Andy talks with Don Shelby in December 2008. 
Major areas of concern:
Instant Runoff Voting should be stopped:
Click here for our July Editorial from the Pioneer Press!
IRV is undemocratic because it counts the secondary choices of some voters while counting only the first choice votes of others!
It eliminates the primaries which play a vital role in the electoral process; It creates false majorities, suppresses minority viewpoints and its structure makes it susceptible to strategic manipulation.
But the worst aspect of IRV is that, as the Supreme Court recently admitted,
“a voter cannot be sure that his or her vote for a candidate will help, rather than hurt, that candidate.”The IRV election format is clearly unconstitutional, as said the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1915:
“The quotations made from the different cases are NOT chance expressions. They are indicative of the idea, which permeates all legal thought, that when a voter votes for the candidate of his choice, his vote must be counted one, and it cannot be defeated or its effect lessened, except by the vote of another elector voting for one.”
See the Appellants’ Principal Brief submitted to the MN Supreme Court
To insure the integrity of elections, photo I.D. should be required.
Concern over vote fraud has revealed a need for voter I.D. Whenever an illegal or illegitimate vote is cast, it diminishes the effectiveness of all the legitimate votes cast by legal voters.
We have started a petition drive to get this going in St. Paul. If successful we will expand it to other areas of the State. (See St.Paul Photo I.D.)
Photo I.D. is required for nearly every important transaction in life. It should also be required for voting.
The U. S. Supreme Court recently upheld an Indiana law requiring photo I.D. (see Opinion) Congressman Keith Ellison wrote an Op Ed commenting on the Court's decision. (see Ellison ) (see our response)
We polled 250 voters in September 2008. A staggering 237 out of 250 strongly favored the photo ID requirement! A Rasmussen poll, October 2008, showed that 76% favor voter photo I.D.
Who could oppose protecting the integrity of the vote?
Judicial offices should remain elective:
There is an effort underway, by a group of (so-called nonpartisan) political insiders known as the Quie Commission, who are attempting to remove our constitutional right to elect judges.
They want to create a panel of bureaucrats to choose them for us. We strongly oppose this effort! We believe that an election system, not a retention system, places voters in the strongest position to influence the judicial process.
This issue was fully debated in the 1857 Constitutional Convention, with the delegates ultimately deciding on an election system. Once we give up our right to vote, we will never get it back.
We should fix our election system, not scrap it.
Please visit our donations page and consider supporting us.