I have to hope the lawsuit fails, for it is attacking ranked choice, which is a good way to give voters power.
Could wish for attacking weaknesses of IRV, for it is too ready to declare undeserving candidates as winners. Related to this, I question whether the many claiming to understand IRV speak from ACTUALLY understanding its weaknesses. DWK On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:12:04 -0700 Kathy Dopp wrote: > - > What do you think of this lawsuit? > Kathy > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Raging Grannie (Wanda B) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Dec 22, 2007 8:19 PM > Subject: FYI - FairVote MN Responds to Lawsuit Against IRV > > > > > go to <http://fairvotemn.org>FairVoteMN.org if you have trouble viewing > this newsletter > \"FairVote > > [] > > > For immediate release > > Contact: Kelly O’Brien, > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED], 612-227-9102 > Jeanne Massey, > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED], 763-807-2550 > FairVote Minnesota Responds to Lawsuit Against Instant Runoff Voting > > Minneapolis, MN (December 20, 2007)—FairVote Minnesota, a nonprofit, > nonpartisan organization leading the effort to institute instant runoff > voting in Minnesota, is issuing a response to news of a lawsuit brought > against the City of Minneapolis and various elected officials by an Eden > Prairie-based organization that is opposed to the pending use of instant > runoff voting (a.k.a. single transferable vote or ranked choice voting) in > the City of Minneapolis. > > The lawsuit alleges that instant runoff voting (IRV) is unconstitutional > and violates the principle of “one person, one vote.†Additionally, the > plaintiffs contend that voters won’t understand how to vote using instant > runoff voting. > > FairVote Minnesota presents the following facts as guidance in the > discussion of this lawsuit. > > 1. IRV has been upheld on the principle of "one person, one vote" in legal > challenges following its adoption in Cambridge, Mass. (Moore v. Election > Commissioners of Cambridge (1941) and in Ann Arbor, Mich. (Stephenson v. > Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers (1975). > > Sources: > <http://www.rwinters.com/docs/moore.htm>http://www.rwinters.com/docs/moore.htm; > http://www.fairvote.org/library/statutes/legal/irv.htm > > 2. No legal challenges are threatening instant runoff voting anywhere it's > in use—San Francisco, Calif.; Cambridge, Mass.; Burlington, Vermont; Takoma > Park, Maryland and Cary and Hendersonville, North Carolina. > > 3. Election exit polls in cities using IRV all show voters in overwhelming > numbers not only understand IRV, but prefer it to the old way of voting. > The share of voters indicating they understood IRV well or very well the > first time using IRV: San Francisco – 87%, Burlington – 89%; Takoma Park – > 88%; 8%; Cary – 95%; Hendersonville – 86%. > <http://www.fairvotemn.org//sites/fairvotemn.org/files/Exit%2520Survey%2520Summary_2007_FINAL.doc>http://www.fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/Exit%20Survey%20Summary_2007_FINAL.doc > > 4. As discussed in an opinion piece in the September 30, 2007 Star Tribune > by attorney and professor David Schultz, the 1915 legal case cited in the > lawsuit, Brown v. Smallwood, was not about instant runoff voting. It was > about a voting method that effectively gave Duluth citizens two votes in > some situations, a clear violation of both the Minnesota and United States > constitutions. The concern of that decision was based on what the courts > now call the "one person, one vote" standard. IRV does not violate this > standard because it does not give anyone two votes. It simply allows voters > to rank their preferred candidates. > > 5. Schultz further explained that since 1915 American democracy has > matured. The political process now seeks to provide more choices for voters > than it once did, as evidenced by numerous ballot access court decisions > that have made it possible for third party candidates such as Jesse Ventura > to run for office. The courts, mindful of voters’ demands for more > options when voting, have properly responded to the demand of citizens in > interpreting election laws to empower and not limit options on election day. > > 6. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs advocate to keep low-turnout municipal > primaries and to make them partisan to ensure all parties are represented > on the ballot. However, IRV shares the goal of ensuring choice on the > ballot. In fact, it makes sure that all candidates appear on the general > election ballot, regardless of party. With IRV, no candidate can be > eliminated in a low-turnout election whose chances might be different in a > general election. > > The following are suggested sources for further information on instant > runoff voting. > > Prof. David Schultz, Hamline University. 651-523-2858 > Rob Richie, executive director, FairVote (national). 301-270-4616 > Tony Solgard, former president, FairVote Minnesota. 612-242-5642 > Jeanne Massey, executive director, FairVote Minnesota. 612-850-6897 > Council Member Elizabeth Glidden, chair of Minneapolis elections committee. > 612-673-2208 > Steven Hill, director, Political Reform Program, New America Foundation. > 415-810-2701, or office 415-665-5044 > Municipal Voting System Reform: Overcoming the Legal Obstacles by Tony > Solgard and Paul Landskroener in Bench & Bar of Minnesota, October 2002: > www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2002/oct02/voting.htm > <http://www.fairvotemn.org>www.fairvotemn.org > www.fairvote.org (national) > > ### > > ACTION: WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR > > Let Star Tribune and Pioneer Press readers know that Instant Runoff Voting > is constitutional and why you support it! > > Send letters to Star Tribune: > > By e-mail:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > By mail: Editorial Department, Star Tribune, 425 Portland Ave., > Minneapolis, MN 55488 > By fax: 612-673-4359 > > Articles: > <http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/12665581.html>Rochelle Olson: > Instant runoff voting has its first hurdle - a lawsuit > <http://www.startribune.com/local/12659276.html>Steve Karnowski: Lawsuit > challenges Minneapolis instant runoff voting system > > Send letters to Pioneer Press: > > By e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > By mail: Pioneer Press, 345 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 > By fax: (651) 228-5564. > > Articles: > <http://www.twincities.com//ci_7773789?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com>Steve > Karnowski: Lawsuit challenges Minneapolis instant runoff voting system > > \"Make > > <http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=75%20Rev%20Dr%20Martin%20Luther%20King%20Jr%20Blvd&city=Saint%20Paul&state=MN&zipcode=55155%2d1605&country=US&geodiff=1>Donate > Now! > [] > > > <http://www.fairvotemn.org//contact/contact.html>FairVote MN Privacy Policy > <http://fairvotemn.org>FairVote Minnesota > PO Box 19440 > Minneapolis, MN 55419-0440 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (763) 807-2550 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
