MCCL NOT FAIR TO CITIZENS OF MINNESOTA
PRO-LIFERS, PLEASE READ THIS!
The Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) is a Minnesota organization that lobbies for pro-life issues. According to their website, "The mission of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life is to secure protections for innocent human life from conception until natural death through effective education, legislation and political action."
I respect that. MCCL is a group that fights for their beliefs, not for financial gain. They have done so by the power of grassroots organizing, not the power of money. If you are a pro-life person, you are probably supportive of MCCL's work.
Unfortunately for you pro-lifers, the MCCL has gotten away from their mission. Their leaders are going into areas that have nothing to do with protections of human life. Either they have lost their way because of their success, or they are being used by politicians.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about MCCL telling legislators that if they support ranked voting, they will be reported as not pro-life.
Here is the questionnaire that MCCL issued to candidates for office in August, 2005 . As you can see, most of the questions relate to MCCL's mission of reducing abortion or euthanasia. Even the question about campaign finance reform has some relationship to MCCL, since it could affect how they contribute to candidates.
But look at the question about Instant Runoff Voting. It has NOTHING to do with pro-life issues. Nothing!
The MCCL is not being honest about why they oppose ranked voting. Can you tell from the question why? Even if it were true that it is confusing for voters (which it isn't), that would not explain why it is a pro-life issue and not merely one of the hundreds of issues that the legislature addresses that have no direct bearing on the pro-life movement.
It is interesting to note that the two most pro-life nations in the Western world, Ireland and Malta, use instant runoff voting for their elections.
I believe I know why MCCL opposes ranked voting. Ralph Nader. The most important issue to the pro-life movement, far above any others, is the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The only way that will happen is if the President is pro-life and supports Supreme Court nominees who are pro-life. If voters in the 2000 election could rank their choices, then Ralph Nader voters could make Al Gore their second choice, and Al Gore, rather than pro-life George Bush, would be elected. To prevent that scenario from happening in the future, MCCL is trying to prevent Minnesotans from ever trying ranked voting on a local level. They are NOT concerned that voters will be confused. On the contrary, they are concerned that voters will like ranked voting, and that it will be expanded to presidential elections.
Why this is bad thinking
Even if this were true, how we elect people is not within MCCL's mission. But what MCCL also fails to realize is that politics is constantly changing. It is possible that if voters ranked candidates in 1992, some Ross Perot voters would put George H. W. Bush second and Clinton would never have been elected. In the future, John McCain may run as a Republican, which could incite a conservative third party to run, and cause a Democrat to win. Or McCain could run as an independent, taking votes from the Republican. In those instances, Pro-Lifers would want voters to have the right to rank their choices.
Whether these events occur is not the point. It is simply wrong for MCCL to grade a candidate as not pro-life if the candidate believes that cities or school districts should have the right to hold ranked vote elections. MCCL should not try to deprive Minnesota taxpayers and voters of the right to choose an election process that is efficient, economical, and democratic. Read about "Savings to Taxpayers"
[Note: the MCCL questionnaire submitted to candidates this year does not contain any questions about ranked voting. I hope this is an indication that they are focusing on issues related to their mission. If MCCL contacts me and states that they are unequivocally out of the ranked vote issue, I will immediately remove this page. However, their website still contains claims that votes for ranked voting are a "pro-life loss." Senate Votes 3 and 4. ]