Alex, Kelly - I believe that typically, the Strib only "post-reviews" comments, as Kelly indicates, but in special cases, someone reviews comments before they're posted.

That seems to what's going on in the Pohlad case.

Craig - I have to disagree with you strongly.

First, on the Strib, yes, they made a mistake - a very small one.

It was Lott who turned a typo into a towering case of Canvassing Board malfeasance. He LED his piece with this example. So the reason I picked on Lott instead of the Strib is all about proportion; the Strib's error was simply not in the same league as Lott's. We get paid to make judgments about what's important; I stand by this one.

When a writer is accusing a...

Joel - I'm sure John Lott is a lovely fellow, but the guy throws out words like "fraud" and "systematic bias" at a moment's notice, based on sheer speculation the first time and evasions/inaccuracies the second.

In other words, he's wrong AND loud about it. (Systematic bias indeed.) Whatever his intent, the result is sliming the reputations of people who don't deserve it.

Jason - I'm a strong believer in IRV and think Minneapolis is a great laboratory to find out if it works, or if the "fear, uncertainty, doubt" is unwarranted.

Two points:

1. Remember, the primary/general election system lets you pick a loser (if you candidate doesn't survive), then pick again. IRV just does it in a single election. Not so scary now, right?

Since primaries are low-turnout, IRV lets the most voters participate in the winnowing. General elections - the only...