We should just outlaw all the parties other than the DP and RP. Then we should assign each district _permanently_ to the the DP or RP party in power there on December 31 2005. Then we should make each seat permanant for the incumbent, and hereditary for the incumbent's family. Then we should pass laws granting these incumbents/families total immunity from prosecution, no matter how much they steal from public resources.
Do this, and all those silly little problems about "democracy" and "fairness" and "justice" can be avoided, while we get on with the business of making enough money to keep the rich living in the style to which they are accustomed. If not the above, then we should leave everything just as it is - why, we have reached heaven on earth, and everything is the best possible in this best of all possible worlds. Others may call it insufferable corruption, but I call it perfection, and call upon us to reject all so-called "improvements". Others may call me a pig-headed idiot, but I call myself a plenipotentiary of obfuscatory tinselectomy. --David Shove tottering asymtotically in Roseville On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Steve Cross wrote: > Jeanne Massey said: > > >The mayoral race this year underscores the value of IRV - Instant Runoff > >Voting - which would eliminate the low-turn out primary runoff and allow > >voters to rank the candidates in order of preference at the higher turn-out > >general election. > > > Despite the enthusiasm for IRV in some quarters, I'd again state that > there is an obvious flaw that the proponents are ignoring. The > proponents clearly assume that everyone who votes in an IRV election > would find multiple candidates acceptable and it would be merely a > matter of providing the order of preference. And then, with everyone > providing their preferences, "voila!", by the miracle of mathematics, we > have a winner. > > But I would state that I, and perhaps a very high majority of voters, > would only find one candidate acceptable and would not vote for any > beyond my first-place pick. I would do so because I don't find the > political philosophies or opinions of other candidates acceptable on any > level. I don't want my vote going to any of the others even if my > candidate finishes a miserable fifth in the election. I believe that > any voter who seriously compares most candidates in an election would > come to the same conclusion. So, what happens then in an IRV election > if, say, 90% of the voters only vote for their first choice? Well, > apparently those 10% of the voters who don't see "a dimes worth of > difference" between candidates would decide the election. And, I'd > argue, that those 10% who would decide the race are probably the most > ill-informed voters in the election. > > Even if it turns out that 90% of the voters would be willing to vote for > a second or third choice, I'd still argue that when voters don't see > much difference in the candidates so that they don't reject some > candidates but just assign a priority are still not making an informed > decision. > > And if my particular party happened to have, say, three candidates, the > voters for any those candidates would split their votes enabling a > single candidate of another party whose supporters bullet-voted to win > in a walk combining IRV elections with strong party discipline. > > And anyone who currently supports a third party should recognize that > IRV elections is really just a ruse to artificially recapture your vote > for one of the two major parties. > > IRV elections is a bad idea. > > Steve Cross > Prospect Park > REMINDERS: > 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. > If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn > E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
