Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/siteinfo/?id=2253&p=.htm

Subject: How to get an Oscar Nom

Q. How are the Oscar Nominations Determined?

[Editor's note: The article references two ranked ballot voting methods, neither of which are the same as Instant Runoff Voting: Borda's method gives more weight, or points, to highe

Oakland will use such a system. Davis, Calif., has opted for 'proportional representation.' Backers believe the systems make races more competitive.
By Nancy Vogel

Posted on Thu, Dec. 07, 2006    

BY TIM NELSON
Pioneer Press http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/state/minnesota/16181169.htm

Star Tribune -- November 27, 2006
http://www.startribune.com/561/story/833076.html

It's not simply a way to grab power by the two major parties.

St. Cloud Times

http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006111120006

Times Editorial Board

November 12, 2006

If Minnesotans are serious about trying to loosen the grip the DFL and Republican parties have on Minnesota politics and government, then serious electoral attention should be paid to Minneapolis.

Why? That's where residents by a 2-to-1 ratio voted Tuesday to replace traditional voting systems with instant-runoff voting in deciding races for mayor, City Council and three other city boards.

How this systems works there could hold valuable lessons for the rest of the state.

This is a process to watch, but it is too early to decide if it deserves endorsement.

Instant-runoff voting essentially allows voters to rank their choices for office, not choose a single candidate. Votes are tallied and if nobody wins a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the least number of first-place votes is eliminated and the second-choice votes on those ballots are transferred to the remaining candidates. Votes are counted again, and that cycle continues until one candidate wins a majority.

Clearly, your perception of this voting system depends on whether you support continuing the two-party lock, or if you believe the two-party system — so dependent on using big money to highlight big differences — deserves to be reformed sooner, not later.

We bring this up now because last week's statewide election results make it look more and more unlikely that a third major political party will be able to gain enough momentum to seriously challenge the DFL and Republican machines.

Sorry, Independence Party members, but as much as we appreciate quality candidates such as Peter Hutchinson and John Binkowski this year and Tim Penny and Jim Moore in 2002, the IP just doesn't have the charisma or cash (or both) to keep up with the big dogs.

Just look at the gubernatorial numbers. In the wake of the Jesse Ventura celebrity aberration of 1998, IP candidate Penny earned about 16 percent of the vote four years later. And this year Hutchinson collected only 6.4 percent.

What happens in 2010? Indeed, under current rules, the IP could lose major-party status, ultimately proving the historical theory that major third-party movements seldom last more than three election cycles.

That would be too bad because most IP candidates for major offices have generally gotten stronger with each campaign. They've provided detailed, thoughtful platforms just as worthy of consideration as DFL and Republican proposals.

In our opinion, the fact that they are attracting fewer voters is a sign of how strong a lock the other parties have on everything from money to media coverage.

Of course, opponents of instant-runoff voting make a good case that it flies in the face of why this constitutional republic was created and that it gives too much influence to people with too little support.

Those are good points. On the other hand, isn't the goal of voting to elect the best person — not the best party — for the job? Is the current system able to do that?

Friday, November 17, 2006   Volume 17, Issue 46

http://www.timberjay.com/current.php?article=2775

By Marshall Helmberger

Star Tribune--November 17, 2006

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/817192.html

Pawlenty should be the last plurality-wins governor.

Tim Pawlenty might not appreciate being likened to Bill Clinton. But the Republican governor has at least this much in common with the former Democratic president: He was just elected for a second time by a plurality, not a majority. In Minnesota in 2002 and 2006, as in the presidential elections in 1992 and 1996, a third-party candidacy kept the winning vote total below 50 percent.

That's not an ideal outcome -- for the winner or the state. Clinton's experience attests to as much. Throughout his presidency, he was denigrated by his partisan opponents as a less-than-legitimate occupant of the White House. Those election results emboldened those who sought to unseat him via impeachment in 1998.

Pawlenty has no reason to fear a DFL response as extreme as that. But the results of last week's election were only minutes old when DFL voices began tagging Pawlenty as the "46.7 percent governor." Any claim to a voter mandate Pawlenty might have made was immediately undercut. Any chance for the 53-plus percent of voters who preferred another candidate to coalesce and redirect state policies was lost too.

But one thing may have been gained: a growing recognition that Minnesota would benefit from a different voting system. Ideally, it would be one that allows as many candidates to run for high office as this state's tradition of easy ballot access permits, but that still gives the winner claim to majority support. The vote-by-number balloting method known as instant runoff voting fits the bill.

Some of the ills big-party loyalists attribute to the rise and persistence of the Independence and Green parties are misplaced. More accurately, they are consequences of multiparty contests being decided by a plurality-take-all voting system.

For example, the Independence Party's attempt to provide a centrist alternative to Republicans and Democrats is faulted for pushing candidates in the bigger parties to their respective extremes. With a third party taking independent votes, DFL and Republican strategists conclude that they must maximize their base vote to win an election. To do so, they stake out positions that impede good governance (witness "no new taxes.")

Instant runoff voting would present those same candidates with an incentive to reach outside their parties' ideological cores. Victory in close multicandidate elections would require a blend of first and second-choice votes. A narrowly partisan campaign would not get the second-choice votes needed for victory.

Successful candidates would have to broaden their appeal. That would have the added benefit of moderating campaign rhetoric. Offending an opponents' supporters would carry a penalty, not a prize.

Last week, Minneapolis voters approved a switch to instant runoff voting for the next city election, in 2009. That exercise should be seen as a pilot project for the whole state.

Between now and then, the Legislature should give instant runoff a thorough hearing, and direct the next secretary of state, Mark Ritchie (an instant runoff voting supporter), to make preliminary plans for a switch. If the system serves Minneapolis well in 2009, it should be ready for the whole state in 2010.

©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.