Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey Fends Off Democratic Socialist Challenger
However, Frey barely beat Omar Fateh.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey secured a third term, fending off Democratic Socialist State Sen. Omar Fateh.
Minneapolis uses ranked-choice voting, which means a candidate must receive 50% or more of the vote.
Frey came up with 42% of the vote after the first round, with Fateh in second with 32%.
Fateh and two other challengers asked their supporters “to rank one another but not Frey, in order to make it harder for the incumbent to win.”
It did not work.
The votes counted today ended with Frey receiving 73,723 votes, putting him barely above the 50% threshold at 50.03%.
Fateh ended up with 65,377 votes.
Minneapolis could have ended up with its own Zohran Mamdani.
Fateh is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America. His platform mirrored Mamdani: Free everything, rent control, increase minimum wage, etc.
Fateh also wanted to make Minneapolis a “safe-haven” for abortions and “gender-affirming care.” He even described those as essential healthcare services.
Minneapolis has many socialists in its government, especially through the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party.
Three socialists won seats on the Minneapolis City Council in 2021.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
ohhh,,but they arent rigging elections….
Fateh and two other challengers asked their supporters “to rank one another but not Frey, in order to make it harder for the incumbent to win.”
That’s not rigging, that’s completely normal. If NYC had this system for general elections, rather than only for primaries, you can be absolutely certain that Sliwa, Cuomo, Adams, and Walden would each have urged their voters to rank the other three before Mamdani, and either put Mamdani last, or leave him off altogether if that’s an option, and that would have been completely legitimate and expected.
But all they can do is urge; they can’t control what their voters actually do, unlike in Israel where parties with registered “surplus sharing” deals can control where their surplus votes go, while their voters get no say in the matter. That’s better than nothing, but it’s far from ideal.
we wont agree then
b/c you DO CONTROL jobs etc with who gets into office…be it trump or biden etc
so therefor when you know that so and so will get your vote..its self interest..you vote for that person
Huh? You’re making no sense. We’re talking about a candidate urging his voters to vote according to his instructions. “Vote for me first, this guy second, and that guy third, and put Frey last”. That’s absolutely normal and how everyone does it in preferential elections. It’s got nothing to do with jobs. I don’t understand what connection you’re drawing with jobs.
asking people to manipulate the numbers
the results
the outcome
thats just another fault of allowing anything but one person ONE vote
Again, what are you talking about? There is no “manipulating the numbers”. They are exercising their right to vote, in the completely normal manner.
Each person gets only ONE vote. That’s the whole point of the system. That’s why it’s called STV, “single transferable vote”. And a voter is expected to use it completely, to put a number next to each candidate. In many places that is mandatory, and if you omit any numbers the vote is invalid. And it is normal for candidates to hand out how-to-vote cards that say exactly what to put in each box. That’s all this is.
Milhouse WANTS Democrats to be able to rig elections.
That way his party wins.
Telling people how to vote to game the system is just one of the many Democrat cheating systems he supports.
Though he will phrase it in such a way that, sadly, it’s the legal thing, and the GOP should have thought of it.
BUT, when the GOP does actually try to use one of these ‘legal processes’ and the left screams, Milhouse will be here to tell us all that, sadly, the Dems and the left are right again and that these processes are only ‘legal’ when THEY use them.
Go back to Hell where you came from, you filthy liar.
well I dont want to hold that albatross over him///wanting dems to win
he can certainly speak to that
“…you can be absolutely certain that Sliwa, Cuomo, Adams, and Walden would each have urged their voters to rank the other three before Mamdani—”
In any case, the people of NYC are getting exactly what they deserve—for the majority of the voters did vote for Mamdani—which on other threads you argued that the majority of voters did not support him.
In the end he does seem to have eked out a tiny majority, so nothing could have prevented his victory. But there was every reason to suppose that would not be the case, and we all had to proceed as if that would not be the case.
Okay, I’ll go along with that, it’s sound reasoning. Hope you have a good evening.
What do think will happen now, Milhouse? Your thoughts on Mamdani and the next four years?
All I can say is what Rush Limbaugh said when 0bama was elected: “I hope he fails.”
“I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.”
It’s sort of rigging but not illegal. What should be done away with is ranked choice voting.
No, it is not even sort of rigging. It is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
And no, this election proves the exact opposite. Had the city adopted this system for the general election as well, there would have been a better chance of defeating Mamdani, and that might have brought out more voters. I’m sure there were some who stayed home because they figured it was impossible for Cuomo to win.
you just proved my point
you said ..had the city adopted the rcv for the general election better chance at defeating mamdani
EXACTLY!
there is a reason they havent ( yet) allowed rcv for the general election
THAT IS rigging the system
No, it isn’t. Compared to the traditional voting process, which the USA has used for hundreds of years, RCV is so new most places haven’t even tried it yet. Parties can be given more latitude as to how they run “their own” primaries, but a change to the general election is a constitutional matter that they can’t just “do.”
Destroy:
No, that was not your point at all. Finally, after all this, you have hit upon a valid point. I take it you now agree with me that this system (RCV, STV, IRV, or whatever you want to call it) is right and fair, and it should have been implemented at all levels. But that is not what you or diver64 have been arguing until now. You’ve been attacking those who guided their supporters in how to vote, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Glad we seem to be past that now, at least with you. diver64 apparently remains to be convinced.
Henry:
This wasn’t a change made by the Dem Party, it was made by the people amending the city charter. It could just as easily have been done for general elections too, but Destroy is on to something when he suggests that the reason they didn’t do that is because the Democrats didn’t want it. They want fair elections for their own primaries, but they don’t want fair elections when they’re up against Republicans.
On the other hand you also make a good point that for all that this system has been around for well over a century, and has been tested thoroughly in other countries and performed well, few places in the USA have adopted it so it’s still considered experimental here, and if one wants to find an innocent explanation for why it was adopted only for the primiaries and not for the general, one can attribute it to that. I’m not feeling very charitable to Democrats, so I prefer Destroy’s position.
read my 10:02 am response to millhouse
Ranked choice voting gets an undeserved bad rap.
The only thing “bad” about it is that leftist operatives who introduce initiatives to adopt it invariably bundle it with jungle primaries, which are bad and fully deserve that rap. RCV just gets slimed along for the ride.
If my state introduced a pure RCV initiative without the damn jungle primaries, I’d vote for it in a heartbeat. For one thing, the Republican candidate in NYC would show a sudden surge in popularity, which is a good thing. But people there aren’t able to indicate, “I really want the Republican Sliwa, but if he doesn’t make the cut, I’ll settle for Cuomo,” so the actual popularity of Republican candidates is chronically under-reported.
What’s wrong with “jungle primaries”? If a party wants to hold its own internal candidate selection process, let it hold it itself; why does the government run it?
On the other hand, the whole point of ranked choice is that you no longer need primaries. You can just hold one election, let everyone who wants run, print a ballot with 15 or 20 names for each position, and let people indicate their preferences. (Don’t restrict it to the top five, as NYC has done. That’s because the way they designed the ballot is just stupid. )
Do you understand the concept of jungle primaries? The very reason they are undesirable is that they are NOT limited to a party’s own internal candidate selection process.
A jungle primary is when all candidates from all parties are forced to compete against one another on a single ballot, and only the top two — often two candidates from the SAME party — go on to the general election. Mathematically, it can be considered the polar opposite of RCV, as it suffers from all the disadvantages of vote-splitting to an insane level.
I know what a jungle primary is. It’s an election with a runoff if no one gets a majority. Just like elections in Louisiana, or Georgia. I don’t understand your objection to the fact that it’s not internal to a party, and that the two candidates who proceed to a runoff may belong to the same party. What’s wrong with that?
You seem to expect that a primary must be within a party, and I’m asking why should the state run such a process? If a party wishes to have an internal selection process, so that it can endorse only one candidate for a position, let it run one itself, before the state-run primary, i.e. the first round of the two-round election.
On the other hand ranked choice voting eliminates the need for such a thing altogether. You don’t need to have primaries, or even party selection processes, you can just let everyone who’s interested run at once, and let the voters express their preferences.
henry/millhouse ( not sayin you are the same people )
but no way guys no way is rcv anything less than the rigging of the one vote one person
sad to read that you ,hb, would want that
millhouse
you know the slippery slope affect ..sure it might seem innocent at first…its not
too bad we cant sit around and discuss this but we will not agree on this
I am squarely as behind it being another scheme as much as you two are 180 from that
No, it is not. One vote per person is exactly what it is. That’s why it’s called STV.
You’re treating it as if it were some sort of newfangled invention dreamed up by leftists. That’s just not the case. It’s about 150 years old, and has been thoroughly tested and proved workable and fair. No country that has adopted it has ever regretted it.
Also, it was usually introduced by the right, not the left, because the right more often splits its vote.
I still only get one vote. I just get the ability to place it where it will do the most good in any given situation.
It’s no different or more unfair than placing a stop-loss order with my broker.
just noting that this was not a victory for the country, just a limited loss as opposed to a catastrophic loss. Frey is and has been a member of the Democrat-Farm-Lab0r-Party too for his political career.
Subotai Bahadur
Of course, just as a Cuomo win in NYC would have been not a win but merely a limited loss rather than a catastrophe.
Even with Frey winning, the damage is already done. Downtown Minneapolis is a ghost town crumbling before our eyes. People maybe will go to a sporting event there, but only during the day. Others have given up going there instead opting to go to Sioux Falls or Fargo for entertainment where it’s safer.
like most areas in this country
wherever blmplo camps out…civilized people dont go
But Minneapolis was saved and re-elected (again) the guy who burned the whole city to the ground and made a lethal hellhole of what was left.
I guess things are looking good for Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom, the lead sociopath of the dem party.
Put it this way, would you rather have LA run by Bass or by Maxine Waters?
hitler or pol pot
That is not a valid comparison.
Edwin Edwards, or David Duke?
Batista or Castro? Somoza or Ortega?
Pinochet for the win? /s
why your love for socialism?
Whose love? Please answer, would you have voted for Edwin Edwards in order to keep David Duke out of office? Yes or no. Remember the slogan in that election was “Vote for the crook. It’s important.”
Would you have helped Batista in order to keep Castro out? Somoze in order to keep Ortega out? Or would you have sat on your hands and said they’re both bad so I don’t care who wins?
And yes, what about Pinochet? I didn’t include him in my original comment because he wasn’t nearly as bad as Batista or Somoza, but he was no angel, so were we right to support him against the communist Allende? I think we were, but apparently you don’t.
millhouse re: 5:16 pm
you are correct when you say..hey we have to vote between 2 stinkers…no argument
and yeah If I couldnt sit it out then sure Edwards over Duke
but we are not forced to vote and not voting also serves as a number to show dissatisfaction ( or laziness to those that care to see it that way)
and I would have voted CS in the nyc election ..b/c to me..its not a wasted vote..its a show of I care and not for the 2 main turks
come onnnnn
all communistnazis are bad Pinochet batista pelosi schmuer etc
millhouse re: 5:08 pm
I take it you now agree with me that this system (RCV, STV, IRV, or whatever you want to call it) is right and fair, and it should have been implemented at all levels.
HOW DARE YOU!!!!
:). no way and you know it
I figured you didn’t. But if you don’t then how can you say that the “rigging” is the fact that it wasn’t implemented for the general election?
Minneapolis decline: Gradually, then suddenly.
I’m just surprised that Fetid and his corrupt Somali brothers couldn’t cheat their way to victory. Now it’s a slow death for Minneapolis instead of a quick one.
their english wasnt good enough
Fateh looked like the bad guy in Captain Phillips. A real odd ball of a person…Superficial, yes, but true. I said what I said.
TY Mary.
I’d grudgingly call this a copper lining for Tuesday’s election results, certainly isn’t a silver lining. Minneapolis did at least reject the oddball commie immigrant but in doing so retained the soy boy socialist who let the mob run basically unchecked.
In related news, the city of Seattle had as a choice for mayor a very progressive liberal and a free range radical socialist. (BTW, all politics in Seattle is a contest between very progressive liberals and free range radical socialists.) While it was close, the mayoral office remains in the hands of a progressive liberal which means that while any recovery of Seattle will continue to be halting it will not collapse. On the other hand, the city attorney who thinks enforcing the law is important, that person is being replaced by a person who thinks that the highest priority for a city attorney is to obstruct the enforcement of federal law – that is doing everything to thwart the DOJ because of OrangeManBad.