Posted to Al Franken's Senate page.
After reading Gary Burt’s defense of you in the Reader Weekly of Duluth (2017-11-30), I think you, Garrison Keillor, and other “liberals” are the victims of a witch hunt. A witch hunt to distract from more serious allegations against "conservatives".
The exposé of Project Veritas by the Washington Post is just the tip of the iceberg of orchestrated deceit.
I think you are very correct in asking for a Senate hearing. I just hope that you can be successful in exposing what is really going on.
Showing posts with label Al Franken. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Franken. Show all posts
Saturday, December 02, 2017
Wednesday, September 06, 2017
Political sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
The Republicans are up in arms because Sen. Al Franken, MN-Dem has put a hold on the nomination of Judge David Stras to the Eighth Circuit Court because he considers him "too conservative". See Star Tribune, 2017-09-06 for more details.
I don't know what the beef the Republicans have with Franken. After all, they held up Obama's nominee for months in the hope of a Republican president appointing a Justice of the Supreme Court more to their liking. They held up Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court from March until Donald Trump was inaugurated.
I don't know what the beef the Republicans have with Franken. After all, they held up Obama's nominee for months in the hope of a Republican president appointing a Justice of the Supreme Court more to their liking. They held up Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court from March until Donald Trump was inaugurated.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Beer, gin, and fact checking
Every so often I visit FactCheck.org or POLITIFACT. The latter uses “Pants on Fire” for the most outrageous claims.
The FactCheck story that caught my interest was the claim that increased beer drinking reduced the drinking of gin in 18th Century England. This claim was made by Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana at the confirmation hearing of Scott Gottlieb, Trump’s nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration. Al Franken was skeptical. Thanks, Al! Maybe the “ruling” party should be called Republiars; they certainly aren’t concerned with Res Publica (public things).
My choice of the day from POLITIFACT was “Fake theory that Barack Obama hid millions of taxpayer dollars offshore started on parody site”. Maybe “conservatives” should be called “connedgullibles”.
The FactCheck story that caught my interest was the claim that increased beer drinking reduced the drinking of gin in 18th Century England. This claim was made by Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana at the confirmation hearing of Scott Gottlieb, Trump’s nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration. Al Franken was skeptical. Thanks, Al! Maybe the “ruling” party should be called Republiars; they certainly aren’t concerned with Res Publica (public things).
My choice of the day from POLITIFACT was “Fake theory that Barack Obama hid millions of taxpayer dollars offshore started on parody site”. Maybe “conservatives” should be called “connedgullibles”.
Monday, January 02, 2017
Al Franken prescient about Trump?
"I think he's a joke, but maybe he's exactly the kind of joke the American people would like to see in the White House for the next four years."
- fictional Bill Kristol on fake "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts"
"He" is Al Franken whose only issue is ATM fees in "Why Not Me? The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency".
He followed "Kristol's" statement with one by "George Will": "Well, if he's a joke, he's a very bad joke." And more about sex and drug use.
Franken's book is a very off-the-wall take on a very disorganized campaign in which he says what he wants and does what he wants. He wrote it in 1999.
It is rather obvious that Franken didn't take himself seriously. Sometimes Trump doesn't either, but that was early on.
See also "If a clown can be President, why not a comedian?"
- fictional Bill Kristol on fake "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts"
"He" is Al Franken whose only issue is ATM fees in "Why Not Me? The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency".
He followed "Kristol's" statement with one by "George Will": "Well, if he's a joke, he's a very bad joke." And more about sex and drug use.
Franken's book is a very off-the-wall take on a very disorganized campaign in which he says what he wants and does what he wants. He wrote it in 1999.
It is rather obvious that Franken didn't take himself seriously. Sometimes Trump doesn't either, but that was early on.
See also "If a clown can be President, why not a comedian?"
Monday, December 19, 2016
If a clown can be President, why not a comedian?
Now that Trump with all of his distortions of truth has officially become the next President, we should consider having a comedian as President. A comedian shines truth on the antics of the powerful.
Think Jon Stewart. He got Obama to laugh at himself.
Better yet, how about two comedians on the ballot in 2020? What about pairing Jon Stewart with Al Franken?
Republicans skewered Franken as a comedian, unfit to be a U.S. Senator. Now they have turned around and supported a clown for President. I think Republicans disliked Franken because he exposed their hypocrisy.
We just dug out of our bookshelves “Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”, Al Franken, 2003.
Oh, yeah, he is still married to his first wife.
In 1999 Franken wrote “Why not me?: the inside story of the making and unmaking of Franken Presidency”. I have ordered it from the Duluth Public Library.
When I had a telephone modem with unlimited access, I watched a lot of Jon Stewart on Facebook, I think. Although his twirling his paper was tiresome, I found his skewering of the powerful, no matter their politics, delightful. He used their own words to reveal contradictions.
If you want a sample how thoughtful Jon Stewart can be, watch his appearance on “CBS This Morning”, I think it was November 17, 2016. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUkv_jPgTeg. Also look up on You Tube his Twitter war with Donald Trump.
See also "Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?"
Think Jon Stewart. He got Obama to laugh at himself.
Better yet, how about two comedians on the ballot in 2020? What about pairing Jon Stewart with Al Franken?
Republicans skewered Franken as a comedian, unfit to be a U.S. Senator. Now they have turned around and supported a clown for President. I think Republicans disliked Franken because he exposed their hypocrisy.
We just dug out of our bookshelves “Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”, Al Franken, 2003.
Oh, yeah, he is still married to his first wife.
In 1999 Franken wrote “Why not me?: the inside story of the making and unmaking of Franken Presidency”. I have ordered it from the Duluth Public Library.
When I had a telephone modem with unlimited access, I watched a lot of Jon Stewart on Facebook, I think. Although his twirling his paper was tiresome, I found his skewering of the powerful, no matter their politics, delightful. He used their own words to reveal contradictions.
If you want a sample how thoughtful Jon Stewart can be, watch his appearance on “CBS This Morning”, I think it was November 17, 2016. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUkv_jPgTeg. Also look up on You Tube his Twitter war with Donald Trump.
See also "Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?"
Monday, March 31, 2014
Check date, suspend belief
Chartreuse plan for Duluth’s Civic Center
Johnson Controls, Inc. has been selected by the Civic Center Commission to design and build a new Civic Center for Duluth. Lee Nixon, chair of the commission, pointed out that these three buildings, at 78 and more years old, are outmoded, energy inefficient, and inaccessible. Mr. Nixon estimated the cost would be about one billion dollars.
Johnson Controls (JCI) had been serving as advisor to the Civic Center Commission on the status of the Center. JCI had two meetings with a focus group of thirteen and a half people. After a marathon 24-hour second session, the focus group agreed that the Chartreuse Plan proposed by JCI should be adopted.
Rep. James Oberstar praised the Chartreuse Plan for creating thousands of jobs. Mayor Don Ness was not so enthusiastic about this budget buster, but he admitted the demolition and construction would permit him to work from home and spend more time with his family. Harry Welty held a press conference asking why there was no vote to determine who was on the Civic Center Commission, and he estimated the true cost would be two billion dollars.
In JCI’s first revision of the Chartreuse Plan, they stated that far more parking would be needed than in the original. In order to provide adequate parking, the city and county would have to take by eminent domain the Radisson Hotel, the old KDLH building, and the News Tribune Building. For some reason, A&L Development’s Phoenix building was not mentioned. Senate hopeful Al Franken quipped that the parking was probably needed for all the plaintiffs in the suits against the Civic Center Commission and JCI. Harry Welty held a press conference asking why there was no vote on this project, and he estimated the true cost would be three billion dollars.
Northern Lights Express renamed
Because of a major design change in the Duluth-Twin Cities passenger rail service, it has been renamed and scheduled for earlier availability. It is now to be called the Big Bertha Express.
The Passenger Rail Alliance learned of the availability of two previously unknown Big Bertha howitzers used by Imperial Germany in World War I. They were able to purchase them for $5,000 each plus shipping and handling.
The Alliance commissioned ordnance manufacturer Alliant Techsystems Inc. to provide special long shells that can be inserted on the specially armored back of railroad passenger cars. When the passenger car is ready for departure, a technician pulls the lanyard on Big Bertha and off goes the car at an initial speed of 500 mph. By the time it reaches the other end, it has averaged 150 mph, thus arriving in one hour. Of course, the intermediate stops of Anoka, Hinckley, and Carlton had to be dropped. Initial service will begin on April 1, 2009.
Passengers must have medical exams before boarding.
Barack Obama seals nomination with historic Veep pick
Barack Obama, to show that he is a uniter not a divider, made an unprecedented early vice-president choice. He reached across race, gender, and party to select Christie Todd Whitman as his running mate. Ms. Whitman was the Republican governor of New Jersey and later George W. Bush’s first head of the Environmental Protcction Agency. She was forced out of that position because she took her job seriously and performed it well.
Pollsters are predicting a landslide for Obama in the remaining state primaries. They say an unprecedented number of Republicans will cross over, that independents who wouldn’t have voted will show up in the thousands, and that Democrats who have tired of the long battle between Obama and Clinton will unite behind a team they think will move the country forward.
I submitted these to the Reader Weekly for the 2008 April Fool’s edition. My title was “If you believe these, I have a Minnesota bridge I would like you to cross”. All but one of these were intended for Minnesota readers.
I also submitted the following two items which are of more general interest.
Global warming skeptics rescued from Antarctic iceberg
A large group of global warming skeptics held a conference on the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica to underscore their contention that the “cooling of Antarctica disproves global warming theory”. They were surprised when the shelf broke off into many pieces. Many of the conferees were stranded and could not reach the ship that brought them. They were eventually rescued by planes of the British Antarctic Survey. Ironically, some of the conferees had called the BAS “leftist dupes” because the BAS had been warning of the eventual collapse of the some of the ice around the edge of Antarctica.
Chinese government forecloses on White House
In a surprise move, the Chinese government has foreclosed on the White House. A minor official in the Chinese Department of Finance discovered that the U.S. Government had issued bonds to make extensive renovations to the White House, some of them dating back to the Time when Ronald Reagan had the solar panels removed.
The bonds were part of a large package of bonds that the Chinese government had bought from Bear Stearns several years ago. The official discovered that the bonds were due in 2006 and no interest had been paid since 2000.
After long negotiations with the Bush Administration, the Chinese administration decided to foreclose. They gave President Bush thirty days to vacate the White House. The Chinese government hasn’t said what they will do with the property, but many speculate that the Chinese will make it their embassy.
Johnson Controls, Inc. has been selected by the Civic Center Commission to design and build a new Civic Center for Duluth. Lee Nixon, chair of the commission, pointed out that these three buildings, at 78 and more years old, are outmoded, energy inefficient, and inaccessible. Mr. Nixon estimated the cost would be about one billion dollars.
Johnson Controls (JCI) had been serving as advisor to the Civic Center Commission on the status of the Center. JCI had two meetings with a focus group of thirteen and a half people. After a marathon 24-hour second session, the focus group agreed that the Chartreuse Plan proposed by JCI should be adopted.
Rep. James Oberstar praised the Chartreuse Plan for creating thousands of jobs. Mayor Don Ness was not so enthusiastic about this budget buster, but he admitted the demolition and construction would permit him to work from home and spend more time with his family. Harry Welty held a press conference asking why there was no vote to determine who was on the Civic Center Commission, and he estimated the true cost would be two billion dollars.
In JCI’s first revision of the Chartreuse Plan, they stated that far more parking would be needed than in the original. In order to provide adequate parking, the city and county would have to take by eminent domain the Radisson Hotel, the old KDLH building, and the News Tribune Building. For some reason, A&L Development’s Phoenix building was not mentioned. Senate hopeful Al Franken quipped that the parking was probably needed for all the plaintiffs in the suits against the Civic Center Commission and JCI. Harry Welty held a press conference asking why there was no vote on this project, and he estimated the true cost would be three billion dollars.
Northern Lights Express renamed
Because of a major design change in the Duluth-Twin Cities passenger rail service, it has been renamed and scheduled for earlier availability. It is now to be called the Big Bertha Express.
The Passenger Rail Alliance learned of the availability of two previously unknown Big Bertha howitzers used by Imperial Germany in World War I. They were able to purchase them for $5,000 each plus shipping and handling.
The Alliance commissioned ordnance manufacturer Alliant Techsystems Inc. to provide special long shells that can be inserted on the specially armored back of railroad passenger cars. When the passenger car is ready for departure, a technician pulls the lanyard on Big Bertha and off goes the car at an initial speed of 500 mph. By the time it reaches the other end, it has averaged 150 mph, thus arriving in one hour. Of course, the intermediate stops of Anoka, Hinckley, and Carlton had to be dropped. Initial service will begin on April 1, 2009.
Passengers must have medical exams before boarding.
Barack Obama seals nomination with historic Veep pick
Barack Obama, to show that he is a uniter not a divider, made an unprecedented early vice-president choice. He reached across race, gender, and party to select Christie Todd Whitman as his running mate. Ms. Whitman was the Republican governor of New Jersey and later George W. Bush’s first head of the Environmental Protcction Agency. She was forced out of that position because she took her job seriously and performed it well.
Pollsters are predicting a landslide for Obama in the remaining state primaries. They say an unprecedented number of Republicans will cross over, that independents who wouldn’t have voted will show up in the thousands, and that Democrats who have tired of the long battle between Obama and Clinton will unite behind a team they think will move the country forward.
I submitted these to the Reader Weekly for the 2008 April Fool’s edition. My title was “If you believe these, I have a Minnesota bridge I would like you to cross”. All but one of these were intended for Minnesota readers.
I also submitted the following two items which are of more general interest.
Global warming skeptics rescued from Antarctic iceberg
A large group of global warming skeptics held a conference on the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica to underscore their contention that the “cooling of Antarctica disproves global warming theory”. They were surprised when the shelf broke off into many pieces. Many of the conferees were stranded and could not reach the ship that brought them. They were eventually rescued by planes of the British Antarctic Survey. Ironically, some of the conferees had called the BAS “leftist dupes” because the BAS had been warning of the eventual collapse of the some of the ice around the edge of Antarctica.
Chinese government forecloses on White House
In a surprise move, the Chinese government has foreclosed on the White House. A minor official in the Chinese Department of Finance discovered that the U.S. Government had issued bonds to make extensive renovations to the White House, some of them dating back to the Time when Ronald Reagan had the solar panels removed.
The bonds were part of a large package of bonds that the Chinese government had bought from Bear Stearns several years ago. The official discovered that the bonds were due in 2006 and no interest had been paid since 2000.
After long negotiations with the Bush Administration, the Chinese administration decided to foreclose. They gave President Bush thirty days to vacate the White House. The Chinese government hasn’t said what they will do with the property, but many speculate that the Chinese will make it their embassy.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
PROTECT-IP, SOPA, and corporate interests
I sent variants of the following to Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8).
Have you read Senate 968 (or the House equivalent ) in its entirety? Do you understand every statement in the bill? You can find an easier-to-read version at http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/01/text-of-protect-ip-senate-bill-968.html.
Are you aware of the ambiguity of the subtitle? What are the "other purposes"?
Are you aware that there is at least one grammatical error in the bill?
Are Republicans aware that this bill is more regulation on businesses and that it expands the bureaucracy?
Is this bill in the interests of corporations or in the interests of people? For example, can I simply write a letter to the Attorney General stating that a certain site is using one of my copyrighted pictures? Or will I have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lawyer to make a complaint on my behalf?
This bill does give service providers a standing for denying service to those they deem acting inappropriately. But doesn't it also give a "hunting license" to companies that will go after any company or person they deem aiding and abetting inappropriate sites. For example, might these "hunters" give a long list of sites they consider inappropriate to ISPs or domain name servers? And then won't these latter have to spend resources vetting that list and acting on their findings?
This bill requires various agencies to give Congress an annual report not only an assessment of the bill's effectiveness, but a list of each instance that the Attorney General took action enforcing this bill. See Section 7. Guidelines and Studies. Will all these agencies be given sufficient resources to do this work? And will that not require more taxes?
Have you read Senate 968 (or the House equivalent ) in its entirety? Do you understand every statement in the bill? You can find an easier-to-read version at http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/01/text-of-protect-ip-senate-bill-968.html.
Are you aware of the ambiguity of the subtitle? What are the "other purposes"?
Are you aware that there is at least one grammatical error in the bill?
Are Republicans aware that this bill is more regulation on businesses and that it expands the bureaucracy?
Is this bill in the interests of corporations or in the interests of people? For example, can I simply write a letter to the Attorney General stating that a certain site is using one of my copyrighted pictures? Or will I have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lawyer to make a complaint on my behalf?
This bill does give service providers a standing for denying service to those they deem acting inappropriately. But doesn't it also give a "hunting license" to companies that will go after any company or person they deem aiding and abetting inappropriate sites. For example, might these "hunters" give a long list of sites they consider inappropriate to ISPs or domain name servers? And then won't these latter have to spend resources vetting that list and acting on their findings?
This bill requires various agencies to give Congress an annual report not only an assessment of the bill's effectiveness, but a list of each instance that the Attorney General took action enforcing this bill. See Section 7. Guidelines and Studies. Will all these agencies be given sufficient resources to do this work? And will that not require more taxes?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
A Specter is haunting "the two-party system"
Arlen Specter's move from the Republican Party is welcome in many quarters. It is welcomed by many in the Republican Party who think he is not "ideologically pure". It is welcome by many in the Democratic Party who think it will help them push their agenda more easily. It is welcome by many who think "moderates" should assert themselves more. It was not welcome by at least one remaining moderate Republican. Sen. Olympia Snowe wrote an eloquent essay for the New York Times: "We Didn't Have to Lose Arlen Specter".
However, his move to the Democratic Party should sadden those who don't want to see a "one-party" state. As long as the Republican Party marginalizes itself with an agenda that appeals to a dwindling portion of the voters and with an attitude that opposes anything the Democratic Party or "liberals" propose, it will have a dwindling number of government positions. It could dwindle to the point where it gets less votes than so-called "third parties", parties which too many voters think are "spoilers". Maybe we should start considering the Republican Party as the spoiler, like Dean Barkley didn't "take" votes from Coleman and Franken, but Coleman took votes from Barkley and Franken.
I would have hoped that Sen. Specter had become an "independent", but this would reduce his chance of reelection. Reelection is also probably why he didn't join one of the existing moderate parties. Too few people are not ready to vote for "third party" candidates.
This is too bad because we are long overdue for a new major party. The Republican Party was started in 1854 by disenchanted Whigs. Now if enough disenchanted moderate Republicans would start or join a "third party" they might pull in some moderate Democrats.
For a list of parties, see Minor Party Links. Interestingly, this list includes both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Two interesting possibilities are The Reform Party of the United States of America and The Independence Party of America. Be sure to look at the simple platform of The Independence Party of America.
See also my blog entry “The time for a moderate party is now” and my Reader Weekly article “The Moderate Manifesto”.
However, his move to the Democratic Party should sadden those who don't want to see a "one-party" state. As long as the Republican Party marginalizes itself with an agenda that appeals to a dwindling portion of the voters and with an attitude that opposes anything the Democratic Party or "liberals" propose, it will have a dwindling number of government positions. It could dwindle to the point where it gets less votes than so-called "third parties", parties which too many voters think are "spoilers". Maybe we should start considering the Republican Party as the spoiler, like Dean Barkley didn't "take" votes from Coleman and Franken, but Coleman took votes from Barkley and Franken.
I would have hoped that Sen. Specter had become an "independent", but this would reduce his chance of reelection. Reelection is also probably why he didn't join one of the existing moderate parties. Too few people are not ready to vote for "third party" candidates.
This is too bad because we are long overdue for a new major party. The Republican Party was started in 1854 by disenchanted Whigs. Now if enough disenchanted moderate Republicans would start or join a "third party" they might pull in some moderate Democrats.
For a list of parties, see Minor Party Links. Interestingly, this list includes both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Two interesting possibilities are The Reform Party of the United States of America and The Independence Party of America. Be sure to look at the simple platform of The Independence Party of America.
See also my blog entry “The time for a moderate party is now” and my Reader Weekly article “The Moderate Manifesto”.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Vote early, vote often (An alternative to Instant Runoff Voting)
As the melodrama of the Coleman-Franken recount unfolds, much invective, hyperbole, and puzzlement is appearing in print and online. One of the "solutions" brought forth to the close vote is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). See
"Avoid the agony of recounts, and more, with instant runoffs", David Durenberger, Star Tribune, 2008-11-25
and
"Elections with less acrimony? That's the true beauty of IRV", Nick Coleman, Star Tribune, 2008-11-24
I think IRV is another magic bullet that is going to cure confusion, apathy, and the common cold. As in any system of voting, one can find scenarios in which the system will not give the desired results.
Suppose Al, Bert, and Chuck are running for dog-catcher in an IRV system. The choices of the voters are
First choice - 100(Al), 100(Burt), and 50(Chuck)
Second choice - 75(Al), 75(Burt), and 100(Chuck)
Third choice - 75(Al), 75(Burt), and 100(Chuck)
Assume further that the voters for Chuck split their votes for Al and Burt, 25 each for second choice and 25 each for third choice.
Eliminating Chuck's first place votes and distributing those voters' second choice votes, we wind up with Al and Burt each getting 125 votes each. Recount anybody?
Add to this the task of verifying that the original vote calculations were correct...
My own preference is for a blanket or jungle primary followed by as many runoffs as needed to achieve a majority vote. See "Nonpartisan Blanket Primary" and "Blanket Primary" in Wikipedia.
In Louisiana, several candidates are allowed to run under the same party label. I suggest that candidates may use a party label only if they have received the endorsement of that party.
Under "my" system, people would not "throw their votes away" by voting for the candidates they really want to be in office. Assume the polls say that Chuck would receive only 20 percent of the vote. If Al were to get 50 percent of the vote plus one, he would clearly be the winner.
If Al and Burt got 40 percent each as in the above example, then they would have a runoff without Chuck. With only two candidates in the race, it is more probable that one of them would get a clear majority. If not, we're in just as much trouble as with the IRV example.
But suppose the polls are wrong. Many voters refused to read the polls and voted as they really believed. Not knowing they "would throw their votes away" voting for Chuck, 40 percent voted for him, 35 percent voted for Al, and 25 percent voted for Burt. In the runoff the result might be as high as 65 percent for Chuck or as high as 60 percent for Al; either case would be a clear majority. Of course, we could still have a tie and ...
As usual, no human system is flawless, but I think this system is more fluid than the so-called "two-party system". Rather than having to vote for a "major" party that has lost much of its popular support and voting for it only as a vote against the other "major" party, voters can feel more free to vote for a party more to their liking. It took less than 70 years for a new party to replace a major party; at over 150 years since the last change, we are long overdue for a new party.
"Avoid the agony of recounts, and more, with instant runoffs", David Durenberger, Star Tribune, 2008-11-25
and
"Elections with less acrimony? That's the true beauty of IRV", Nick Coleman, Star Tribune, 2008-11-24
I think IRV is another magic bullet that is going to cure confusion, apathy, and the common cold. As in any system of voting, one can find scenarios in which the system will not give the desired results.
Suppose Al, Bert, and Chuck are running for dog-catcher in an IRV system. The choices of the voters are
First choice - 100(Al), 100(Burt), and 50(Chuck)
Second choice - 75(Al), 75(Burt), and 100(Chuck)
Third choice - 75(Al), 75(Burt), and 100(Chuck)
Assume further that the voters for Chuck split their votes for Al and Burt, 25 each for second choice and 25 each for third choice.
Eliminating Chuck's first place votes and distributing those voters' second choice votes, we wind up with Al and Burt each getting 125 votes each. Recount anybody?
Add to this the task of verifying that the original vote calculations were correct...
My own preference is for a blanket or jungle primary followed by as many runoffs as needed to achieve a majority vote. See "Nonpartisan Blanket Primary" and "Blanket Primary" in Wikipedia.
In Louisiana, several candidates are allowed to run under the same party label. I suggest that candidates may use a party label only if they have received the endorsement of that party.
Under "my" system, people would not "throw their votes away" by voting for the candidates they really want to be in office. Assume the polls say that Chuck would receive only 20 percent of the vote. If Al were to get 50 percent of the vote plus one, he would clearly be the winner.
If Al and Burt got 40 percent each as in the above example, then they would have a runoff without Chuck. With only two candidates in the race, it is more probable that one of them would get a clear majority. If not, we're in just as much trouble as with the IRV example.
But suppose the polls are wrong. Many voters refused to read the polls and voted as they really believed. Not knowing they "would throw their votes away" voting for Chuck, 40 percent voted for him, 35 percent voted for Al, and 25 percent voted for Burt. In the runoff the result might be as high as 65 percent for Chuck or as high as 60 percent for Al; either case would be a clear majority. Of course, we could still have a tie and ...
As usual, no human system is flawless, but I think this system is more fluid than the so-called "two-party system". Rather than having to vote for a "major" party that has lost much of its popular support and voting for it only as a vote against the other "major" party, voters can feel more free to vote for a party more to their liking. It took less than 70 years for a new party to replace a major party; at over 150 years since the last change, we are long overdue for a new party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)