Entry tags:
more political email, local division
I just sent my alderman an argument in favor of ranked choice voting (a.k.a. instant run-off, or in some corners of fandom "Australian ballot")"
I'd looked at the Somerville website a couple of hours ago and found an article about proposals to expand local voting rights, introduce ranked choice voting, and several other things in similar directions, like having municipal and state elections at the same time.
Having a bit of free time, I wrote to my alderman, Mark Niedergang, asking him to support expanding the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds (that's the first proposal that's been sent to the board of aldermen, who will vote on whether to send a "home rule message" to the state legislature asking them to pass a law saying we can do it). I added that I'd also like him to support instant run-off voting, if/when that gets to the aldermen.
He wrote back, saying he is strongly in favor of expanding the franchise, both to 16- and 17-year-olds and to let non-citizen parents vote in school committee elections. He also asked why I support instant run-off, which he thinks is complicated and unnecessary, the latter because there's been significant turnover on the board of aldermen in the last five years. My reason, which I told him, is that it's not just about amount of turnover. It's about letting more positions be represented, rather than having to choose between two candidates I disagree with when there's one I support.
(I used the obvious example on this year's Massachusetts ballot, difficult as I find it to sympathize with someone who is thinking "I like Ayyadurai, but Diehl isn't as bad as Warren so I'll vote for him." [That's not just because Ayyadurai is a Trump supporter, it's because, as I commented to![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
gingicat a few days ago, he has only a loose relationship with consensus reality, and is still claiming to be the real inventor of email.])
I'd looked at the Somerville website a couple of hours ago and found an article about proposals to expand local voting rights, introduce ranked choice voting, and several other things in similar directions, like having municipal and state elections at the same time.
Having a bit of free time, I wrote to my alderman, Mark Niedergang, asking him to support expanding the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds (that's the first proposal that's been sent to the board of aldermen, who will vote on whether to send a "home rule message" to the state legislature asking them to pass a law saying we can do it). I added that I'd also like him to support instant run-off voting, if/when that gets to the aldermen.
He wrote back, saying he is strongly in favor of expanding the franchise, both to 16- and 17-year-olds and to let non-citizen parents vote in school committee elections. He also asked why I support instant run-off, which he thinks is complicated and unnecessary, the latter because there's been significant turnover on the board of aldermen in the last five years. My reason, which I told him, is that it's not just about amount of turnover. It's about letting more positions be represented, rather than having to choose between two candidates I disagree with when there's one I support.
(I used the obvious example on this year's Massachusetts ballot, difficult as I find it to sympathize with someone who is thinking "I like Ayyadurai, but Diehl isn't as bad as Warren so I'll vote for him." [That's not just because Ayyadurai is a Trump supporter, it's because, as I commented to
gingicat a few days ago, he has only a loose relationship with consensus reality, and is still claiming to be the real inventor of email.])