National & Minnesota Report
From the Desk of Publisher Shawn Towle
Congresswoman Morrison,
This is not an opinion; it is a fact, and You’re Being TOWLED. I was just on your congressional website and saw in your press releases, and in this one instance, I was seriously disappointed in you. U.S. Rep. Kelly Morrison Introduces Bill in Support of Ranked Choice Voting. I was disappointed to see you drank the Kool-Aid and introduced legislation supporting Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), which, like your predecessor Dean Phillips, is a very unfounded concept. It “supposedly” offers people much promise but never delivers on any of it. I abhor this system just as much as I do Donald J Trump (R).
First off, it’s a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in two ways, its violates one-person one vote, because if I cast a bullet ballot, voting for one person, and one person only and my vote is one of the last two remaining candidates, and you vote for the first loser, then the second loser and all the way to the fourth loser, you voted five times compared to my one vote. Additionally, because your vote was transferred, your vote has more weight shaping the outcome of the election to a great extent than mine did. This violates the Equal Protection Clause where we are treated equally under the law.
Strangely enough, I hope it makes it to the Conservative US Supreme Court and is banned from consideration in any election in the United States. If it even did one thing the Jeanne Massey chirps in your ear it would be a miracle.
RCV proposes to increase turnout. It does not it promises to provide majority elections and is not fiscally responsible, and does not reduce the cost of elections. It does not; there’s nothing valuable about RCV, except Massey’s payday, which is beneficial to society.
Sure, it gives people a feeling of being able to participate in the selection of candidates outside of the political party system, which is not in the best interest of our society at all. It actually is killing the DFL and Democratic Party writ large by creating insertion points for the Democratic Socialist Party of America to take over.
In fact, you should know what the long-term goal is of the advocates and that is to have worse than a parliamentary system, but actually have a fractional system and the fractional system is, if six people are voted for and each one gets a certain percentage they want six people to represent a single seat and that single seat, is then would be fractionalized with one person having 10% of the vote, another person having 12% of the vote another person having 13% of the vote and so on and so on.
The reason why RCV does not work is that, as we utilize it in Saint Paul it needs to be maximized out to six rounds of voting, which is what they originally had passed in Bloomington, but then the city council fiat amended the use of RCV down to three rounds. Why? Because of Arrow’s Theorem of Impossibility, which is that once you count past three rounds, it’s impossible to get a majority vote, mainly due to traditional voters only selecting one candidate and there’s not enough of a denominator left to divide against.
Now, advocates want to bamboozle you into thinking that it should be viewed only in the final round of the majority of remaining voters, and that is the performance of a lie. How convenient that they want to forgo the people who already had voted in that election but discount their votes in the final tally.
Additionally, if a person votes one way on one part of the ballot, and then is expected to vote another way later on the ballot, if your first-time voter or a senior citizen, it’s confusing, and why would you expect people to vote one way in one instance and another way in another? That’s just ludicrous. We have worked together when you were in the state Senate, and I tried to dissuade you from this flawed idea at that time, and I would’ve thought that after having greater resources as a Congressperson, you would’ve done the research and understood RCV, or Single Transferable Voting, fundamentally, is unproven and just an imbecilic idea.
Sure, the advocates, who are zealots, might be campaign contributors, but they are doing only self-serving advocacy for a system that can’t prove itself. Put down the pipe and open your eyes to the reality of changes in the voting system that operate in direct opposition to common sense.
If you want to discuss this, I have been trying to reach your office for the last two years, and no one ever returns a call, maybe because I am not a constituent, but it’s truly unprofessional.