Executive Summary of Neopopulism

Read it and act!

There may be some disagreement about the details of this summary, but I believe most Neopopulists will agree with most of this:

Neopopulism is a post-modern democratic movement that focuses on the rule of law, political and cultural context (relevance) and democratic process.  What makes the shining city on the hill beautiful is not any ideological architecture, but HOW it is built.  It has to be built by the people. 

Neopopulism replaces the question "What is the objective truth?" with "Who's in charge here?" 

This  implies the elimination of discretionary bureaucratic power, the political and cultural demise of the expert aristocracy, the rejection of ideology as a will to power that abuses and even hates the people's language, the rejection of the conservative theory of the natural aristocracy and the statesman as more elitism, the rejection of utilitarianism as rationalist nonsense that perpetuates the myth of expertise and the statesman, and a Neopopulist theory of the politician as being directly responsible to the agenda of the people.  

 At an even deeper philosophical level, Minnesota Neopopulism is a wholesale rejection of the modern, rationalistic, scientistic, reductionist tradition.  Neopopulism is a political movement, but deeply respects the capacity of religion to put reason in its place and assert the intrinsic dignity and worth of the people. The rise of Modernism supported the rise of expert aristocracy.  The death of that tradition now supports the rebirth of democracy.  The critique of the modern tradition is in.  The rationalist roots are dead, and the whole tree has fallen on its utilitarian branch, smashing it.  It's firewood.  The people, not the experts, will now be the measure of what is politically correct.

Neopopulism is NOT a political party and should never become one, because the political parties trivialize politics, turning politics into nothing but a will to power -- an ideological process which is often out of context and simply focuses on electing an elite member of the party.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans oppose expert aristocracy, they just disagree about who the experts really are.

Neopopulism is strategic.  It focuses on the creation of political counter- culture.  The right political culture (culture = a belief system [religion, both secular and traditional] externalized, the practical implementation of a world view) will automatically produce the right agenda.

Core Values:

• The rule of law versus the discretionary power of the modern regulatory state.
• Democracy versus expert aristocracy (modern elitism) and rationalism.
• Common sense versus rationalism and  ideology as an out of context will to power.
• Religious faith versus scientism (religion putting reason in its place).
• Respect for the dignity, not just the rights of the people.
• Ordinary language versus technical language as more reductionism.

Core Principles:

• The government should not only respect our rights, it should respect our dignity. It will not do the former if it cannot do the latter.
• There is no objective utilitarian calculator. No expert, no government can measure the net utility of individuals and communities. This can only be decided by the people themselves as a democratic compromise and, as such, is hated by experts who are evil for their ideological perfectionism and who appeal to the utilitarian myth.
• We are "post-modern". The modern rationalist tradition, including utilitarian justifications for giving power to experts, is dead. This also includes the death of modern scientific reductionism, which is the cornerstone of the myth of expertise.
• We reject the conservative theory of the natural aristocracy and the statesman. This is just more elitism.
• The Neopopulist politician is the politician who refuses to play the statesman, but instead remains true to the agenda he was elected on.
• What's new in "neo"-populism is the popular, historical conclusion that the government cannot do for the people what the people must now do for themselves. What we must first of all do for ourselves is liberate ourselves from the expert aristocracy - the excesses of the modern regulatory state (the modern scientific republic).
• The bureaucracy is not an evil conspiracy, it is just inherently mediocre and requires massive surveillance by the people.
• Socialism is rationalism and elitism and cannot be implemented without totalitarianism.
• Private property is power to the people.
• Serve the people or fear the people.
• Ideology is a will to power which has no respect for the common meanings that common people associate with words. Ideology, as opposed to philosophical consistency, is willing to falsify the experience and language of the people in order to achieve power.
• Reason alone has no authority.  But ordinary language, common sense, and the religious tradition have all the authority required to avoid radical relativism.

Core Processes:

• Massive surveillance of the government by the people. We are looking for particularly good informants.
• Bringing suit against the bureaucrats when they violate the rule of law or abuse discretionary power. Force the regulators to either abide by the rule of law or give up their power to regulate.
• Monitoring of all elected officials to keep them on the people's agenda.
• Recall.
• Initiative and referendum.
• Write-in campaigns.
• Civil disobedience.
• Education through the alternative media.
• Coordination through the alternative media.
• The direct control by the people of all educational institutions; the end of government education as a puppy mill for the government's own rationalist tradition.

Basic Agenda:

• Educating the people in the death of the modern rationalist tradition and the need to end the age of expert aristocracy.
• Creation of anti-rationalist, anti-intellectualist counter-culture.
• Direct election of judges. Make the judiciary directly accountable to the people.  Judges and their judgments are all tradition bound.
• Direct election of all state commissioners and police chiefs (as well as sheriffs). Make the bureaucracy directly accountable to the people. Establish the rule of law in the otherwise mediocre bureaucracy. Make the bureaucracy perform for the people; end its wholesale moral and technical mediocrity.
• Bring education under the direct control of the people. Make education directly accountable to the people in order to finally make the people fully free by putting them in charge of the means of cultural production.
• The election of Neopopulist politicians. Make the legislature directly accountable to the people.
• National and state initiative and referendum for deconstructing what the modern scientific republic constructs.
• Recall of any and all politicians including the president.
• Liberate the American worker by liberating him from big business as an extension of the regulatory regime. End the age of the employee by ending the government's regulation of the relationship between the worker and the firm.
• Ordinary language statutes which will control all other law by enforcing the people's common sense meanings for words.
• A constitutional requirement that elected representatives write their own statutes; not experts (lobbyists) or staffers.

Comment (0) Read More...

Startribune Editorial Misses the Point of the Per Diem Litigation:

The Courts are on Trial

            Friday's Startribune editorial missed the point of why the Citizens for the Rule of Law brought the per diem lawsuit.  The Citizens for the Rule of Law brought the lawsuit to put Minnesota courts on trial - not the state legislature.

            First, let's agree on some facts.  State legislator per diem compensation is a daily wage paid to state legislators on top of their salary and reimbursed expenses.  Legislative per diem compensation has nothing to do with expenses - which are eligible for separate 100% reimbursement.  The Senate and House fiscal offices understand this fact, so they withhold for federal and state income taxes on per diem payments made to individual state legislators.  These daily wages are now a critical part of state legislator compensation - probably up to 30% for some state legislators.  Many legislators in 2007 brought home more than $20,000 in these daily wages.  

Second, the Minnesota Constitution requires that compensation for legislators be determined by law and that a pay increase not take effect until after the next election. 

Third, in 2007, the State Senate - not by an enacted law, but by a vote of the Senate only - increased their per diem compensation from $66 per day to $96 per day.  The House Rules Committee made a similar increase but only to $77 per day. The discrepancy between $96 per day for senators and $77 per day for representatives, again, shows it's a daily wage. It has nothing to do with expenses. 

Based on these facts, the Citizens for Rule of Law knew (as any reader of this commentary would know) that the state legislators violated the Minnesota Constitution in 2007 by increasing their compensation without an enacted law and by increasing their compensation before the next election in 2008.

The Citizens for Rule of Law did not need a lawsuit to prove that the state legislature violated the Constitution to pad their pocketbooks.  Politicians are crooks.  There is nothing new, novel or interesting about that.  

No, the more interesting question was whether the Minnesota Courts would apply the Constitution to the state legislature?

The answer so far is no.  The Court of Appeals decision issued July 28^th held that legislative per diem payments are not "compensation" within the meaning of Article IV, Section 9 of the Minnesota Constitution and, therefore, an increase to legislative per diem payments, effective immediately, does not violate that section's prohibition against same-term increases to compensation.

The Court of Appeals' decision failed several tests.  Let's just take three: ordinary language, logic and common sense.   

The ordinary language of the Constitution, voted for by the people, indicates that state legislative pay increases need to be enacted by law - meaning the House and Senate agree on a bill which is presented to the Governor for signing.  The Court of Appeals failed to acknowledge that didn't happen in 2007.

The ordinary language of the Constitution, voted for by the people, requires that a vote for a pay increase not take effect until after the next election. The Court of Appeals failed to state that a pay increase took effect before the 2008 election.

Logic suggests that if the Court of Appeals were right - and the per diem wasn't compensation - that the state legislators wouldn't care whether they received the $96 or $77 per day.  But, the state legislators do care.  These daily wages have become a significant part of their compensation package.  The Court of Appeals simply missed the logic that if the state legislators consider these daily wages their "compensation" and are relying on it to "make a living," then it must have been unconstitutional for the state legislators to increase their "compensation" without an enacted law and without delaying the increase until after the 2008 election.

Common sense suggests that the state legislators are illegally paying themselves.  People on the street, when it comes to paying for things and paying taxes are expected to comply with all the laws -- even the little laws.  In return, the little people, like the members of Citizens for the Rule of Law, believe that Minnesota courts should make the big people follow the laws too.

Put simply, the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision has shown that in Minnesota, if you are big enough and important enough, you don't need to follow the law.  There are no consequences.

Sad, but true.

Erick Kaardal is representing Citizens for Rule of Law and is General Counsel for neopopulism.org. 

Comment (0) Read More...

Neopopulism's opposition to bureaucratic mediocrity in all its forms brings a fresh perspective to Public Education and the Environment.

On public education, neopopulists want educational policy focused on educating the parent's child.  Parents working locally deserve to have the public education they want.  Taxpayers have a right to a good return on their public education dollar.  

Minnesota's K-12 schools are mediocre.   Neopopulists want radical change  to serve the public's wants and needs.   Local parents working with teachers must run the public schools.   Every school building should be chartered and its progress towards objective goals measured.   If a school building isn't working, then its funding should go to another school building, etc.

As to the environment, neopopulists are tired of government environmentalists ruining our environment.  It was government in Minnesota that subsidized the railroads, the massive drainage ditch system and all other forms of economic development.    In any modern environmental disaster, it is the government acting in complicity with economic actors (farmers, business, etc.)  that has ruined the environment. 

Neopopulists demand a rethinking of the "environment" in which we want to live.  Neopopulists think critically about new government initiatives to save the environment.

A good local example is government subsidized corn based ethanol.  Since corn-based ethanol only produces the same energy that is required to produce it, the whole thing appears to be a boondoggle for farmers.  (By the way, sugar cane ethanol produces 8 gallons of ethanol per gallon of gas equivalent used.) 

Now the farmers with higher corn prices are ploughing under wildlife habitat and food prices are rising.  It's madness.

Neopopulism has a lot of interesting things to say about public education, the environment and other issues.

Comment (0) Read More...

            Neopopulist Manifesto I laid out the post-modern intellectual foundations for the neopopulist rebellion.   This essay concerns "progress" for neopopulists.

            Neopopulists believe progress can be objectively measured -- by how is the government serving the people?  How is the government respecting the people's dignity?

           The most obvious and clearly seen government transgression of the people's dignity is a violation of the rule of law.  Unlike the I-35 bridge collapsing, the space shuttle exploding or a mauling tiger jumping out of a zoo cage, we can be sure of the government's mediocrity or mendacity when it violates the rule of law.

           Thus, progress is a government that honors the people's dignity by not transgressing it.

          Regretfully, as presented in Neopopulist Manifesto I, the present situation is dire -- the absence of the rule of law exists.  Progress, under these circumstances, is restoring the rule of law to government -- requiring the people to honor the people's dignity until it becomes a habit again.

         Today, the priorities of progress are mis-set by the elites, experts and technocrats.  These prorities are often the result of their hubris, their specialization, their self-centeredness -- but more often these priorities are a result of their mediocrity.

        Neopopulists understand their rule of law cause is democratic and demanding.  Democratic in that all means of political participation must be used -- including civil disobedience.  Demanding in the sense the government must follow the rule of law and the government must honor the people's dignity.

         We are in a state of rebellion.

Comment (0) Read More...

The "capitalists", like the ones that flew on their private jets to beg the government elite for cash to be bailed out,  have become so corrupt that they can no longer expect to be taken seriously.  Of course they are not really capitalists -- they have no integrity or principles.  They are happy to have the taxpayers line their pockets.

Unfortunately, the government, and liberals in particular, love them just the way they are, because the public-private 'partnership' is nascent socialism and gives them more and more control to enforce their socialist system of elitism. 

 Socialism is elitism and completely compatible with CEOs operating as extensions of government finance, flying on private jets and spending a million bucks on a party.  There is nothing inconsistent with socialism and elitism.  It creates a priveleged class with the power to distribute wealth, and it creates a priveleged "underclass" which reciprocates by keeping them in power.  The rest of us get screwed.

I more deeply resent the idea of  my wealth, such as it is, going to the corporate elite, as the socialist elite, than someone who really needs it.  But satisfying real need is not what socialism is all about.  Socialism is based on maintaining an underclass.  This is the irony of Marxism.  Marx objected to the idea that labor, in a labor market, is supposedly only worth what it costs to maintain it at a subsistence level.  (This is not true of course, but Marx arrived at that conclusion because of the misbegotten labor theory of value as an objective theory of value.  All value in the market place is subjective and on a subjective basis, labor may be valued far beyond subsistence levels.)  But this is exactly what socialism must establish as system equilibrium.  Socialism is fascism.  If the underclass ever breaks out, the political basis of socialism disintegrates.  The poor HAVE to be kept poor.  They have to be kept dependent.

We fought a civil war in this country that killed or wounded over a million people, based on the principle that no one has the right to take the fruits of another man's labor and distribute it as he sees fit, at the point of a whip or a gun.  It's called "slavery", and the corporate elite today is longing to participate in the government plantation as the slave master.   Large firms want guaranteed profits based on transferring all the real risk to the taxpayer.  They strive to get "too big to fail" so the taxpayer has to subsidize them.  This  is a disaster.  It will hold down the production of wealth in this country and is designed to do so.  Without a lower underclass, schooled to vote, but not to work, the elite government-industrial complex cannot be sustained politically.  Socialism must distribute more and more wealth to an elite class and keep the hands of the people held out.

Neopopulists awake!  The bureaucrats want you living on their plantation, where there is no rule of law, just the rule of the master.  They want to be able to withhold your compensation if you demand the rule of law.  And the business elite is perfectly comfortable with that system as long as they are part of the master class.  Neither bureaucrats nor big business have any vested interest in your freedom, based on the rule of law.  They want to make you an "at will" citizen, who can be fired and diminished any time they find you objectionable.

Comment (0) Read More...

Comment (0) Read More...

Preliminary Table of Contents  --

"Neopopulism"

by Erick Kaardal

• 1 History and origins
• 1.1  Agrarian Neopopulism in Soviet Union
• 1.2  Latin American Neopopulism in Emerging Democracies
• 1.3  European  Neopopulism in Established Democracies
• 1.4  Nascent Neopopulism in United States
• 1.5 1980s
• 1.6 1990s
• 1.7 2000s
• 1.7.1  Election of Senator Jon Tester and aftermath
• 1.7.2 2008 Presidential Campaign of Mike Huckabee
• 1.7.3 2008 Presidential Election and aftermath
• 2 Evolution of neopopulist views
• 2.1 Usage and general views
• 2.1.1 Usage outside the United States
• 2.1.2 Usage inside  the United States
• 2.2 Neopopulist views on rule of law
• 2.3 Neopopulist views on constitutions 
• 2.4  Neopopulist views on foreign policy
• 2.5 Distinctions from populists
• 2.6 Distinctions from liberals
• 2.7 Distinctions from conservatives
• 2.8 Distinctions from partisans of political parties
• 2.9 Criticism of the term neopopulism
• 3 Criticism of Elite
• 3.1 Mediocre  Bureaucracy / Violations of Rule of Law
• 3.2 Imperialism and the Presidency
• 3.3 Lack of Accountability for Executive Agencies
• 3.4  Mediocrity and Congress
• 3.5  Mediocrity and Courts
• 3.6 Government surveillance required to combat governmental secrecy
• 3.7 Friction with populists
• 3.8 Friction with ideology
• 3.9 Friction with political parties
• 4 Related publications and institutions
• 4.1 Institutions
• 4.2 Publications with neopopulists
• 5 See also
• 6 Notes
• 7 References
• 8 Further reading
• 8.1 History of neopopulism
• 8.2 What  is a neopopulist?
• 8.3 Explanations of neopopulist ideas
• 8.4 Critiques of neopopulist ideas
• 8.5 Conservative and Liberal  criticism of neopopulism
• 9 Documentaries

Comment (0) Read More...

Neopopulists have  solved the epistemic political problem created by rationalists. The epistemic political problem involves answering the question of how knowledge is acquired in the political process?

Rationalists can not solve the epistemic political problem because they believe knowledge is something owned by the individual mind.  (Recall Russel Kirk's bestseller the Conservative Mind.)  As rationalists, each person works out his own universal set of principles to be applied to humanity and the social order.  Hence, the rationalist brands have evolved:  left, right, center, liberal, conservative, moderate, etc.  By this rationalism, the political process is reduced, like the marketplace, to self-interested politicians pushing their rationalist set of ideas or principles. 

On the other hand, neopopulists solve the epistemic political problem (created by rationalists) by asserting that knowledge is not acquired individually -- but in the context of others.   As neopopulists, each person acquires knowledge in the context of others and then applies it in the context of others.  Hence, the neopopulist brands evolve:  neopopulist, elitist (rationalist).  By this neopopulism, the political process is accurately described as  democratic, deliberative and worthwhile.  

The rationalist and neopopulist approaches to the epistemic political problem can further be analyzed by two tests.  First, how do the two approaches correlate to the truth?  Second, which approach calls for a better politics?

How do the two approaches relate to truth?

The three tests for truth I will use will be:  correspondence, coherence and transcendental truth.

Correspondence:  is the approach consistent with my experience?  A quick historical review of world democracies corresponds with the neopopulist, not rationalist, approach.   Democracies over time acquire knowledge experience by dealing with fact-based reality.   Democracies make decisions and then make more decisions based on the experiences of their past decisions.  For example, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq, the comparisions were made to previous wars in Vietnam, Korea, Europe, etc. -- not to some rationalist universal set of principles.   So, correspondence favors neopopulism over rationalism.

Coherence:  is the approach logical, consistent?  Rationalism is logical, consistent at an individual level - but not at a community level.  Neopopulism is consistent at both an individual level and community level.   Rationalism makes complete sense to an individual because each person is a sovereign onto himself -- working out a universal set of principles to apply to humanity and the social order.  Neopopulism is logical and consistent to an individual because a person contributes and acquires knowledge in the context of others.  At the community level, neopopulism is logical and consistent; whereas, rationalism is not.  Neopopulism is logical and consistent because the community acquires knowledge over time by its experience with fact-based reality.  Rationalism is illogical and inconsistent at the community level because it holds to the illusion that knowledge is only acquired by individuals -- not communities.    This is why rationalism creates the epistemic political problem and why neopopulism solves it.

Transcendental truth:  does the approach meet transcendental truths?   I think it comes down to two choices -- do you speak for others or for God?  Neopopulists speak for others.  That is their motivation.  Rationalists speak for God.  Their motivation is to speak for God's plan.  For my part, it is a transcendental truth that man is not God, and, particularly, no particular man is God, and generally, each man is not God.  Rationalism violates these truths.  Neopopulism incorporates them.

Which approach calls for a better politics?

Neopopulism creates the better politics because its politics are more respectful of people and their dignity.  Neopopulists assert that politics take primacy.   Neopopulists require all rationalist foundationalists  in any sphere -- science, ethical, moral -- to seek verification from others in the broad political process.  For legitimacy, that political process must be ethical and democratic.  On the other hand,  rationalists assert that the individual takes primacy.  Rationalist foundationalists may claim legitimacy whenever they want -- it's available everywhere, anytime.  Legitimacy comes from the fact that the rationalist believes it -- not that anyone else believes it.  The political process becomes a graceless free-for-all.  

We can do better.  We are in a state of rebellion.

Comment (0) Read More...

I have been assigned the task of reviewing the academic literature on neopopulism in the process of writing the Wikipedia article on neopopulism. 

My first observation is that the academics on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean define neopopulism differently.  The Europeon-focused academic literature defines neopopulism as right-wing, anti-democratic, anti-government, anti-immigrant, etc.  The Latin American academic literature defines neopopulism as democratic, constructive, a well-intentioned politics, etc.

 My sense is that the political scientists who are writing these articles defining and describing neopopulism are themselves ideologically-motivated - resulting in ideologically-reductionist writing.

In Dahlberg's and my view, pure neopopulism is free of ideological and partisan reductionism.

Curiously, Dahlberg's and my view on the definition of a pure neopopulism may be congruent with the definition offered by University of Texas Profesor Kurt Weyland in his article "Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics" published in the Journal of Comparative Politics, volume 34, No. 1, October 2001, p. 1.  The article can be found here.

In the article at pages 14-16, Professor Weyland distinguishes neopopulism from populism in a very important way.  Populists act unilaterally on behalf of the people.  Neopopulists act on behalf of the people's desires communicated through such devices as opinion polls.  In this way, Weyland concludes neopopulists are more populist than populists.

Dahlberg and I agree on this point. But, we would press Professor Weyland further to recognize that neopopulists are systematic, as opposed to populists, in establishing over the long term the people managing the government or, put more in a political science way, a government managed by the people.  In so many ways, today's populist politicians want to manage the people just like the elitists. Today's populist politican becomes tomorrow's elitist ruler. 

Nonetheless, Professor Weyland's article is a valuable contribution to the neopopulist literature.  As a result, we are adding his article to our library.

Meanwhile, I continue the review of the academic literature on neopopulism.

Erick G. Kaardal

Comment (0) Read More...

Published November 19 2008

Instant runoff election ill-advised, misguided

By: Andy Cilek and Matt Marchetti , Duluth News Tribune

In his Local View commentary last week in the News Tribune ("Senate race shows need for runoff system"), Nick Hannula exhibited flawed thinking with regard to how our republic must work.

He began by trying to show that an electoral problem exists in our current plurality voting system because the ultimate winner of Minnesota's U.S. Senate race between incumbent Republican Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken won't achieve 51 percent of the vote. He called for instant runoff voting, sometimes referred to as IRV, as a remedy that would ensure a so-called "majority" winner.

While we do not believe a majority winner is really the motivation behind Hannula's remarks, it is worth responding to.

First, IRV does not guarantee a 51 percent majority winner because it doesn't require voters to rank more than one candidate. That allows a winner to be determined with less that 50 percent of the votes. As a student of political science, Hannula should have figured that out.

In addition, the founders of our republic knew that majority rule was just another form of tyranny. This was why they gave us a constitutional republic, not a majority-rule democracy. Ignorance of this simple historical fact is dangerous to our republic.

Benjamin Franklin has been quoted as saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." The Founders knew that a majority could be just as tyrannical as any monarch or dictator; so they created a constitutional republic, limiting the powers of government and specifically preventing majorities from trampling on the rights and property of the minority.

A plurality vote is the duly expressed will of the people. The value of a plurality lies in the message it sends to the winner: "Be careful how you govern because we don't completely trust you."

Our elected officials must understand they are representatives - not rulers! We the people rule, not the politicians. This is the essence of our republic.

We should also distinguish between an election and a governing body enacting laws. A majority is required for the passing of laws. But we also have constitutional limitations on what laws even a majority can pass. Thus, in our republic, there is no legitimate objection to electing representatives by plurality vote. In fact, it's arguably preferable.

However, if people demand majority-election winners, they can have traditional runoffs where the top two vote-getters square off and another vote is taken. But this method has its own problems, including that of getting voters to participate in a runoff if their favorite candidate is not in it. 

IRV is offered as a magical solution: Combine the election and the runoff into one election, and voila! Unfortunately for runoff advocates, a runoff is warranted only when nobody gets a majority of first choices; so any majority created by IRV is merely contrived.  

By far, the worst thing about IRV, or any other form of preferential voting, is that it disenfranchises voters. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Duluth's 1915 Brown v. Smallwood decision, "The preferential system directly diminishes the right of an elector to give an effective vote for the candidate of his choice." The court upheld that "the right of the citizen to cast a vote for the candidate of his choice unimpaired by the second and additional choice votes cast by others." This is the key.

Because of the mathematical complexities of preferential voting, the rankings can have unknown effects depending upon the rankings of other voters. When a voter chooses one candidate, he knows he is helping that candidate. But when ranking preferences, a voter can, without knowing it, actually harm his favored candidate by raising him in rank. This unpredictability is what disenfranchises voters, and it is the main reason the 1915 court ruled preferential voting unconstitutional - and why the Minnesota Voters Alliance is suing Minneapolis to prevent its implementation.

IRV advocates like to focus on irrelevancies, such as the alleged simplicity of IRV or its cost effectiveness, that are debatable. But when it comes to the constitutionality issue, all they have is the dubious claim that Brown v. Smallwood only applied to the specific method which was challenged at the time. However, the court did not specify any particular method, but ruled "the preferential system" unconstitutional.

A majority-vote requirement is utterly misguided and ill-advised. This is a constitutional republic, not a majority-rule democracy. The push for instant runoff voting is nothing more than a power play on the part of a ruling-class elite who uses the language of democracy but in truth advocates one-party rule - with them the one party. This ought to be frightening to anyone who believes in liberty and the rights of the minority.

Andy Cilek of Eden Prairie, Minn., and Matt Marchetti of North St. Paul are co-founders of the nonprofit Minnesota Voters Alliance, at mnvoters.org.

Comment (0) Read More...