Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The Supermajority Voting Requirement Explanation:

1) There's an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

The benefit a simple majority provides, of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. The simple majority voting examples I give here are totally accurate but might be easier to get through with a calculator to verify the figures accuracy and help with the understanding of it.

2) To continue a disagreement as to the need for a supermajority, after going through and understanding the mathematical reasons in the above link, is to argue that it would make perfect sense to allow Idaho residents to vote with us irt raising our WA state sales tax with a "simple" majority vote. In actuality, a supermajority would not only be wanted, it would in fact be a necessity, iot achieve a more fair vote. This would once again be due to allowing a group of people (Idaho residents in this case) to vote for something "they benefit from" yet "don't have to pay for". Exactly what occurs with a simple majority property levy vote.

How could anyone seriously/honestly believe that passing a 12% sales tax on WA residents (due to the influence of ID voters), when only 29-38% of WA voters approved it, would make sense or seem fair/democratic...? Yet that's exactly what could happen if a simple majority was used. It's a perfect example of where a "simple" majority would be a flawed vote (as it is with property levies). The mathematical evidence is unquestionable, and a bit silly to argue (unless the math aspect just isn't understood). I've tried to provide simple examples but you can't force someone to "accept" the truth, you can only "provide" the truth.

*****To clarify, the "simple" majority is the absolute correct vote in "most" situations (everyone voting pays & benefits equally: President, Govenor, Statewide taxes, etc.) but is flawed when used in situations where a group of people are allowed to vote for something they don't have to pay for even though they enjoy benefits from it (like property levy votes). This brings back the question irt these votes: Which one takes priority, personal benefit (simple majority) or truth & correctness (supermajority)?...

3) Irt the argument that it takes more yes votes to counter no votes and that it somehow is less democratic: A supermajority actually makes the vote "more" democratic in these types of votes. The idea it takes more yes votes to counter no votes is correct (although not necessarily 2-1) and is the exact and necessary intent of supermajority votes.
((You'd want it that way in order to account for the yes votes from the Idaho residents voting yes to raise your WA state sales tax in the above analogy and the reasons are just as justified in the case of property levies. The basic mathematics of the problem show it to be 100% true in both cases.))

The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of people don't have an actual understanding of the mathematical "why/how" reasons that a supermajority is required in certain situations (property levy votes are, in fact, one of those situations). With a better understanding, the law would have never been reversed and we would still have a super majority requirement (especially given that HJR4204 passed by "less than" 1%).

4) BTW: The argument that "renters pay levy taxes via rent" is "ridiculously simplistic" because only in a perfectly linked, utopian, system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can't get a renter at a price that covers the costs of the levy, he/she has to lower the rent, "eating" the expense, in order "to simply rent the unit out and avoid a vacancy".

5) ----As a side note, a vote "to change" a current voting requirement should always require thecurrent standard iot change that standard (no matter what the vote deals with). In other words, going "from" a simple standard should require a simple majority to change it. Likewise, going "from" a supermajority standard should require a supermajority to change. It defies basic logic, mathematics, and common sense that a "lesser" requirement would be used to "get around a stricter requirement" that was seen, by a select group, as "a pesky rule" preventing their ballot items from passing.----

The solutions are either:
1) Requiring a 60% Super Majority to pass property tax issues
2) Allowing only levy payers to vote on those measures...
3) A sales tax with total revenue evenly distributed on a per student basis would be a much more equitable solution (everyone pays in) and would also remove the disadvantage that can occur in lower property value school districts. Net-net the schools would still get their money, but in a much more fair way.

--->Once again, the conundrum: The benefit a simple majority provides of aiding in the achievement of your desired result (levy passage), does not change the "mathematically indisputable fact" that it's a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. So which takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?...

No comments:

Post a Comment