Make a New Account

Forget your username or password?

Advanced Search

Active Users

Currently 2 user(s) logged on.

	Follow us on Twitter! or join our Facebook group!
	Follow us on Twitter! or join our Facebook group!

Taking the Great Preventer to task

by: JDRyan

Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:31:12 AM EDT

Fans of the early, early days of rock 'n roll might recall the Platters' 1955 hit, "The Great Pretender":

"Oh yes, I'm the Great Pretender, pretending that I'm doing well.

My need is such, I pretend too much. I'm lonely, but no one can tell..."

Well, it seems we've found a variation on this could be making the rounds as Gov. Whinin' Jim Douglas' new campaign song:

"Oh yes, I'm the Great Preventer, preventing what would do us well.

My need is such, I prevent too much. life in Vermont is hell..."

My apologies to the Platters there, but as you probably know by now, the Guv. vetoed the recent Instant Runoff Voting bill, as expected. Gotta keep those damn lib'ruls in check - it's his life's calling, you know (well, that and telling everyone else how miserable life in Vermont really is).

More below the jump...

JDRyan :: Taking the Great Preventer to task

In yesterday's Times Argus, Curtis Fisher of Common Cause Vermont ably eviscerated Douglas' "logic" for vetoing the bill, basically exposing the governor's b.s. and hypocrisy for exactly what it is:

If Douglas was so concerned about the constitutional implications of IRV (specifically the one-person, one-vote issue), then why did he sign the Burlington charter change allowing its use in the mayor's race? If he genuinely believes IRV to be unconstitutional, then he was negligent in signing the first IRV bill. If not, he has disingenuously used the Constitution as cover for his irresponsible veto.

Douglas then notes a legal opinion by the attorney general that questioned (incorrectly, I believe) whether instant runoff voting could be used for electing the governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer without first amending the state Constitution. Douglas ignores the fact that 1. this legal opinion also states that "A constitutional amendment is not legally required for the other statewide offices…"; and 2. this bill does not even address those offices! Douglas suggests that advocates pursue a state constitutional amendment to obtain IRV in Vermont after stating that he believes IRV runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Voters should be insulted by this political doublespeak coming from the governor.

Finally, Douglas outrageously asserts that "it is mathematically impossible for the candidate chosen by the IRV process to receive a majority of first votes cast." This is nonsense, as most candidates elected using IRV in the United States in recent years won more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes. Either the governor didn't read the bill he vetoed, or he is blowing smoke to confuse the public.

So Gevernor Douglas is a also a flip-flopper, as well as an impediment to progress. He knows damn well that in many cases the only way a Republican in this state can get ahead in any kind of three-way race is to keep things the way they currently are, marginalizing the majority that is often expressed by the Dems and the Progs.

It is very important that wheneve we talk of Governor Douglas, we use these words that present an accurate assesment of what he really is, to rough up that 'likeability' veneer that has served him so well in his reign. Flip-flopper. Obstructionist. Out-of-touch. Standing in the way of progress. You get the picture. I'm sure you can think of a few more.

It's high time that the Dems and Progs in the legislature twisted some arms, and handed the Great Preventer the veto override he desperately deserves. The previous attempts to stand up to Douglas have been rather uninspiring, but perhaps with Symington and Shumlin eyeing the higher offices, they might find the necessary backbone. We shall see.

Poll

IRV veto override - gonna happen?

Yes, this one's too easy.
Attempt will happen, but fail.
No.

Results

Tags: Jim Douglas, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Taking the Great Preventer to task | 13 comments

pretending (0.00 / 0)

Oh yes Im the great pretender, pretending that food stamps can buy
A colt 45 and a pack of smokes
Yes, if only he knew Ronald Regan would surely die

by: welfarequeen @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 16:04:19 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Great Pretender (3.00 / 1)

LOL..well, that is what the great pretender wants you to buy -- a true American..a colt .45 and Marlboro cigarettes while worshipping the bust of Ronnie:)

When you wake up each morning look around you. It might be the last time you get to do it.

by: Watercloset @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:13:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Smoking the press (4.00 / 2)

"it is mathematically impossible for the candidate chosen by the IRV process to receive a majority of first votes cast."

Regardless of the merits of IRV the press should take Douglas to task for the fact that he is making a foolish,factually inaccurate argument.
A statement as mathematically questionable as the Governor's should have gained attention from skeptical reporters as well bloggers and advocates.

by: BP @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 16:20:03 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

What's the big deal about IRV? (0.00 / 0)

I'm so confused why we need IRV. What is the actual benifit to this process? What is the drive to get this through? I'm not real sure why we need to change the current system.

by: grumpyvermonter @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 16:55:00 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

This is a legitimate question (4.00 / 1)

And one that's likely to get your head bitten off for daring to bring it up.

There are three big pulls, as I see 'em.

1. By far the one that brings out the advocate intensity is the idea that this is the "magic bullet" that will somehow break open the two-party "duopoly" and magically transform us into a multiparty system overnight by eliminating the "spoiler effect" (which I thought didn't exist.... but never mind....). This is why many of the people who are treating it as THE end-all-be-all issue are often the same people who see the supplanting of the Democratic Party as a key goal... and why there's often so little tolerance in this crowd of having an open discussion about the pros & cons/nuts & bolts of such changes. It gets kinda article-of-faithish (and I don't know about you, but I get very queasy when faith mixes with politics).

From where I sit, I think these folks are going to be very disappointed, as this doesn't get at the fundamental, hardwired character of our two-party system; the separately elected, winner take-all executive branch. As long as we have that system, we'll always polarize into two parties eventually.

2. Those that feel, simply, that this system leads to a more precise way of measuring voter preference. These folks are distinguished from those in bullet 1 above because they dont get personally invested in the idea that IRV is perfect, and are willing to discuss its flaws... and consider a cost-benefit analysis of those flaws against the current system - as well as other alternative systems (such as preference voting) - without losing their shit over it. To these IRV advocates, IRV is a means to a more Democratic end, rather than a holy grail.

3. The insidious few of us who feel that IRV sets up an electoral-ideological force away from the ideological center in a two-party electoral system that is all about pushing everybody to the mushy middle in a general election. In the face of IRV, suddenly it'll make more difference to actually make meaningful stands on issues, as you're going for 1st and 2nd votes.

For my part, I'm in the #2 camp sure... but what I've REALLY got my eye on is #3... heh...

Nullius perfectus est

by: odum @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 18:05:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I'm With Odum in Group #2 (0.00 / 0)

PS grumpyvermonter- we need to change the system because it is (logically/mathematically) flawed. See my post here regarding the actual math behind voting theory, which in fact is a lot more complicated than casting and then counting ballots.

"GMD's once proud libertarian-socialist"

by: wdh3 @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 18:54:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks!!!! (0.00 / 0)

Your info was very helpful. I've been trying to get my head around this for a while

by: grumpyvermonter @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:16:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oddly (0.00 / 0)

I can relate to all three.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. Politics. Godlessness. Music. Films of questionable quality. It's all there, folks.

by: JDRyan @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 13:21:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What might surprise some (0.00 / 0)

is that most Progressives that I know also agree more with #'s 2 and 3. Many do not see this as the holy grail for the Progressive party. But rather an opportunity for those issues that are so often squelched by the quest for the middle (from either side I might add) to be brought back into debate.

For instance...the idea that maybe short term taxes (a la Snelling) or removing the Cap gains loophole, could also be helpful ways out of our current budget conundrum. Or...we can stick with the idea that we need to cut services and programs.

taxes and tax policy are but one of many areas that I think many on this blog would agree need to be further flushed out in the debate of campaigns.

Also...many of us agree that IRV is not perfect. We just argue that it is better than the current system. The reality is that a math guru (sorry I can not remember his name and my file is at the statehouse) once won a nobel prize for proving that there is no mathmatically perfect voting system. The U.S. association of Poli-sci profesors (again...I might have the exact name wrong) uses IRV to elect thier president.

by: David Zuckerman @ Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:20:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

count me in as #2 and #3 (0.00 / 0)

I always found the argument that IRV would transform us into a multi-party democracy "overnight" unconvincing. After all Vermont's Progressive Party have gotten where they have in fairly short order WITHOUT instant runoff voting.

I would argue our current system has not been working. After all it has given us what we have today, which I do not believe is a well functioning government.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

by: Rama Schneider @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Consistency in the poll, at least.... (0.00 / 0)

...not that this is good news. Maybe the first 5 voters in your poll are just a bit wary that legislative leadership can pull it together.

Hopefully, this will see an override, despite the poll results thus far.

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

by: mydog @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 17:37:50 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.