Court Folly

judge1The Hennepin County District Court has decided in favor of FairVote and all their baseless arguments, and has allowed to stand a vote ranking system that violates voter rights and will further distance the voters from the electoral process.

We believe this misguided ruling will not hold up.   The Court disregarded the precedent of Brown v. Smallwood and practically ignored our arguments while accepting their’s at face value, with apparently little to no scrutiny or analysis. 

As we anticipated, we are now forced to appeal the ruling. 

It could very well be that the judge is a FairVote supporter, or that he merely believes that this issue belongs in a higher court.  Either way, the ruling contains several factual errors, including the unsupportable claim that IRV creates majority winners, which it certainly does not.

FairVote has said they expect to win at the State level, but will appeal at the Federal level.  If justice had prevailed, they’d be the ones appealing to the State Court.

Sadly, we live in an era when the courts seem to think they can make law, and rewrite the constitution by edict; and when public knowledge of civics is at an all time low.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Court Folly

  1. Andy Cilek says:

    It was also interesting to see Prof David Schultz on Almanac talking up IRV and praising the ruling. This guy is such a joke, i can’t believe our local media gives him any air time, especially without an opposing view point. Considering the source, Almanac, its not surprising that Schultz has got them fooled too.

    Schultz talks about IRV upholding the one person one vote principle.. Please, if you rank three candidates, that is casting three votes. The MN Surpeme Court said, regarding preferential voting, that no voter is allowed to cast more than a single expression of opinion or choice.. It has nothing to do with how many votes END UP COUNTING, it has everything to do with how many votes each person is allowed to CAST..

    Schultz also talks about votes being Redistributed in the event of a runoff. That is also not true.. No votes are Redistributed.. In order to have something “Re-distributed”, it would first have to be “Distributed”.. It only makes sense.

    In IRV, Once a candidate is eliminated, 2nd choice votes on those ballots are then counted and tallied.. NOTHING is being “Re-distributed”.. It is scary that this far left putz is a Law Professor at Hamline University.. Maybe they should be a little more selective when choosing their faculty.

  2. A Voter says:

    Andy: Your misunderstanding of IRV is so profound it is hard to know where to start, but let me ask this:
    Does the guy who votes in the primary AND the general election get one vote or two? I think we’d agree that he gets one vote counted in each round, not two.

    Asked another way: Imagine that the Legislature said: We will hold an election every Tuesday beginning in October. After each election, the last place candidate’s name is dropped. We will continue to do this until one candidate gets a majority.

    Would you argue that THIS system is unconstitutional? It might be expensive, and it might be a bad idea for a lot of reasons, but would it be illegal?? Does someone who takes the time to vote in each round get more votes than the one who stops voting after her first choice is dropped?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: