finished a while ago, while MN is still dragging on.

Things would have been different if there were a run off election in 2000 with Nader out of the picture.

[riqster]

11. Speed is not everything nt

[Hokie]

6. Runoff elections are a poor idea

In Georgia a minority fraction of voters ended up choosing a Chambliss. One major election a year is enough. I think the Minnesota process is fine and as good as you can do with an incredibly close election - 50 votes out of 3 million cast. If Coleman ends up winning by one vote that is the way it is. No election system is perfect when you try to use it to differentiate what could best be described as "noise", a small portion of the vote. The Minnesota system is vastly superior to the one that was in place in Florida in 2000. I am certain that Gore would have won by several thousand votes in Florida with an optical scan paper ballot system and recount method used by Minnesota.

[ejpoeta]

7. i don't know about run off elections...

but it seems to me that there should be a standard for these ballots. and maybe there needs to be a class for voters on how to fill them out!! seeing some of these ballots that are uncertain.... you have to scratch your head at how some of these things are supposed to be filled out. and then there are the ones with people writing crap on the ballot!! perhaps it would be easier for folks if the ballots were basic like when you take those tests with the bubbles you fill in. most folks could figure that one out.

[islandmkl]

8. it is a choice between 'more than 50%' and 'most votes'...

it would seem to me that the 'most votes' is directly in-line with the tenets of democracy...imposing ANY conditions becomes a manipulation...

the '50%' standard is, among other things, presumptive of TWO, and only two viable candidates, and is designed to discourage, even marginalize, any third, fourth, etc. candidates...

which is supported by the flawed argument that 'if there are more than two candidates, no one might get a majority of the votes' (critically establishing 50% of VOTES CAST as the 'will of the people', when more accurately it is the 'will of the people who voted')...all this in a nation that struggles to hit 50% VOTER TURNOUT!

among other things, it discourages the development of candidates outside the established parties...and we can see where that has brought us...

[LynneSin]

10. I tend to disagree with that (run-off bad for 3rd party candidate)

If anything - I would be more apt to vote 3rd party if there was a run-off situation and here's why.

I won't vote Republican but let's just say my choices are a Republican and a really bad Dem Candidate (ie like if Chris Matthew were to get the dem nomination in Pennsylvania - I'd have a really really tough time voting for him. Thankfully I live in Delaware now).

If there was a run-off situation, I would have no problem voting 3rd party candidate because then at least I know I'm voting my conscious and NOT for the lessor of 2 evils. And consider this - if the dem & republican candidates are both equally vial - it could be feasible to see a 3rd or 4th candidate emerge. You could have a run-off of 2 candidates who got 34% of the votes each (or if there were 4 candidates maybe a mere 26% of the vote).

The point is - I would have one election where I could vote who I really felt was the right candidate and the if there was a run-off I'd probably vote for the one closely aligned to me (ie the democrat or other progressive party).

I just remember in 2000 & 2004 how it was a big stink that you don't want to throw away your vote because 'What if the Election was real close?' mentality. Why not eliminate it and have a run-off?

And there are 2 ways to setup the runoff - Either no candidate received more than 50% of the votes OR you could have it set that no candidate won with more than 1% lead over any other candidate.

Just a thought!

[Raineyb]

9. The situation in Minnesota makes the argument for Instant Run-off Voting

It would make it easier to have 3rd parties too because voting for them won't be throwing away one's vote.

Regards

[randr]

12. Just one more example of why we need election reform

If the makers of accounting machines can keep track of millions of transactions involving billions of dollars each and every hour without miscounting one red cent, they can sure as hell come up with a way to count several millions of votes once every two years or so.
The fact that they don't is evidence enough that something is terribly wrong.

[MrsMatt]

13. Sorry, but this Minnesotan thinks our sytem is just fine

and see no reason to change - Franken was a weak candidate to run against Coleman. We should have run a more issue oriented candidate, rather than a face.

As much as I prefer the D's to win (especially since I very much despise Coleman - I'm a Saint Paulite, and used to know people who had a lot of dirt on Norm, so I know what he is, and only voted for him as a D, albeit nose plugged), I'm willing to accept whatever the outcome, because I know the process is honest and fair.


(edit for typo)