[Grovenet] Reflections on Minority Rule

[Ed Davie]

The only reason it was a minority was because 
people didn't vote!
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steven
  To: Forest Grove local interests list
  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