On 10/21/2017 2:37 PM, BeckerMpls wrote:
> Mr. Bearman - are you the person that is listed as the secretary under the
990 reporting for FairVote? Because if you are, can you tell me where the
money is coming from? Can you tell us who is on the donor list?
>
> The reporting from 2011 to 2015 says $990,000 was raised during that time to
promote RCV. Raising that much money doesnât come from $5 donations. That
kind of money has to be coming from some bigger source. Because the harsh
truth is much of our local politics is funded by people who have an interest in
something that they want from the City. Developers, contractors, etc. In this
case, we are talking about something extremely esoteric - voting mechanisms. No
developer, no contractor is getting anything for that. And this level of
donation continues even after the referendum passed, years ago. If you can
prove me wrong, I will absolutely apologize but I see no way that this is just
a few folks chipping in. Please, prove me wrong if that is the truth but I
just canât see these kinds of dollars from small donors.
>
> And do I think that money plays in politics? Yes, yes I do. Every day. In
this case, if I wanted to really educate myself on RCV, I could go to
FairVoteâs website or its extensive literature or one of its one day or even
three day trainings in RCV or its paid staff or its volunteer staff. If I
wanted to research normal voting, I would go where? Is there a normal voting
website? Or full-time staff promoting it? Or three day training on normal
voting? Even the most fervent citizen wanting to educate themselves only gets
one side of this question. And absolutely, that has an effect. I suspect
without this dynamic, one side with substantial funding and one side without
any, this would not have passed.
>
> And the real nut of this whole question, the real nut of the debate, is how
much energy and time citizens should have to expend to participate in our
democracy. This is the core of the whole question with RCV. We have people
like you and I who sit and debate policy for fun. On a Saturday morning
nonetheless. We are not normal. Normal people do other things with their
Saturday mornings. We are not the people that voting systems should be
designed for. My mom is 78 and still has her beehive hairdo. From 1962. It
was Bush vs Gore. My mom listened to all the debates. She listened to all
sorts of speeches. She hated Bush. She called him a bean farmer which
apparently is quite an insult in North Dakota. She would call me, week after
long week, and rant about how much she hated him. Three weeks before the
election, in the middle of a rant, she throws in that he had already been in
the White House and why send him back. I had to explain that this was a
different George Bush, something she had not noticed during all this time.
Normal people should not be expected to spends hours and hours to participate
in democracy. And if they want to have other people who are going to spend
hours and hours narrow down the question for them, I see that as a good thing.
>
> ...
>
> Iâm intrigued by RCV for a primary and would have to think more about it.
But we need voting to be easy. Not for people like us but for people like my
mom.
= = = = =
[KB] Ms.Becker, let's be honest about what you're doing. You're
attacking the messengers in what was a discussion of Ranked Choice
Voting. And you asked questions that aren't relevant to anything
substantive there.
To answer your first question, yes I was Secretary. So what? I'm not
now. Now I'll ask you a question: Do you know the difference between a
group's secretary and its treasurer? But never mind that. The
information you're mistakenly demanding isn't mine to give you, even if
I had it. Ask your question of FairVote Minnesota. The source of their
funding is theirs -- and their donors'. You might, though, consider how
any such organization gets its funds before you continue your wild
speculations.
It's interesting that you write, "if I wanted to really educate myself
on RCV". Should we therefore infer that you don't understand how RCV
works? That was supposed to be this thread's content. Here's another
question for you:Â Why does anybody in the U.S. need educating on
"normal voting" -- i.e., the previous system? Answer: Nobody does.
People know to vote for one and the candidate with the most votes wins,
even if it's 37% for Governor.
The first real nut of the debate, if we get back to talking about RCV,
is why you think voters like your mother will be any more engaged or
have any more interest or energy in a primary election in August. They
weren't and they didn't when we had city primaries; they don't in the
partisan primaries for state and federal offices; and they won't next
August. If, as you claim, our voters can't handle RCV in a November
general election, logically how would they in primary?
The real other nut of the debate is, Why do you think Minneapolis (and
St. Paul) voters aren't smart enough to figure out how to rank up to
three (or six) candidates. If they desire, they can vote for just one
candidate, exactly like they used to and do in the non-RCV elections.
Voting in Minneapolis is easy. The voters said so.