One of the arguments against run off elections in the event none of the candidates receive 50% or more of the vote is "IT WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE"
Chris Day has put that issue into the proper context
50+1
Too Expensive?
I
have been reading the comments about the cost of 50+1 and most of what I am
hearing is that it is too expensive and the only way that could work is if we
found a cheaper way to conduct elections. I learned today that last election
cost $28,000.00 and if 50+1 would take effect that would most likely double the
cost. So lets say if 50+1 did pass and the cost of our election would then be
about $60,000.00. Now that does sound expensive doesn't it?
What
if I tell you that we pay an average of $373,956.00 to Political Activities and
Lobbying? Is that too much to pay for politics?
We
are paying six(6) times more for government politics then what we would be
paying for our local union election. Is government politics more important then
assuring that our union has officers that represent the majority of our
membership?
If
you are wondering how I came up with these number then here is what I used to
figure this information out. For the total cost of elections I used the
memorandum presented to the membership from this months meeting and it implies
that if 50+1 was implemented the cost could be close to $60k. I then pulled up
our unions LM2's for the past ten(10) years(2005 - 2014) and looked up how much
we spend on Political Activities and Lobbying each year. The lowest we paid in a
year was $103,071.00 and the highest we paid was $163,403.00. The past ten(10)
years averaged out to $124,652.00. I then took that total and multiplied it by
three(3) to get a total of $373,956.00. So on average the total we pay for
three(3) years of politics is $373,956.00 and for our election
$60,000.00.
I
feel that our members have been conditioned to just except that things are too
expensive with out being able to see a larger picture. When you compare the cost
of something to something else then you are able to have a better view of where
you might want to set your priorities. It is my hope that will get members
asking if our priorities are set correctly.
They have a habit of compiling statistics to favor their position, and cramming it down our throats
ReplyDeleteYou noticed that too huh?
ReplyDelete50 + 1 is how the Teamsters do it!
ReplyDeleteIf costs (or time for a runoff) are the issue, switch to approval voting. Have one election, but allow people to vote for multiple candidates, with the one with most votes (support) winning.
ReplyDeleteI don't see a good reason why people must be forced to choose one and only one person to vote for when they find multiple candidates acceptable.
In public politics, this squelches support for third parties when people might be willing to support them but aren't willing to give up a vote for the main candidate.