Instant Runoff Scam Returns

It’s a truism. If Democrats can’t or don’t win an election, they change the rules.

It doesn’t matter what our Constitution says or even what the voters think; they’ll find a way to circumvent rules to push their candidates to victory.

We are seeing that again lately with the renewed push for instant runoff elections. You may have noticed a flurry of stories lately in the CA talking about the virtues of instant runoff elections. That’s because the City Clowncil agenda today includes a vote on whether to have a referendum in next year’s election to repeal instant runoff elections.

The CA’s favorite liberal/progressive water carrier, David Waters, addresses the issue in a front page story today. It’s really an editorial that they decided to give front page billing because anymore news isn’t facts, just presentations of liberal propaganda.

Waters writes that we approved instant runoff elections in 2008. He says, “Theoretically, instant runoffs make it easier for challengers to unseat incumbents in multi-candidate district races.” Right there that gives you the motive for this push; Republicans currently are the incumbents and he wants to push them out.

Waters continues, “Instant runoffs aren’t perfect, but they do ensure that all winners are decided on election day rather that (sic) in a costly – and rarely attended – second runoff election weeks later.” Here’s the translation: our voters, Dems who don’t really pay attention to issues but we round up to vote Democrat for us, don’t follow through and come vote in a runoff election. That hurts Democrats and gives momentum to people who really care about issues who do turn out.

We can’t have that, can we?

His/their propaganda gets buttressed on the editorial page with a guest columnist’s “Instant runoff voting will be better for Memphis.” Guess who the guest is? Corey Strong, chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party. No bias there, eh?
He, too, gives away the store so to speak by writing, “instant runoff voting is a superior system of voting to our current system. Second, many of our elected officials are terrified of the types of changes that it will take to move Memphis into a progressive direction.”

Come again? IRV is superior because you say so? It’s superior because we are impeded now from becoming that progressive vision you want? Personally, progressive really means regressive to me in that we lose our freedoms.

The author goes on to suggest that runoff elections are racist. “We know how challenging it is to get poor and minority voters to the polls, especially for runoff election (sic) when turnout drops historically from 30% to about 5%. We know that a disproportionate number of runoff election voters are white and affluent.”

That’s evidently a crime against nature to him.

His other points are that IRV keeps elections from becoming nasty and that the system saves money (something Dems only care about when it’s useful). He disputes the opposition’s view that IRV gives you the least popular person as winner and that it’s too difficult to figure out (it is). He then contradicts his earlier point saying “we will always need to spend money on voter education no matter the system.”

Strong concludes, “Progressive cities and states across the country are moving to IRV. Former President Obama supported it in 2008. So did Arizona Senator John McCain.” Not a good talking point to conservatives that.

When this issue surfaced in November 2011, I addressed it. You can find out more about why IRV is bad here:
Don’t be fooled. It’s a scam.

... Leave a Reply