Charter commission was wrong on ranked-choice voting

I am very appreciative of the Post-Bulletin's editorial support for further study of ranked-choice voting and your inclusion of the costs to citizens for not having had that system in recent city council elections. Ranked-choice voting eliminates the need for a primary, which leads to savings as well.

Sen. Dave Senjem says the method has become a partisan issue, though I have not previously heard or experienced that. He further finds it "confusing" but gives no indication of how it is so. Is he suggesting that voters are not bright enough to deal with this system or that Rochester voters are not as smart as Minneapolis ones?

He can't be referring to minorities — in San Francisco, 16 of the 18 officeholders elected under ranked-choice voting have been people of color.

Now that our Republican state senator has expressed his view to the Rochester Charter Commission, perhaps, if the commission still wants to be seen as non-partisan, they should either balance that view or not support it. They might also want to study the issue.

Gael Entrikin

Rochester