Imagine voting on a ballot initiative and knowing that everyone who didn’t show up at the polls still got to vote—because their votes would be counted as “No.”
Measure D requires any increase in City Council benefits be approved by a 55% majority vote of registered voters.
A ballot item requiring a 55% majority vote of the registered voters takes away the basic democratic principle that elections should be decided by a majority of the voters who take their time to cast a ballot.
Measure D requires any increase in City Council benefits be approved by a 55% majority vote of registered voters.
A ballot item requiring a 55% majority vote of the registered voters takes away the basic democratic principle that elections should be decided by a majority of the voters who take their time to cast a ballot.
In Riverside County between 2000 and 2010, on a simple Yes or No ballot vote where 55% of the registered voters would be required for the ballot item to pass, the result is non-voters being in control of the ballot 72% of the time .
The key phrase in Measure D is “registered voter", not “voter”. The difference is significant.
The purpose of voting is for your voice (by vote) to be heard. When you don't vote, you yield your voice to those that do. In Measure D, the opposite is true. If the registered voter gives up their right by not voting, their voice is still heard.
Giving the non-voters as much – or more – power than the people who actually vote is inherently undemocratic, unfair and is WRONG.
The point isn’t about any (future) change to the requirements imposed by Measure D, but rather the means in how it is to be done.
So why did the proponents include the provision of “registered” voters in this Measure? Mistake? Intentional? Who knows, and now the provision is set in stone.
What should be perfectly clear to the voting public is that even 20 years out, the odds will always be against those that vote and with those of the non-voter. I call this a stacked deck --against the actual voting public.
If only for this reason alone, the non-voter being in control, this measure should be voted down.
The purpose of voting is for your voice (by vote) to be heard. When you don't vote, you yield your voice to those that do. In Measure D, the opposite is true. If the registered voter gives up their right by not voting, their voice is still heard.
Giving the non-voters as much – or more – power than the people who actually vote is inherently undemocratic, unfair and is WRONG.
The point isn’t about any (future) change to the requirements imposed by Measure D, but rather the means in how it is to be done.
So why did the proponents include the provision of “registered” voters in this Measure? Mistake? Intentional? Who knows, and now the provision is set in stone.
What should be perfectly clear to the voting public is that even 20 years out, the odds will always be against those that vote and with those of the non-voter. I call this a stacked deck --against the actual voting public.
If only for this reason alone, the non-voter being in control, this measure should be voted down.
Vote NO on Measure D,
then vote NO on Measures C and E.
then vote NO on Measures C and E.
I never thought about the affect of non voters.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
This position sounds like an Obama twist of logic....
ReplyDeleteSo you would choose to ignore the value of limiting government pay because of the difficulty in changing it after the fact? You ignore the merits of the measure because it may actually survive challenges?
ReplyDeleteOne more question: Is the author of this blog a council member who doesn't want money taken away? Good reason to vote yes.
This measure is an attack on future voters. To allow for change is to allow for growth. To require a super majority of “voters” would make change difficult. To require a super-majority of “registered voters” would make change near impossible, if not totally.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is not run or authored by a council person. I am registered voter that votes. When my neighbor’s non-vote does not affect my vote, then it is their right to not vote. When my neighbor’s non-vote does affect my vote, then I will revolt to correct the wrong.
If you can, explain what you believe are the merits of the measure.
To poster on Sept 2. Yes you nailed it. This blog admin is a known pro council supporter. No need to state the name of them. We know and they know who they are. This blog is irrelevant to the election.
ReplyDeleteThe self-aggrandizement by this morning's poster is laughable.
ReplyDeleteI also find it laughable that this morning's poster seems to think this blog is irrelevant to the election, because like the name states, this blog is all About Murrieta. It seems to me the poster has something to be afraid of in not wanting the facts to be out there for all to see.
And yes, as a Murrieta resident, I do support the current council, but not all of the council members. Come 2 November I will have to carefully consider the 3 incumbents in the council race. Right now it looks like only 2 will be receiving my vote.
No self aggrandizement. Just stating simple facts.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me your beef isn't about the facts on the initiatives, because they are what they are. A non-vote is proven to be as, or more, powerful than an actual vote.
ReplyDeleteAs the admin of this blog, I could easily dismiss you in deleting your posts for not sticking to the topic, but that would be non-productive. Your posts speak loudly in that your attempt to go after the admin result in only discrediting your postion on the initiatives.
Anonymous said that s/he is "just stating simple facts." The period should have come after simple.
ReplyDeleteHere's a Clue
Nice to see this blog up and running. I am critical of government and believe they have become too large and spending needs to be controlled. However, I have studied the wording of these measure and have concluded they will be counter productive if they pass. VOTERS, be careful and read the small print. These are bad for Murrieta!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above comment. Voters not only need to read the fine print, they also need to look at the big picture and the long term affect.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits do not stop career politicians; they only move them to another seat. The proof is in Sacramento. Voting them out is the only way to stop politicos in their tracks. And until voters get off their duff, as in doing their civic responsibility by voting, those politicos will always have a foothold in the system. As for Murrieta, in its 20 year history I have to yet to see more than 2 council members be elected for more than 2 terms. That’s not to say others didn’t run for re-election, because they did, and when the voter’s had enough they voted them out.
Considering the time involved, the current pittance of a $600 monthly wage and health benefits the council is paid is a non-issue. Some will argue that council positions are volunteer work. I’m sorry, but running a city of over 100k residents requires more effort than just attending a couple of meetings a month only to tell staff to do their job. Council positions are part-time jobs and deserve part-time compensation.
I won’t argue with anyone that says city managers are overpaid, because I believe they are. But if Murrieta is the only city restricted, then we might as well turn the lights off because there will be no qualified applicants knocking at door in the future.
If these measures pass, and if you like Murrieta now, just wait a few years because it will be a whole different story.