On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Lee R Eklund wrote: > Although I find the IRV concept has a certain amount of validity, I fell it > is unduly complicated for the vast majority of voters. A voter arrives at > the poll to vote for the candidate of his or her choice, not the lesser of > evils.
IRV is 1 for your favorite, 2 for your second favorite, etc. It is not lesser-evil voting, which is what we have now. > > On a state wide basis, IRV is dead at the legislature. In my years of > lurking the corridors of the capitol, IRV has as much interest as a > voluntary root canal. Bottom line, there is no advantage for the D's or the > R's to do this. That may be, NOW. There is however a BIG advantage for small parties in breaking the present unfair system and getting IRV. The way they can do it is to run as hard as possible in as many races as possible, winning the margin between the DP and RP, and cause the favorite to LOSE. SPOIL their expectations. Make them furious that they can't have their seat back no questions asked. When they calm down they will FINALLY, under great duress, vote for IRV in order to get it back. If third parties are not willing to do this, not willing to piss off RP and DP, not willing to spoil, they might as well forget having much influence - just shut down their party and do nothing or serve coffee for the DP or RP. You owe the DP and RP NOTHING, especially given the contempt and sabotage they have for third parties. It's not Minnesota nice. It's hardball politics. You will be reviled and screamed at (I as a a Green for Nader am all too familiar with it). But do you want to win, or do you want to surrender to the smug undemocratic DP/RP hacks? I say, go for the whole enchilada, or go home - be serious, or retire to dreamland. > Much to the chagrin of some of my R's, I would like to return to the > partisan ballot at all levels of government, except judges, who should be re > or unappointed every 6 years by who ever the sitting governor may be. The > partisan ballot should appeal to all anointed parties as their candidate > stands in general election. I can't approve of this at all. You seem to want to extend duopoly power down to the lowest levels, to let the hacks have all the power and freeze third parties out entirely. Then perhaps go on to gerrymander each district to be SAFE for the DP or RP - and we might as well never vote again, because every incumbent will win every race, and learn to pay little or no attention to the citizens. A perfect set-up to build a big bank account, power, a cushy job on retiring government, and thumbing your nose at the community. Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. How long will people give more and more and get less and less? Has a government that does this have right to our respect or obedience? Should we have to barf every time we think of our government? People begin to think of noncooperation and secession. --David Shove Roseville REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
