Just sent this letter to my State Senator:
Senator Johnson,
I was more than dismayed to see your name in the "Nay" column on the roll call for SSB 5326 today, the bill "Providing home rule charter cities the ability to choose their election system".
One would think coming out of a nasty Gubernatorial election that our state legislators would be looking to find ways to improve our election systems to prevent such an ugly, and tense situation.
Had the state of Washington had a system of Instant Run Off Voting or Ranked Choice Voting -- of the very type that the bill you voted against today prevented Vancouver from using, though it had been approved by voters 6 years ago -- we could have very easily resolved a close election between Chris Gregoire and Dino Rossi without even a fraction of the vitriol and partisan nonsense that typically overcomes both Democrat and Republican alike in these contests.
For one, IRV discourages the sort of negative campaigning that personified the Gregoire/Rossi race, since all candidates are jockeying for their opponents' supporters' second choice on the ballots.
And with each "instant run off", eliminated candidates' first choices votes go into the tallies of the voters' second and third choices, allowing for election results that truly represent the values of Washington voters and not just based on the fear of the least favorable of the two largest dogs in the fight. Who knows who the 44,000 Ruth Bennett voters would have picked at their second choice? It certainly would have given the eventual victor a much more decisive victory instead of the partisan sniping that cost tax payer money and only discouraged voters from getting involved in politics in the first place.
And thirdly, IRV takes that very fear out of elections and eliminates the "spoiler effect" entirely. This would not only shatter the glass ceiling for third party and independent candidates, but would allow for a better debate with a wider range of voices and choices and could only work to increase voter turnout and participation.
Of course, the loudest voices in opposition, in my experience, has been from legislators such as yourself who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
The message this sends voters like me is that if fear were taken out of our elections and voters were free to choose among a wide range of candidates, that deep down, you know that many of your current voters would not choose you.
I will keep this vote in mind when you come up for re-election in 2006.
Thank you for your time,
Mike Gillis
Kent, WA
I was more than dismayed to see your name in the "Nay" column on the roll call for SSB 5326 today, the bill "Providing home rule charter cities the ability to choose their election system".
One would think coming out of a nasty Gubernatorial election that our state legislators would be looking to find ways to improve our election systems to prevent such an ugly, and tense situation.
Had the state of Washington had a system of Instant Run Off Voting or Ranked Choice Voting -- of the very type that the bill you voted against today prevented Vancouver from using, though it had been approved by voters 6 years ago -- we could have very easily resolved a close election between Chris Gregoire and Dino Rossi without even a fraction of the vitriol and partisan nonsense that typically overcomes both Democrat and Republican alike in these contests.
For one, IRV discourages the sort of negative campaigning that personified the Gregoire/Rossi race, since all candidates are jockeying for their opponents' supporters' second choice on the ballots.
And with each "instant run off", eliminated candidates' first choices votes go into the tallies of the voters' second and third choices, allowing for election results that truly represent the values of Washington voters and not just based on the fear of the least favorable of the two largest dogs in the fight. Who knows who the 44,000 Ruth Bennett voters would have picked at their second choice? It certainly would have given the eventual victor a much more decisive victory instead of the partisan sniping that cost tax payer money and only discouraged voters from getting involved in politics in the first place.
And thirdly, IRV takes that very fear out of elections and eliminates the "spoiler effect" entirely. This would not only shatter the glass ceiling for third party and independent candidates, but would allow for a better debate with a wider range of voices and choices and could only work to increase voter turnout and participation.
Of course, the loudest voices in opposition, in my experience, has been from legislators such as yourself who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
The message this sends voters like me is that if fear were taken out of our elections and voters were free to choose among a wide range of candidates, that deep down, you know that many of your current voters would not choose you.
I will keep this vote in mind when you come up for re-election in 2006.
Thank you for your time,
Mike Gillis
Kent, WA