Saint Paul petition for IRV to be blocked from the ballot?
- In regards to recent news:I found the St Paul city attorney 10-page statement as a scanned PDF:http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/St.%20Paul%20City%20Attorney%20Letter%20June%2018%202008.pdfA worthy read for anyone interested, multifaceted, even if the "constitutionality" issue stands tallest.It is basically a defensive position, not claiming directly IRV is unconstitutional, BUT concluding that the 1915 State Supreme court judgment against a different (Bucklin system) also may have categorically ruled against IRV. It unless the State Constitution is amended to explicitly allow IRV.It hurts my brain to imagine a consistent argument that makes IRV unconstitutional UNLESS nonpartisan top-two primaries are also judged unconstitutional as well, since BOTH systems give voters two votes in one election.In fact, the only complain I have with the IRV/BetterBallot movement is the elimination of the nonpartisan primaries. Two candidates in the general election may be "too few", but I think a primary round that could reduce a field of 12 candidates down to 3-4 would be worth, even if only 5% care to vote in the primary since those 5% are the voters most likely willing to research and offer informed vote among so many chouces.I hope St Paul gets IRV on the ballot. It doesn't seem like the St Paul attorney or city council members are "anti-IRV" even if they may be "anti-change". The sitting council benefited by the current system, benefitted from low-turn out primaries where their supporters had extra influence.Sincerely,Tom Ruen