I try to stay out of the policy discussions, but Chuck hit a nerve...
:-)
At 1:59 PM -0400 8/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you voted for Nader in the last election, you voted for George W Bush for president. Get over it and don't do it again! But, to come up with a convoluted system that requires the average voter to make multiple choices on who they want for dog catcher would do more to send people away from the polls than any other scheme imagined.
I'm confused how one can suggest both of the following:
1) That IRV is a confusing and convoluted system of voting.
2) That our current system is less confusing - when a voting for Ralph Nader is the same as voting for George Bush.
I could just as easily argue that our current system of voting is convoluted and has been proven to send people away from the polls. After all, why should people even bother to vote, when their candidate has been declared dead and their votes declared "wasted" months ahead of the actual election. Its pretty clear, from the Nadar = Bush analogy, that the current system of voting makes it almost impossible for a third party to achieve any sustained success.
I don't know if I support IRV or not - but, I think its very unfair to suggest that the historical failure of third parties is proof that we don't need IRV. Our state has a STRONG history of supporting populist/third party movements. HOWEVER, given a system which overwhelmingly gives the advantage to the top two parties - it has been virtually impossible for those third parties to sustain any success.
a voting process that great strength is to tell the public that no matter what you do or who you vote for it doesn't matter because you might still be a winner!
I personally find this characterization of IRV to be completely unfair and off-base. IRV doesn't suggest to voters that everyone might be a winner. To the contrary, it suggests that all ideas and viewpoints are welcome in the political arena and that everyone's vote will count (whether they win or loose). It removes the concept of the "wasted" vote, which the major political parties are so eager to embrace (to maintain their own duo-olopy on power).
This is a St. Paul (or at least a local) issue, because it is in cities like St. Paul where election reform of this type is most likely to occur. Before we can conduct statewide or national elections with a new system, we need to test it at the local level. HOWEVER, the "non-partisan" or "open" primary system that we already have in St. Paul already does a great deal to level the playing field for third party candidates.
In short, I don't really think that IRV would have any impact in city wide elections in St. Paul - other than reduce or eliminate the need for our primary. However, at a state or national level it might potentially have a very dramatic and positive impact (also in legislative races).
Best wishes,
Tim Erickson Hamline Midway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
=================================================
Tim Erickson http://www.politalk.com St. Paul, MN - USA 651-643-0722
[EMAIL PROTECTED] iChat/AIM: stpaultim
=================================================
_____________________________________________
To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
