I got this from the Minnesota Voters Alliance – the group pushing back against the Instant Runoff Voting scam:
A public hearing is scheduled for April 21 regarding the Commission’s consideration of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and will be held at 7:00 at the Battle Creek Community Center; 75 S. Winthrop. This is a PUBLIC hearing at which we will present the many reasons the IRV referendum question should not be considered as a Charter Commission matter. The public is invited and may address the Commission. The Minnesota Voters Alliance will advance 3 general reasons for its opposition to Charter Commissions consideration of IRV;
1. IRV is not a new idea and its purported benefits will not survive scrutiny of the claims made its supporters. While it is always temping and somewhat entertaining to think that something new is better, compromising our individual absolute right of our vote to count must not be considered.
2. The one person – one vote practice is the only way to guarantee fairness to the individual voter. All other ranked choice and preferential schemes violate this basic voter guarantee.
3. The City would be better served if the Commission delayed further consideration of the matter until the law suit challenging the proposed scheme in Minneapolis has worked its way through the courts and obtained a final ruling.
IRV is being pushed by the radical left – which is the political mainstream in Saint Paul. And I find it odd that some of the same people that preach suspicion of electronic voting (rightly so!) are the biggest supporters of IRV, which will require even more-complex, less-auditable, more error-prone, more jiggerable software than electronic winner-takes-all voting!
I can not make it to the meeting – but I hope you can.
IRV is being pushed by the radical left
The ends justify the means. Their agenda is FAR too important in their eyes, to be constrained by such antiquated ideas as the rule of law.
“IRV is being pushed by the radical left”
So as an opponent of IRV, I am not part the radical left?
I would just add that after the butterfly ballot fiasco in 2000 and FL-13 ballot design that cost Dem Christine Jennings a seat in Congress in 2006, any Democrat who votes to make the ballot more complicated should have their head examined.
Thanks for the notice.
“2. The one person – one vote practice is the only way to guarantee fairness to the individual voter. All other ranked choice and preferential schemes violate this basic voter guarantee.”
Says them (and you), but this is nonsense – and you offer no proof of this point other than the comment itself, which is no proof. Each voter gets a choice of ranking, no different than you’ve ranked things in votes/surveys you’ve done yourself – judicial voting is OFTEN done this way to select a number of candidates from a larger number. Bottom line- if your choice wins, then your subsequent rankings are ignored. If there is a plurality, then the rankings are used, yours, and everyone elses. The profoundness of the illogic of the claim that this is fundamentally unfair is without bounds, and you should know better. I think someone is striving to say that giving someone a second chance is unfair, but so long as EVERYONE has that same chance, it just simply isn’t.
The bottom line is GOPers don’t like this because it makes split voting MUCH more likely to result in a GOP loss, which is a card they play on pretty often, split the ticket, win the vote – aka Nader in Florida. If this would result in GOP wins, you can bet your ass Mitch would support it kinda like he supports the Constitution, but is all fat and happy with DOJ trampeling FISA or appointing “loyal Bushies” to non-political posts – and so are many of the Lilliputians out there.
I don’t particularly like IRF, but I don’t see it as unfair either- my personal view is that you need to win the vote – if you lose to a split ticket, that’s the breaks. As Rick says, I don’t think complicating things is best. That said, there are a helluva lot of moderates who support this, your claim that this is the ‘radical left’ is just so much BS. Care to prove your claim that it’s only the radical left that’s pushing this?
Hey Bill, I don’t recall them doing this without following the law, can you point to where they’ve violated the law?
Peev:
“…I don’t think complicating things is best.”
[Engage Clown mode]
We’ll remember you said that, Peev.
[Disengage Clown mode]
“…your claim that this is the ‘radical left’ is just so much BS.”
You say the moderates (and quite a lot of them) support IRV. Can’t moderate support it and also the radical left also push it?
(Keep in mind, I’m not sure we can trust Peev to identify the radical left since he has a hard time identifying conservatives and moderate Republicans.)
There’s a saying in engineering that goes like this: simple systems have simple problems, but complicated systems have complicated problems. IRV “solves” a problem that doesn’t exist.
Badda,
Ya know bud, I try REALLY hard to not flame you like you flame me, based on our (I thought) agreement to treat each other more respectfully. Did that die ?
Certainly the radical left COULD, but the appearance here, and I think you know it full well, is that this is (only) being pushed by the extreme left – because if it was being pushed by EVERYONE – then it sure wouldn’t be an issue now would it?
I can pretty easily tell moderate Republicans from extremists. Moderates will have a free and open debate, extremists (in the manner of Hitler and Stalin both) call the middle the other extreme and breed hatred for anyone who isn’t ‘them’. I’m sure you’ve never seent that tactic here, right? Flash has commented that this is what this blog has devolved to many times, so you don’t need to take my word for it.
That said, Don Shelby is a conservative, he supports conservative positions – I didn’t say he was an extremist, but he is a conservative, and you’re right, I didn’t try to give comparatives between moderates and conservatives, because, depending on the issue and the perspective, one man’s conservative is another man’s moderate. For example, I’d say someone is a conservative who favors the ‘fairness’ tax, because, bread and butter, it’s what you conservatives are about, even if that person was pro-choice. Some one else, especially an anti-abortion zealot, would say they were a moderate. So, I guess I’ll let the person themselves say what they are, rather than dictate it to them paternalistically (as you neo-cons so often do) based on my own pre-conceived agenda, mood of the day, or emotions. So I guess, because I can’t say/know what your standards for a conservative are, I can’t tell them (moderates and conservatives) apart, BUT given that the independence party is generally looking at IRV as a win for them, I’d say they support it.
I certainly think Mitch was trying to suggest this is essentially a baby of the radical left, meaning it’s THEIR agenda, their idea.. it’s a suggestion he can’t prove, he just intimates it and hides behind the fact that he didn’t say ‘only’ when the implication was there.
That said, Don Shelby is a conservative
What color is the sky….oh forget it.
I try REALLY hard to not flame you like you flame me, based on our (I thought) agreement to treat each other more respectfully.
Why would anyone in their right mind agree to be respectful to the most unrespectful blog comment thread hijacker to emerge in the last decade? I consider it a duty and an honor to heap as much derision and scorn as is humanly possible in Peev’s direction. With each and every meandering, off-topic, never-ending, condescending, illogical, compulsively-scrawled Peev comment, my resolve is refreshed anew.
In conclusion, Peev can go eat a fart.
Peev,
If you thought I was flaming you, you’d be in for a real surprise if I turned it on, pally.
Dail back on how seriously you take yourself. Let your effing hair down and grow a spine.
I just said we can’t really trust your judgement on what is a conservative. One, based on your claim that Shelby considers himself to be a conservative (and that you don’t bat an eye on that idea), and also because you claim Stalin and Hitler were extreme conservatives.
You cannot be trusted as your judgement is extremely flawed… and you wouldn’t know a conservative if one jumped up on licked you on the ass.
Now, you can get all bent out of shape because I’m “flaming you”, but you really ought to crack open a book, or actually ask some real conservatives questions, have a real conversation with conservatives, or actually read (and try to comprehend) posts from conservative blogs.
By the way… what deal did we make and what exactly did we say? I’m not saying we didn’t say something… I just don’t know what you think I said.
See Arthur in the bakery on Maurice’s judgement of creampuffs.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0120823/quotes
Don Shelby is to the right of Michael Moore. He still isn’t a conservative.
Mitch Berg is to the left of Ann Coulter. That doesn’t make him a liberal.
And in spite of his claims and attempts, Peev is not objective. That’s all, Peev.
If that’s what it takes to skin your knee, you ought to… I don’ tknow. Madonn’, it’s only a skinned knee. Get over yourself.
Get over yourself.
For Peev, that would be like scaling the Everest of egos.
Oh, he lightened up once before… but we’ll see if lightning will strike twice.
Badda, I’m far more light-hearted than you, Mitch, and every other extremist righty, combined… your claims not withstanding.
The point Badda, is that if ANYONE needs to lighten up, it’s your whole crowd. You guys are ready willing and able to tell EVERYONE and ANYONE how to live, what’s right, what’s not, except when those rules are used on you, THEN you get incensed, start calling everyone every name under the sun, and invoke all sorts of smear.
I think many of you guys are mostly harmless jokes, but it sure would be nice if rather than preaching hate all the time, we looked for a solution. Please note the number of times I’ve offered suggestions of comprimise, and the number of times each and every one of them has been met with insult, scorn, condescension, and contempt. So please, lighten up??.. many of you live in such a deep dark hole of seething hate, that such comments to me invoke only a grin, but sure, I’ll go worry about lightening up….(sigh)
As for ‘deals’ – oh a while back I suggested we try to stick to issues and leave the childishness to pantywastes like Yoss – you appeared to agree.
So, back to that, Badda, do you dispute that Mitch was trying to give the impresson that this is a manifestation of the far left? If not, why even bring up that it could be supported by moderates AND the left? Seriously, please try to frame questions which are meant for intelligetn debate. Clearly I can grasp that the moderates AND the left can support it – that was never the point, now was it. On the other hand, deflecting the issue into something it isn’t – namely that it’s really just a manifestation of the left, when such proof doesn’t exist, and then trying to cover it with semantics, now THAT’s ignoring the basic premise. Let’s try to stick to adult discussions – I mean that – I know you probably would prefer it, so let’s go there, ok?
If you think this is all ‘too serious’ then my reply is, seriously, Mitch and the rest of the GOPers only care about this because it makes them winning elections more risky. I contend there is no evidence Mitch wouldn’t support this if it meant the GOP was more likely to win. We’ve seen some ballot rigging which other than a very rare oblique objection, I’ve not seen Mitch raise a finger to stop or a voice to speak about. We’ve seen abuse after abuse from the White House – including the FAA colluding with the airlines resulting in safety violations that have grounded hundreds of American Airlines flights.. nary a peep from Berg.. So, as we ‘lighten up’ let’s for just a moment take the time to realize all of this bitching about IRV is just so much need to lighten up, because Mitch and other neo-cons, if the shoe were on the other foot, wouldn’t give a crap.
You’re getting squeezed by the system… you’ve done it to others, it’s time for you to ‘lighten up.’
Badda,
I didn’t claim Stalin was a conservative, please read what I wrote again. Frankly, neither was Hitler, but both were extremists.. What I said was that the extremes attack the middle, as Hitler and Stalin both did..
Goodness.
And Chuck, who’s yardstick are we to use in assigning political affiliation if we don’t use the person’s themselves?
I get that you don’t like anyone to the left of Mitch, and I don’t, for a moment agree with the premise that Mitch is meaningfully to the left of Coulter.. he certainly isn’t quite the hate-monger, but on points other than abortion and capital punishement (i.e. those things which the courts will decide anyway), he’s absolutely in step. Coulter’s rather vapid understanding of policy isn’t Berg’s fault – and so there are things on which she is either a. out to lunch or b. far out to lunch, but on the key issues, she and Berg are generally in agreement. Her rhetoric is vastly more offensive – but that’s not her political position – that’s just her incipid vile nature sneaking through.
Contrasting Shelby to Moore is a lark.. Is it that you really think that there is as little distance between Shelby and Moore as there is between Coulter and Berg? If so, that’s sad, and if not, then don’t use the analogy. Shelby may be right of Arlen Spectre (sic) – or he may be left – and if that makes him ‘not a conservative’ in the eyes of ultra-conservatives, so be it, but that’s just your opinion.
Badda, btw – just a thought – on the political scale 1 being Strom Thurmond in his younger days, 100 being Che Guevera, I’m about a 55.. I suspect you’re about a 10, maybe a 6. But, you think I’M not objective? I’ll let logic fill that out .. the extremist claims the middle is the left, while the middle seeks to find a comprimise between extremes.. look at the history of these discussions… I point out hypocrisy, you all insult and deny or claim it’s a ‘technicality’.. ok Badda.. maybe your yardstick of ‘objective’ needs recalibrating.
Just to prove my point..
1. I oppose gun control
2. I support capital punishment IF the guilt of the accused can be established AND it’s not a crime of passion/rage.
3. I generally oppose late-term abortion in all forms except to save the life of the mother
4. I oppose all gender or race based quotas
5. I steadfastly oppose expansion of federal rights upon states except in exigent circumstances (I pretty much agree with Jefferson, however)
6. I also oppose giving huge tax breaks to corporations or for that matter the ultra-wealthy, they’ve been disasterously bad for this country as the rich(and therefore powerful) have reacted to those changes to seek to control a much larger share of profits (and have been successful) – leading to flat wages (among other causes), record deficits, and the upside-down ethics of modern US businesses
7. I strongly support fiscal responsibility in government, including not running a huge debt to fight a stupid war done pre-emptively not to stop Al Qaeda (according to Doug Feith) – but rather to stop Hussien – how dumb .. as if Hussien was actually a threat – and oh by the way, that means that the war we’ve been fighting was fought on a lie.
8. I oppose affirmative action and always will. As long as you allow people to counter-discriminate, complaints of discrimination are hypocrisy.
In short Badda, I’m pretty well in the middle, whereas, you aren’t. But sure, I’m not objective.
My God. Peev has sure been stroking his ego at SitD today. Must be spring fever or something.
In conclusion, Peev can still go eat a fart.
More radical elements have a lot of influence on process of picking the party delegates who 1) choose the nominee, 2)choose the party’s officers, and 3) determine the party platform.
The only reason for IRV is to make radical elements more viable in the general election. Seems un-American to me.
Oh, Madonn’… the only way to respond to Peev is with a blog post of my own.
Efforting…
Not a great effort, but it is a response:
http://baddablogger.blogspot.com/2008/04/peev-you-ignorant-slut.html
I suspect he won’t respond to my question… but part of that is because (to paraphrase Peev), “it’s a suggestion he can’t prove,” in part because he’s not objective… that and he isn’t using proof.
You guys are ready willing and able to tell EVERYONE and ANYONE how to live, what’s right, what’s not, except when those rules are used on you, THEN you get incensed, start calling everyone every name under the sun, and invoke all sorts of smear.
The left OWNS the patent on smear campaigns. Puh-leeze.
And being moderate or in the middle doesn’t make you any more or less objective than Michael Moore or Ann Coulter.
And being moderate ALSO doesn’t do anything to diminish your obsessive BDS. If anything, claiming you hold quite a few conservative ideals/opinions/viewpoints makes your BDS-fueled ranting even more (for lack of a better term at this moment) thoughtless and ridiculous.