Civics -- The Breakfast of Champions!

[gnomi]

There are two or three women whom I tend to see on the bus or waiting for the bus in the morning. One of them was commuting with me this morning, so we got to talking about all sorts of things. And about two minutes before her stop came up, she asked me this morning, "So, can you explain to me what Question 4 is all about?"

Well, Brookline's ballot question 4 is all about the Community Preservation Act (the CPA). In May, Brookline Town Meeting approved bringing the CPA in front of the town's citizens (a vote required in order to be eligible for the CPA money). And so I explained -- while attempting to be as neutral on the issue as possible -- what the CPA was, why it was on the ballot, and where people could get more information. I concluded my shpiel just as the bus got to her stop, so she thanked me for the information, said she'd probably ask me to explain it again next time we see each other (probably some time later this week), and then she got off the bus.

Almost immediately, the woman sitting in the seat in front of me turned around and asked me to explain the CPA again. So I did, and this woman thanked me, saying that everything she'd seen about the CPA had confused her, and now she had a better idea of what the question was about. Almost immediatly, a guy sitting across the bus aisle from me leaned over. "So what's the deal with Question 2?" he asked.

Question 2 (a statewide question) deals with cross endorsement. In other words, a candidate could appear on the ballot under more than one party's endorsement (for example, under the Democratic Party and under a third party, such as the Green-Rainbow party). This type of voting exists in New York and Connecticut already. So I gave him a quick overview of the issue.

As I finished up the explanation, the bus pulled into the final stop, and we all headed our separate ways. I hope that these folks -- and a couple others, who looked as if they were paying attention to my explanations -- research the issues further and go and vote on 7 November.

Comments

[michelel72.livejournal.com]

Good for you! I'm glad you had the chance to enlighten a few folks.

Question 2 annoys me. As far as I can tell, all it does is exploit the known benefits of name recognition. If I can court one sane party and twelve tiny fringe psycho parties, my name appears 13 times! 530nm330hz says it allows voters to indicate why they choose a certain candidate (or at least "under what party"), but what correction could there be for the people who just don't care and pick the first occurrence of the name they want? How do people who want to vote "Libertarian" and "Green/Rainbow" with equal weight indicate that? There are better ways than violating the one name/one slot principle.

While you're answering, though, can you explain to me what possible use Question 3 would be to anybody? From my reading of the text, it just establishes a paid lobbyist who is protected from being fired for two years and even then needs 75% or some such of those he represents to dump him. I would hope there's some better argument in its favor, but I haven't found one.

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

Here's the FAQ (http://www.yeson3forkids.org/faqs/) of the Yes On 3 For Kids group.

Universal Hub (http://www.universalhub.com/node/6291) has links to groups both for and against Question 3.

[michelel72.livejournal.com]

The latter item seems more helpful, as a clearinghouse for arguments on both sides. But I'll check them both out. Thanks!

[ianrandalstrock.livejournal.com]

Is your difficulty with the issue the fact that it gives some candidates more than one line on the ballot, or that it muddies the difference between parties? Me, I have no problem with each party endorsing the same candidate; my problem is more with the parties themselves. When there was a significant difference between parties, and when party affiliation meant you knew which way a member of that party was going to vote, it was important. But today, parties are simply a means of finding lots of money and volunteers for very little effort. If the party label truly meant something, Joe Lieberman would be voting with the Democrats on every issue, or he wouldn't be in the Senate (I do so enjoy his lead in the polls even after the CT Dem Party repudiated him).

Sorry; I've hijacked your topic for my own agenda. Didn't mean to. Back to the issue, for you folks in Massachusetts: does it really matter? It seems nigh unto impossible for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican to get elected, so what's the difference if a minor party also endorses one of those candidates and gives them another line on the ballot? I know when I vote, if I truly can't choose between the candidates, or really don't like either, I'll look for a candidate who seems to show broad appeal among the minor parties (but isn't an R or D).

[michelel72.livejournal.com]

My issue is the multiple listings per ballot. If the system were changed so that it listed a candidate's name followed by all parties willing to put that person forward, I would be fine with that. Technically, even today, smaller parties can just advertise, "we're not putting anybody up; we want you to vote for Joe instead", though that's certainly less effective.

But if I want a candidate to know "why" I'm voting for him, writing or calling him would be significantly more effective, particularly since there will always be inaccuracies to the ballot counts for the reasons I previously mentioned.

What I truly want is ranked voting. The current system guarantees a two-party lock. If I could vote for whomever I truly want first, followed in order by those I could stomach progressively less, I wouldn't be "throwing away my vote". Most proposals I've seen for this would take whoever got the fewest #1 votes and allocate those ballots to their #2 choices, then again, then again, until one candidate has a majority. [i]That[/i] I would vote for.

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

Our state rep did submit a bill a few years ago to bring IRV (instant runoff voting) to the Commonwealth, but it has little support. If you'd like to see IRV happen, so you can rank candidates, you might consider contacting your state rep's office to let them know of your support.

[michelel72.livejournal.com]

First, I'm hoping to vote out my current state rep, actually -- but once the representative is decided, you're right, I do really need to get on that. Thanks!

[arfur]

are there any organizations I could add my name to? When I pipe up about this one, I feel like a lone wolf, and so often wander off into other issues.

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there are organizations supporting IRV, but I'm not sure how to find them. I bet http://www.massballotfreedom.com, mentioned in the Information for Voters Guide as having written the supporting statement for Question 2, might help you.

[magid.livejournal.com]

If I could vote for whomever I truly want first, followed in order by those I could stomach progressively less, I wouldn't be "throwing away my vote". Most proposals I've seen for this would take whoever got the fewest #1 votes and allocate those ballots to their #2 choices, then again, then again, until one candidate has a majority.
Move to Cambridge.

Though it doesn't help with state-wide or national elections yet.

[ianrandalstrock.livejournal.com]

My issue is the multiple listings per ballot. If the system were changed so that it listed a candidate's name followed by all parties willing to put that person forward, I would be fine with that. Technically, even today, smaller parties can just advertise, "we're not putting anybody up; we want you to vote for Joe instead", though that's certainly less effective.

Ah, but then you make trouble for the people who really do vote a party line. If they have to go hunting through each candidate's name to find out whether or not they've been endorsed by one party, the line at the polling station will be out the door.

What I truly want is ranked voting. The current system guarantees a two-party lock. If I could vote for whomever I truly want first, followed in order by those I could stomach progressively less, I wouldn't be "throwing away my vote". Most proposals I've seen for this would take whoever got the fewest #1 votes and allocate those ballots to their #2 choices, then again, then again, until one candidate has a majority. [i]That[/i] I would vote for.

I keep hearing proposals like this, and while it seems to work for science fiction awards, and other elections with fewer than 2000 ballots, I can't help thinking someone, somewhere along the line would work their hardest to introduce some snags in the system. That, and to get it introduced would take convincing not only every elected official currently in office (plus all the Democrats and Republicans hoping to be elected at some point), but also educating a whole lot of people what the system means and how to use it. But those entrenched politicians, who have a major stake in not changing how we do our balloting, are going to be a significant obstacle to overcome.

Myself, thinking about changing the system, I tend to favor direct democracy: do away with Congress and put every issue before the people in an ongoing electronic town hall meeting. Wouldn't that be fun?

[ckd]

elections with fewer than 2000 ballots

Last City Council election in Cambridge? 16,000 ballots. (Note that the Council elections are in odd years, so there are no Congressional or Presidential races to raise the count, either.)

STV works just fine.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Last Australian election, over 12 million voters, casting 2 ballots each (for the House and the Senate). It worked just fine, just as it does at every federal, state, or local election.

It doesn't solve the "wasted vote" syndrome, though. You'd think it would. I mean, it's not actually possible to waste your vote, but people are convinced that it is, and are therefore reluctant to support minor candidates. This is so, even though there is not a single voter alive who remembers ever voting any other way. I don't understand it, but I report that it is so.

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

What does STV stand for? IRV means Instant Runoff Voting.

[ckd]

Single Transferrable Vote, which is basically IRV applied to a multi-member constituency. (In this case, the nine-seat City Council or six of the School Committee's seven seats.)

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

Since you invoked my name... :-)

As far as "picking the first occurrence," the way it worked in NY (and, I assume, still does) is that the parties are listed in decreasing order of how many votes they got for governor last time 'round. So the major parties "float" to the top of the list, and most people therefore vote for their favored candidate as a Republican or a Democrat. It's therefore a good bet that anyone who has bothered to vote on the Right-To-Life line, the Socialist-Workers-Party line, the Libertarian line, etc. has done so specifically to (a) endorse THAT party's platform and (b) help THAT party qualify for state election matching funds.

[sorek.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of the west wing episode where Toby hires a comedy troupe to harass Josh as he finishes voting.