Contrary to Robert Goldman, IRV is not just a means of political self
expression. It is merely a means for a voter to say: "This candidate, A, is my
first choice but if he or she doesn't win, count my vote for B. It is only
what we would do if we had a series of run off elections until a candidate
achieved over 50% of the vote. Elected officials being chosen by over 50% of
the voters is, I presume, a democratic value and not just a means of political
self expression. At least under IRV, an elected official will, in some sense,
have been selected by over 50% of the voters, even if the selection meant that
official received the most first, second, third choices, etc. A voter who
really wanted Nader but who was afraid of Bush winning could vote for Nader as
his or her first choice, then Kerry as the second choice, etc without having to
worry about their vote backfiring by electing Bush. If dismissing IRV as "a
means of political self expression" is the strongest argumen
t against it, IRV has won the day.
To quibble about the cost when conducting elections is a minor item in the
list of government expenses and it is to let concern over a comparatively small
matter distract us from the benefits of a vastly more important change.
However, computers counting up the first, second, third, fourth, etc choices
makes the expense much less than it would be if we had to conduct a series of
run off elections.
However, I disagree with Jesse Mortensen in that I consider IRV within each
council ward superior to proportional representation in one large, city wide
ward. There is the advantage of the Council member being nearer to the people
who elected her or him, as nearer to being a neighbor of the voters. I
presume keeping elected officials closer to being neighbors of the voters who
elected them is a Green value. Minorities find it easier to achieve
representation on City Councils when the elections take place in wards where
they are concentrated rather than City wide. There are probably a number of
south Minneapolis wards where a Green could be elected if the voters did not
have to worry about throwing the election to a Republican.
I can illustrate my objection to citywide, at large elections by asking why
don't you carry at large elections to their logical extreme and elect the U.S.
Congress at large. People would be even less likely to know their
Congressional representatives than they do now. I know we could conduct
elections as they do in some European countries and have the parties present a
numbered list of candidates and, if a given party received a given percentage
of the vote, they would receive that percentage of the seats in Congress. But
still, fewer people would know their Congresspeople than they do now and there
are states where a Green or minority would have a better chance of being
elected than if they had to run at large nationally.
Robert Halfhill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com
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
