Concerns
Bob Collins at Polinaut notes the results of an MPR poll on voter concerns in the upcoming elections.
The ranking of first choices is as follows, for both federal and state races:
SENATE AND HOUSE
Republican rankings (first choice)
1. National security
2. Abortion
3. Taxes
4. Immigration
5. War in Iraq
6. Federal budget
7. Health care
8. Social security
9. Energy
10.Patriot Act
Democrats (first choice)
1. War in Iraq
2. Health care
3. Federal budget
4. Global warming
5. National resources/environment
6. Ethics
7. Energy
8. Abortion
9. Early childhood education
10. Higher education
STATE-LEVEL
Democrats
1. K-12 funding
2. Health care
3. Early childhood education
4. Transportation
5. Natural resources/environment
6. Higher education
7. Gay marriage
8. Energy
9. Budget
10.Local government aid
Republicans
1. Taxes
2. Gay marriage
3. Abortion
4. Budget
5. K-12 funding
6. Health care
7. Crime
8. Immigratin [sic]
9. Higher education
10. Stadiums
None of those are terribly surprising,
Well, some of them are.
It's interesting that "Gay marriage" turned up on the Democrat list, but not the GOPer one. [UPDATE: DOH! Yes it does! Friends don't let friends blog without coffee] It kind of kills off 2003's "crisis that will destroy the GOP", I'd suspect. That being said, I get the sense that the issue is not directed inward at the party any more.
Interesting, I think, that Immigration doesn't get on the list at any level with Democrats. More on that later.
Collins goes on to note:
...keep in mind that's just a list of what people's first choice is. When you drill down a bit and look at other issues they're interested in, it gets a bit more fascinating. Atop that list is electoral reform.
Ugh.
Whenever government talks about "reform", I get nervous. They did such a wonderful job with campaign finances.
Granted, government doesn't always screw up - welfare reform was a good idea, one that Minnesota should try someday. But can Minnesota "reform" its electoral system without bollixing things completely?
One of the bills that's languished up at the Capitol this year -- and gotten no spotlight at all -- is one that would reduce the size of the Legislature and make it so some members of the Senate are up for election every other year.
The Senate bit is good; I'm undecided on reducting the Legislature, but can be convinced.
There's also the possibility of instant run-off voting.
Ugh.
Posted by Mitch at
April 20, 2006 07:16 AM
| TrackBack
"It's interesting that "Gay marriage" turned up on the Democrat list, but not the GOPer one. "
Eh, item 2 on the Republican list(state level)?
Posted by: Loren at April 20, 2006 08:05 AMDeath to IRV. At last an issue we can agree on.
Posted by: RickDFL at April 20, 2006 08:43 AMInstant run-off elections has got to be one of the most idiotic ideas of all time. Why, you ask?
Look at the results, everytime one of the loopy third parties runs a "sample ballot". The Independence Party loons did it a couple years ago with their "mascot". The Greenie-enviro-commies did it at the State Fair with veggies.
Each and every time, fewer votes were counted at the end of the exercise than when they started. As in...for example...400 people voted, but only 375 votes remained on the final ballot after "lesser" candidates were eliminated. When you eliminated candidates, you slowly eliminate voters. Its a fact.
Remember...these Greenie boobs are the same ones screaming "Every Voter Counts!" and bitching about Diebold machines not counting votes properly. But they are just fine-and-dandy with disenfranchising voters if it serves their needs.
Anyone who supports IRV is just showing a lack of intelligence. Its that simple.
Posted by: Dave at April 20, 2006 08:51 AMThe main problem I see with IRV is that it is contrary to our system of government, which awards winners and first place. (Hence, why third-parties like it so much.) The best example of how screwy IRV can be is if we applied it to the 2002 race for governor. Pawlenty won with 44% - not enough to prevent IRV. Moe took second with 36.5%, and Penny third with 16.2% So, under IRV, Penny drops and everyone who voted for Penny is relegated to their second choice. Let's assume that at least 83 percent of Penny voters placed Moe second. On the second count, Moe would get his original 36.5% AND 84% of Penny's 16.2, or an additional 13.6%. Moe then has 50.1% of the vote, and we have a different governor.
Now, I imagine that a fair number of Minnesotans (mostly DFLers) would enjoy this result. But the simple fact remains that the person who received the most first-place votes (Pawlenty) did not win.
Dave also brings up a great point - voters who only vote for one candidate (and do not rank their second, third, etc. choices) will be disenfranchised as the "balloting" progresses.
(I note - simply so someone does not throw this in my face - that IRV is currently being pushed only for municipalities races: Minneapolis City Council, etc. But the same principle holds true - the person with the most first place votes could lose.)
Posted by: minnelect at April 20, 2006 10:52 AMThe main problem I see with IRV is that it is contrary to our system of government, which awards winners and first place. (Hence, why third-parties like it so much.) The best example of how screwy IRV can be is if we applied it to the 2002 race for governor. Pawlenty won with 44% - not enough to prevent IRV. Moe took second with 36.5%, and Penny third with 16.2% So, under IRV, Penny drops and everyone who voted for Penny is relegated to their second choice. Let's assume that at least 83 percent of Penny voters placed Moe second. On the second count, Moe would get his original 36.5% AND 84% of Penny's 16.2, or an additional 13.6%. Moe then has 50.1% of the vote, and we have a different governor.
Now, I imagine that a fair number of Minnesotans (mostly DFLers) would enjoy this result. But the simple fact remains that the person who received the most first-place votes (Pawlenty) did not win.
Dave also brings up a great point - voters who only vote for one candidate (and do not rank their second, third, etc. choices) will be disenfranchised as the "balloting" progresses.
(I note - simply so someone does not throw this in my face - that IRV is currently being pushed only for municipalities races: Minneapolis City Council, etc. But the same principle holds true - the person with the most first place votes could lose.)
Posted by: minnelect at April 20, 2006 10:53 AMminnelect:
Actually, your scenerio would probably not have happened, with regards to Pawlenty. You forget that the idiotic IRV program would drop voters to the second choices in the Green or Constipation or Libertarians first. Those votes certainly could have pushed Pawlenty over 50%, but who knows. Penny's votes would probably never have been switched, as the odd-ball party counts could have solved the problem first.
Furthermore, knowing how many people put forth the effort to know what candidates stand for...not to mention the fact that we have to vote for Soil Conservation officers and unopposed judges...does anyone really think voters are going to have the patience or desire to sit there and rank all the candidates? Come on...be realistic.
Of course, the supporters of this silly idea are a bunch of losers who couldn't win an election as a party of their lives depended on it.
Posted by: Dave at April 20, 2006 11:23 AM"But the simple fact remains that the person who received the most first-place votes (Pawlenty) did not win."
Of course, in the case now the winner is voted for by fewer than half of voters (leaving out those who didn't vote at all). Which also doesn't seem quite right.
"knowing how many people put forth the effort to know what candidates stand for ... does anyone really think voters are going to have the patience or desire to sit there and rank all the candidates"
Is Dave another liberal elitist saying Americans are too dumb to vote?
Posted by: DiscordianStooge at April 23, 2006 05:32 AM