The Minneapolis Star-Tribune of October 29 has this op-ed in favor of Instant Runoff Voting. It is co-authored by Don Fraser, who was Mayor of Minneapolis 1980-1994, and George Latimer, who was Mayor of St. Paul 1976-1980. The issue is timely because St. Paul voters are voting on whether to use Instant Runoff Voting in next week’s election.
In related news, the Aspen (Colorado) Times has this editorial in favor of retaining Instant Runoff Voting in that city.
This New York Post story of October 30 says that Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York city and former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has called on New Jersey independent gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett to withdraw from the race, to enhance the prospects of the Republican nominee for Governor of New Jersey in next week’s election.
According to this story in the October 30 Oakland Tribune, the Alameda County (California) Elections Department says the vote-counting machines used in that county can handle Instant Runoff Voting. Alameda County is waiting for the Secretary of State to certify those machines. Because the voters of Oakland voted to use IRV back in 2006, as soon as the vote-counting equipment is ready, it seems likely that the city will use IRV in the city elections in 2010.
One prominent candidate for Mayor of Oakland, Don Perata, seems to fear that the voters aren’t ready for IRV, and he says the city must not move too quickly. This seems unconvincing, as it will have been four years since the voters voted for that system.
Oakland is the third most populous city in the Bay Area, after San Jose and San Francisco.
This story analyzes how states with September primaries for Congress are reacting to the new federal law that requires states to mail foreign absentee ballots no later than 45 days before any federal election.
This week, two California initiatives entered circulation that would potentially affect how elections and legislative government would work in California’s future. One provides that the voters themselves, by initiative petition, could call a state Constitutional Convention. The other provides for a part-time legislature. Each needs 694,354 valid signatures, since they each are themselves proposed constitutional amendments.
