[Grovenet] Reflections on Minority Rule

[allnutt]

When you contemplate veto power, the image that usually comes to mind is a
wiser authority that will evaluate a situation and make rational decision 
about when to stop upcoming actions.
This usually brings to mind a parent or a president or somebody with some 
experience and thoughtfulness.

How do we explain to people who don't live in a democracy, how great it is 
here in Oregon when we give veto power to couch potatoes, people who don't 
live here anymore and yes, even some dead people because they don't turn in 
their ballot.  Is it any wonder that there is some skepticism when we shout 
'hey, democracy and voting will make thing all better!'

As far as the double majority goes, as I understand it the OR legislature is 
working a putting a bill to the voters that would keep the double majority 
requirement for truly small time elections, but for the traditional ones 
that happen every year in May and Sept (I believe it was Sept - don't quote 
me on that one) the double majority will no longer apply.  It should not be 
a surprise to voters that there are elections in May/Sept when they happen 
every year and the ballot comes to your box with your own name on it in an 
oversized envelope and color splashed all over it.  Your utility providers 
are not trying to sneak a bill on you when it comes regularly and in the 
mail. Neither are the elections folks.  It is no longer a matter of faceless 
bureaucrats trying to slip one past the people, even though it never was 
really about that either.

Either way, purging the rolls, making regular elections exempt, or it could 
be even tinkering with the formula - instead of 50% of registered voters it 
could be 50% of the # of voters who voted in the last presidential election, 
which would also have the effect of eliminating the power of the no longer 
living here or dead or non voters- something will have to change because the 
current system is inherently unfair to people who pay attention and vote. 
It seems like a recipe for disaster over the long run to give people who 
don't care or who aren't here more power than those here who do care. 
There's nothing wrong with an experiment to see if it makes things better 
but when the flaws start causing damage it is best to change course.

Katie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Morelli" <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
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
>