Questions for the zealots

November 26, 2008


The left-leaning zealots who are pushing Instant Runoff Voting love to say things like:  


“Shouldn’t we have majorities deciding who our leaders are?”  


There are several responses to this question.  Some of them could be… 


“Should five or six editors get to decide what news should be disseminated to the public?”




 “Should a handful of judges be allowed to overturn a constitutional amendment they disagree with?” 




“Should a small group of bureaucrats at the Met Council get to dictate to cities and towns?” 


If these self-appointed defenders of democracy care so much about majority rule, there are far better areas they could expend their energies than in trying to artificially manufacture a 50%+ 1 majority in three-way elections… 


– By Matt Marchetti


A fairer system than IRV

November 25, 2008

The following is the comment I left on the Star Tribune’s website recently. Thought I would post it here for food-for-thought and discussion.

The fairest system in elections we can have is a straight primary, like Minneapolis and St. Paul (and most municipalities) do in their municipal and school board elections. If 30 people want to run for U.S. Senate, let them. Only the top two make it out of the primary and go on to the General Election. If a 3rd party or independent candidate is good enough to knock one of the two party candidates off, good for them. We will have a majority rule if we narrow it down in the primary process to the best of two. Furthermore, the Constitution puts checks and balances in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It does not stipulate that elections need to be won by a 50%+1 majority vote. If the framers wanted that, they would have written that in to begin with. Lastly, if I want to vote for Al Franken, I should be able to vote for Al Franken – not vote for Al Franken via Dean Barkley. That does not make any sense.

Jeffrey S. Williams

Paved With Good Intentions?

November 21, 2008


alballot“FairVote” and their affiliate which they claim not to be affiliated with, “BetterBallot Campaign” (Two misnamed organizations if ever there were such a thing) are taking the occasion of the Franken election-theft attempt as an example of why we need Instant Runoff Voting.  Again, their logic is convoluted.

They claim “with IRV we’d get a winner who is preferred by a majority.” The problem with this statement is simply that it’s completely wrong. We have proven time and time again that a plurality winner is perfectly acceptable in our system of government because we are not a majority-rule democracy. Majorities can be as tyrannical as any dictator.

Ask yourself this: if the majority passed a law legalizing slavery, would that be right? Of course not! So then, a majority can be wrong, right? Obviously, so why demand a majority election winner in a 3 candidate (or more) race?

What makes their argument even more silly is that IRV doesn’t even guarantee a majority winner anyway. If, after all rounds of preference tallying are completed and nobody winds up with a majority of “first choices,” the candidate with the most first choices, i.e. a plurality, wins! They must know this, so why use the majority argument unless it’s to mask some other intent?

Secondly, they used the phrase “preferred by” to describe the election winner. This is a clue to the disenfranchising nature of preferential voting. If you have a system in which voters “indicate their preferences” by ranking candidates rather than vote for one, you have just changed the nature of a vote.

Immense mathematical complexity arises once the instant runoff starts. This can cause a voter’s rankings to have an effect other than what the voter intended, and there is no way the voter can know what this effect will be – this is how preferential voting disenfranchises voters. (Visit our website for more info)

Maybe “FairVote” et. al. truly believe that IRV is good for voters. Maybe they are well-intentioned. But then, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as the saying goes.

The simple fact is that IRV is so obviously undemocratic, and it’s advocates are so overwhelmingly from one side of the political spectrum, and the beneficiaries of IRV elections almost always turn out to be from that same part of the spectrum, it’s hard not to be suspicious of their true intent. Unless it’s simply that they are uninformed, and do not completly understand our representative form of government.

IRV “directly diminishes the right of the voter to cast an effective for the candidate of his choice…unimpaired by the additional choice votes cast by others.” That’s it. It’s just that simple. Thus, IRV promoters are either ignorant, or they are power-hungry political ideologues. This is not meant to be taken personally, it’s merely a logical conclusion based on their zealous promotion of such an obviously undemocratic vote-ranking scheme.

– Matt Marchetti

GM Bailout

November 18, 2008


I can’t believe that our government would even consider bailing out GM at the expense of other hardworking Americans, it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do.   I think the best solution to the Detroit problem is for UAW to buy it after bankruptcy.

Andy Cilek

Here’s what Mitt Romney says about it:

David Schultz on Kare-11

November 17, 2008


I watched Tim McNiff on the KARE-11 morning news after the election.  His guest was his political go-to guy and left winger (incognito), Hamline Professor David Schultz who was commenting on the passing of the so-called clean water amendment.   He said “this proves that the idea of the Reagan tax cuts are dead”, or words to that effect, thus suggesting that Minnesotan’s like the idea of paying more taxes. 

This is absurd, I don’t believe it proves anything.    Schultz fails to consider, or mention, the deception within the ballot wording which is as follows:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?

As evident by our exit polling, MANY people blindly voted yes because it “sounded” good and many admitted they didn’t even know what it was.  I think if they would have flipped the wording around and led with the sales tax increase instead of “dedicate funding”, there would have been a much different result.  

Also disturbing was the fact it was so heavily promoted using words like “clean water, habitat’s, etc.. ” even though about 2/3 of the money was to be used for OTHER purposes. 

I think Tim McNiff would do better if he’d bring on guests representing both political sides of issues and from both political parties.  I think I’ll stick with one of the other morning newscasts.

 Andy Cilek

Who’s Stealing Elections?

November 14, 2008
counting21I’m sitting here at work and I can’t help but overhear my slightly left-leaning co-workers talking about the Coleman-Franken race. One of them actually said “I don’t know who’s trying to steal the election from whom, but….” This was a professional level employee with a college degree.
If anyone doesn’t know that it is Al Franken who is trying to steal this election, they are either so partisan they can’t look at it objectively or they are of diminished intellectual capacity.  One would think that having a college degree would preclude the latter possibility, but then again, maybe not. Maybe a college degree is not a valid measure of intelligence.
Santino Corleone, in the Godfather once asked his brother Mike, “What? D’ya go to college to get stupid?”
In 4127 precincts, in ALL elections up and down the ballot, the total state-wide correction after the initial called-in vote, after the polls closed (which is standard procedure) was 482 votes. In 3 precincts there were 504 corrections, in ONE election and ALL the corrections favored ONE candidate – Al Franken? And people think it might be Coleman who is stealing the election?
Anyone with half a brain should be able to tell that something fishy is going on here. It must be astronomically improbable that in a state that otherwise had 482 total corrections, there could be 504 corrections in just 3 of 4130 precincts, and ALL of them for one particular candidate! Obviously in a DFL state and in DFL strongholds you would expect the majority of the corrections to favor the DFL candidate, but ALL of them?
Anyone who thinks this is on the up and up, please give me your contact info – I have a land deal you won’t want to miss!
So what does this have to do with the Minnesota Voters Alliance? Tons. We are for maintaining the integrity of elections, the transparency of the process and for the power of government to reside in the hands of the people – not a small group of partisans with exclusive access to ballot boxes.
This is why we’re for Photo I.D., and why were against Instant Runoff Voting. Please visit for detailed information on all our issues.
Bottom line – it’s our government, folks, and a few ruling class elitists are trying to take it away from us.
Posted by Matt Marchetti
P.S. If you would like to help us protect out election systems, please visit: 

Welcome to our new blog site!

November 12, 2008

With the attempted theft of the Minnesota senate election by another guy named Al we are hearing a loud call from certain quarters fro Instant Runoff Voting.  This is such a hot topic that we have decided to put up this blog site so people can keep up to date on the discussion.

Please feel free to make comments.  We do reserve the right to delete comments we find offensive, and ban commentators who abuse this forum.  We will NOT do this for simple disagreement reasons.

We hope this becomes an enjoyable and enlightening experience for all of us who believe in people-run government rather than government-run people.

Have a great day!