[Grovenet] Reflections on Minority Rule

Thu May 17 16:24:33 PDT 2007

Back in the late '90's, at a statewide gathering of city councilors 
and mayors, I was able to ask Don McIntyre, in a public forum, if he 
thought it wouldn't have been appropriate and fair for the double 
majority rule to itself been held to the double majority standard. 
Yes, it was a rhetorical question.

He sputtered out something about how it wasn't the same thing at 
all...and then terminated the open Q and A session without really 
answering the question. It was quite evident that he did not enjoy 
the experience of being hoisted on his own petard. Oh, well.

Deena

At 02:59 PM 5/17/2007, you wrote:
>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
>_______________________________________________
>GroveNet mailing list
>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet