Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


No election victory parties today in Minneapolis

One unintended consequence of the new instant runoff voting system in Minneapolis — which means they won’t have a primary election there today — is fewer election parties at local restaurants.

Mayor R.T. Rybak could be home tonight, maybe watching Jay Leno, while his counterpart in St. Paul, Chris Coleman, will be with friends, families and supporters at Mancini’s, celebrating what’s sure to be a low-turnout victory. Among the happy folks on hand will be the Mancini brothers, pleased to have revelers on hand.

Coleman’s opponent, Eva Ng, is also expected to be celebrating tonight — for there will be two winners selected to go on to the November general election. Her party is at Fabulous Fern’s, meaning a little extra business for owner Charles Senkler.

Two other perennial candidates — Sharon Anderson and Bill Dahn — haven’t disclosed their poll-watching locations.

There are a few other primary elections today, including races for the St. Paul school board, city council spots in Bloomington, Maplewood, White Bear Lake and St. Louis Park, and mayors in Maplewood and White Bear Lake.

Comments (1)

  1. Submitted by Tom Ruen on 09/15/2009 - 02:47 pm.

    Your openning line is fully false. “No primary” was an intentional consequence by IRV advocates to allow the claim “IRV saves money”.

    I support IRV process, but disagree with the elimination of the nonpartisan primary as good.

    Given somewhere near a dozen candidates running for mayor AND only three preference columns in the general election, voters are forced with a dilemma of making sure at least one of their three will make the final round of the runoff.

    Probably Rybek’s popular enough, he might win a majority in the first round, but it’s certainly likely some (anti-Rybek) voters will LOSE THEIR VOTE in IRV’s final round if all three preferences are eliminated.

    There’s nothing about the IRV system that necessitates elimination of the primary. A IRV “primary” could have been retained, eliminating candidates until all remaining candidates have at least some threshold of support, like 15% to “earn the right” to be on the ballot in the general election round.

    This would have been superior to the old “top-two primary” process since the primary would create a “proving grounds” for ALL viable candidates, rather than just the top-two.

    BUT “saving money” was the GAME, and the price is voter in the general election may LOSE their vote for not being informed enough to “GUESS” which of the dozen are viable to support in their limited rankings.

Leave a Reply