[Grovenet] Reflections on Minority Rule

[allnutt]

Steven
I do remember when it came into being.  It was a time before vote by mail 
and people were ticked off that measures got passed with low voter turn 
outs.  But that was when you had to go to the polls stand in line and make 
arrangements to do this on a Tuesday.
Low voter turn outs
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven" <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Reflections on Minority Rule


> Boy, you guys complain about the double majority. But does no one
> remember WHY it came into being in the first place?
> It was to stop the overzealous authorities who were misusing their power.
> I rather like that it requires the vote of a majority of the electorate.
> Only one fifth of the people in FG voted for the measure. Why should we
> have it with such a minority wanting it.
> I am all for purging the voter registration. Making folks pass a voters
> test. Many other such things.
> But keep the power in the people, not the minority. That helps keep us a
> democracy.
>
> allnutt wrote:
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>