August 4, 2006
-
Single Transferable Vote
The city politics list has been disussing the push for Single Transferable Vote (a superset of IRV). The latest thread of the discussion can be viewed here.
I’ve been doing my best to do what I can to support this initiative. It
is my litmus test, my one “single issue” issue for now. Anyway, I dunno
if its tiredness, depression, or what, but I let a mild rant go today.
I try not to do those, but as long as I did, here it is. Wouldn’t want
to waste it.> Dealing with the second matter first, it should be clear that there is no
> intent to conceal the way the voting and counting works in both single-seat
> and multiple-seat races.
…
> They are NOT two systems but only ONE. There is no
> attempt to conceal two systems because there is only a single general system
> which appears much more condensed when applied to single-seat elections.Thank You!
I
have been meaning to tackle these, but I’ve been struggling in the
daily grind and haven’t managed to do anything that matters — like
defend a system of voting that I truly believe is the first step in
reshaping our city, state, and hopefully eventually nation into a
society by the people and for the people where everyone has a voice.I
would like to add to this, the concerns about the charter commission’s
objections. While I didn’t make today’s city council meeting, I made
the last one where the charter commission presented their findings.For
some reason, since the last time a serious attempt was made to bring
the idea of voting reform to the city, the charter commission appear to
be set against it. They shut down the last grass roots petition on
grounds that it violated the city charter which, of course, ultimately
led to the current charter reform movement.Why they don’t like
it, I do not know. I would conjecture that it is from a “if it aint
broke, don’t fix it” perspective which may seem valid if you’re one of
those for whom the system is not broken. For me, and many others
signing the petition asking for reform, the system IS broken.What
I DO know is that during their last presentation to the committee, much
of what was presented was skewed and some was simply incorrect. Whether
this is due to a lack of understanding, or stemmed from their
opposition, I couldn’t say.Unfortunately, I was in the throws
of illness during that last meeting and was barely coherent enough to
pay attention and to try and say what I wanted to say. If I’d been more
on the ball, I would have taken notes on many of the specifics.I
recall being shocked a number of times at how things were being
presented and what was being stated. I wish I could restate each
occurrence to this list, but the only one I can remember is this:The
presenter from the charter commission stated that in Cambridge (which,
with some mention of San Francisco and Burlington, was the primary
“existing sample” given) no election results had ever differed from the
initial winners. As people have discovered on this list, this is simply
not true.When I listened to the report (which again, felt
more like a case of opposition than an impartial report), it seemed
that the primary reason for opposition was cost. No actual problems
with the system were brought up. The primary argument was “We don’t
think it will accomplish much and it will cost a bunch of money.” One
figure I do remember calculating during the meeting – based on the cost
they listed and the number of residents of the city, the cost to me – a
taxpayer – of this reform would be under $10.Less than $10 to make my vote matter.
Less
than $10 to have a shot at spreading voting reform beyond the city
borders to the county and the state, and hopefully, someday, the nation.Compare that to what I’ll be paying for the Stadium…
And
up until now, we haven’t even been debating whether or not to do the
reform, we’re debating whether or not to let people vote on whether
they want the reform.And the primary objection by the charter commission was price? What is the price of Democracy?
…
Lets put it this way.
I do NOT feel like my vote matters. Not in this city, Not in this state, Not in this country.
If
my vote is irrelevant, if I have no voice, then I have no sense of
responsibility towards the system of authority that is in place. None.
Not to this city, Not to this state, and not to this country.I
choose to live here because I believe that Minneapolis is an island of
potential sanity in a rapidly rising ocean. This city can either stand
up and by its example show a way towards a positive future, or it can
let the waters swallow it in the storms to come.The storms that are already sweeping down upon us.
If we are to survive, we need to give every person a voice so that we can seek to unite those voices.
I
am a part of We and We are the disenfranchised. The prophets, the
heretics, the broken, the discarded, and all those who just don’t quite
fit. If you don’t let Us be with you, then We will be against you.Let Us be with you. Give Us a voice. It won’t cost much and it could do a world of good.
Voting Reform, This November, Vote Yes.
- phaedrus (Jason Goray), Minneapolis
At least I left out the explicit “Or Else”. Btw, Tell all your friends that can vote in Minneapolis: Vote YES in November.
