Joe Soucheray: 'Ice cream' analogy for IRV? I think I'll have t...

Really now. Would IRV matter all that much?

How does John Charles Wilson and the Edgertonite Party differ from Al Franken and the DFL?

?

18 September 1970 is the day before Twin City Lines was taken over by the Metropolitian Transit Commission.

As to the person who can't tell the difference between the ENP and the DFL or between me and Al Franken... wake up!

Come on, Joe...what is wrong with IRV? You think it is bad because it is designed to give more people exposure in the election process? Reall...that's a bad thing? Let's say it is, I would think you would be grateful that the process elminates the PUBLIC expense of primaries and such. Or are your anti-spending rants inconsistent? Honestly, Joe...whiners are downers and you're quickly becoming a tiresome old fool.

Bucklaw wrote:

Come on, Joe...what is wrong with IRV? You think it is bad because it is designed to give more people exposure in the election process? Reall...that's a bad thing? Let's say it is, I would think you would be grateful that the process elminates the PUBLIC expense of primaries and such. Or are your anti-spending rants inconsistent? Honestly, Joe...whiners are downers and you're quickly becoming a tiresome old fool.

Wow you're dumb. What's the saying? You can't fix stupid? If the shoe fits, wear it.

Bucklaw wrote:

Come on, Joe...what is wrong with IRV? You think it is bad because it is designed to give more people exposure in the election process? Reall...that's a bad thing? Let's say it is, I would think you would be grateful that the process elminates the PUBLIC expense of primaries and such. Or are your anti-spending rants inconsistent? Honestly, Joe...whiners are downers and you're quickly becoming a tiresome old fool.

Anywhere IRV has been done it has cost more money to run the elections rather than less money. Not to mention the fact that the winners do not always win with a majority of votes cast, another untruth propegated by the IRV drones.

MN Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Anywhere IRV has been done it has cost more money to run the elections rather than less money. Not to mention the fact that the winners do not always win with a majority of votes cast, another untruth propegated by the IRV drones.

How many people actually vote in these vaunted primaries? I mean, everyone is off working while these scouts, these troupers, are campaigning, right? And about majority voting, how is this different from the status quo? Let's see, we have a Senator and a Governor who both failed to receive majorities - from two different parties.

Lastly, fringe candidates are in every election, and both "sides" have them - Jack Shepard, a person who hasn't set foot in the US for a LOOONG time, got nearly 9% of the vote in the 2008 Republican Senate _primary_.

Every City that has adopted IRV regrets it. This will just make Voting more difficult and Votes will be manipulated in over 900 ways. Why would any of us trust IRV that was dreamed up in some back alley. Don't be a Sucker, Vote NO on IRV!

For all you IRV supporters, this column is SATIRE. Don't go running off and listing Soucheray and the Pioneer Press as endorsers of the IRV amendment. IRV'ers dont' tend to be critical thinkers and see everything through rose-colored glasses.

TheK wrote:

<quoted text>
How many people actually vote in these vaunted primaries? I mean, everyone is off working while these scouts, these troupers, are campaigning, right? And about majority voting, how is this different from the status quo? Let's see, we have a Senator and a Governor who both failed to receive majorities - from two different parties.
Lastly, fringe candidates are in every election, and both "sides" have them - Jack Shepard, a person who hasn't set foot in the US for a LOOONG time, got nearly 9% of the vote in the 2008 Republican Senate _primary_.

Like most IRV supporters would, you MISSED THE POINT. I pointed out that majorities are not always achieved in IRV only because that seems to be the holy grail for its supporters. I happen to believe a plurality of votes is all that is necessary, that is, one vote more than your opponent. What's your point about fringe candidates? The one you mentioned has never been in a general election in Minnesota.

I still don't know why mediocrity is rewarded. Why should the voters of the loser get another choice? If that's fair, why shouldn't everybody get a second vote?

John Charles Wilson wrote:

18 September 1970 is the day before Twin City Lines was taken over by the Metropolitian Transit Commission.
As to the person who can't tell the difference between the ENP and the DFL or between me and Al Franken... wake up!

A political party of one, huh? So was Ted Kaczinski

Think of it this way Joe, even x-Mayor Kelly would be on the ballot
now. And you luvvvvved him, right? In your own "Tutti Frutti" way.

Or maybe you are just too old and prefer to be told who to vote for in the old way.
Yup, too many confusing choices for an old senile coot like you.

John Charles Wilson lost me on the Laura Ingalls Wilder thing. Right up until that point he had my vote. Here's a hint, John: you have the right to remain silent. Use it.

When you can not argue with facts, simply make fun of those that hold opposing view points.

Mr. Sew-chew-ray does that with the best of them. A tip of the hat to good old Joe.

http://www.johncharleswilson.name/

This guy is kidding, right? Someone please tell me he's joking...