[Grovenet] Reflections on Minority Rule

[Allen Warren]

Hmmm . . . maybe we use the initiative process and create a Ballot Measure?
 
Allen Warren



----- Original Message ----
From: Ed Davie <edavie at verizon.net>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:04:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Reflections on Minority Rule


Great idea!
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Morelli
  To: Forest Grove local interests list
  Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Reflections on Minority 
Rule


  If we are to have a 50% vote requirement, 
perhaps we should ensure
  that the voter rolls are purged every two years 
following the general
  election.  Everyone who has not voted at least 
once in the two years
  and everyone who has died/moved is removed from 
the voter rolls.

  David

  On May 16, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Jeff Cooper wrote:

  > According to today's Oregonian the Public 
Safety levy will fail.
  > Please note the following statistics:
  > Partial returns show the levy passing by a 3 
to 1 margin.
  > The measure will fail because of a 44.1% 
turnout (50% required).
  >
  > This election shows the folly and difficulty 
of the 50% law.
  > First, 44% truly reflects a strong turnout for 
an election with
  > truly only one issue (only one of the school 
board vacancies were
  > contested and indeed a large number of site 
council positions had
  > no candidate at all).
  >
  > Some may argue that this 3-1 margin shows 
overwhelming support for
  > the levy, but the election set-up skews 
results.  Many voters may
  > have purposefully stayed away from the 
election because they knew
  > that if they voted "no" they might have 
*helped the levy pass."
  > Simple math shows the following:
  >
  > 8,712 Registered voters @ 44.1% turnout = 3842 
votes cast
  > 3 to 1 ratio of yea to nay = 2882 yeah and 960 
nay
  > Assuming that all the yea voters voted (they 
have to vote in to
  > pass the levy), if another 514 residents cast 
their votes (assuming
  > all nays), then the measure would have passed. 
Indeed, it would
  > have taken almost 2000 more nay votes or 5764 
total votes with a
  > whopping 67% turnout to vote down the levy.
  >
  > This leads to my following conclusions which 
may have been
  > discussed before,  and are by no means the 
last word on the subject
  > but I feel are valid:
  > 1. Single issue ballots should not come to 
referendum if a 50% rule
  > is in order.
  > 2. The democratic process in general is 
undermined when not voting
  > is more powerful than voting.  As noted above, 
if 500 more voters
  > voted nay, the levy would have passed.
  > 3. The law requiring a 50% turnout should be 
repealed.
  >
  > Yes, I'm a transplanted Berkeley liberal, but 
I feel that this
  > issue transcends party lines and strikes 
directly at the
  > fundamentals of democracy.  My own feelings 
about the levy
  > notwithstanding, I'm appalled that we live 
within a system that
  > allows an overwhelming 3 to 1 *voted* mandate 
to go down to defeat
  > in this way.  A system which discourages 
people from voting should
  > not be continued in this country.
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  > Jeff Cooper
  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com
  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/