JD, is this like the Alaska ranked choice voting system?

[Sawfish]

About to start a new way to vote for city officials here in PDX. I've
spent some time trying to get my head around it but it really seems
counter-intuitive to me, and apparently to many others here. And it
seems both pointless and a bit disconcerting to make the public voting
mechanism less transparent rather than more transparent.

It seems like the goal is to make the process cheaper and quicker for
those who administer the voting system, since it eliminates run-offs.
It's also not really clear what are the thresholds for re-counts, or if
there ever will even be such a circumstance any more.

I recall that you implied that in Alaska there's a ranked choice system.
How does it compare to the one for PDX?

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/heres-how-portlands-one-of-a-kind-city-council-elections-will-work-but-with-doughnuts.html

[jdeluise]

Post by Sawfish
About to start a new way to vote for city officials here in
PDX. I've
spent some time trying to get my head around it but it really
seems
counter-intuitive to me, and apparently to many others here. And it
seems both pointless and a bit disconcerting to make the public voting
mechanism less transparent rather than more transparent.
It seems like the goal is to make the process cheaper and
quicker for
those who administer the voting system, since it eliminates
run-offs. It's also not really clear what are the thresholds for
re-counts, or if there ever will even be such a circumstance any
more.
I recall that you implied that in Alaska there's a ranked choice
system. How does it compare to the one for PDX?
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/heres-how-portlands-one-of-a-kind-city-council-elections-will-work-but-with-doughnuts.html

Yes, it's essentially the same system. Except in your case the
race has multiple winners so the tabulation system is more
complicated.

Here is the system in Alaska (state and federal elections only),
copied and reformatted from a state website...

===
What: In all state and federal general elections, voters rank
candidates in order of preference, instead of only choosing one.

How: Ballots are counted in rounds. If a candidate gets 50% + 1
vote in round one, they win. Candidates are eliminated until two
candidates remain and the candidate with the most votes wins.

Round 1: Only your 1st choice ranking is counted. If a candidate
gets 50% + 1 vote, they win. If not, the counting goes to Round
2.

Round 2: The candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated. If
you voted for that candidate, your vote goes to your next choice
and you still have a say in who wins. If more than two candidates
are left, counting continues.

Round 3 and Beyond: If two candidates are left, the candidate with
the most votes wins. Otherwise, counting continues
===

The advantages:

* No party nominations :: All candidates run together regardless
of party. So party bosses can't simply pick a candidate against
the will of the party in the primary.

* No run-offs :: In my mind this is important because we all know
that it's hard to get people to vote ONE day, even harder to get
them to vote in a run-off too. I've always found it unsettling
that a different set of voters vote in run-offs. It's also
cheaper.

* Eliminates some forms of "strategic" voting" :: In a
multi-person race, have you ever wanted to vote for someone but
instead voted for someone you think is more likely to win? I
know I have. In this system you aren't really penalized for
voting for the unlikely person, if they're eliminated your
second choice can go to the "acceptable" person you think is
more popular to others. If enough other people feel the same,
there is a better chance of an upset.

* Easy, from a voter's perspective :: They often say that it's too
complicated. It's not, small children can choose things in
order of preference, so voting adults should be able to as well.
You're not obligated to vote for more than one choice.

* It legitimizes multi-person races :: The winner has to win at
least 50% of the weighted votes.

Regarding your points.. First of all, the system is deterministic.
Given the same set of input (the completed ballots) the tabulation
system should always produce the same result. So, I'm not
necessarily disagreeing with you, but I don't understand what you
mean when you say it's less transparent. Is it not good enough to
have the rules clearly delineated like above? Anyone involved in
a recount could apply the same system to the raw data and arrive
at the same result. In regards to recounts, yes I agree there
should still be an opportunity for a recount and/or an "automatic"
threshold. If it's not already encoded in the system in PDX it
should be, but that's more of an implementation problem than a
problem with the system itself.

I do agree that the system there in PDX is a lot more complex due
to the fact it's being used in races with multiple winners.

In Alaska conservatives hate it and are trying to get it repealed.
I've heard so many say it's "rigged" against them somehow... that
from now on only libs have a chance to win. But it defies all
logic, if republicans want to win they should just vote for only
republicans. Obviously some aren't doing that! I think it's just
a case of sour grapes because Mary Peltola won the congressional
seat with the system, after 40+ years of Don Young.

[Pelle Svanslös]

I do agree that the system there in PDX is a lot more complex due to the
fact it's being used in races with multiple winners.

According to the article it works just about the same as in an election
with one winner. But is this proportional? The article is a bit short on
stuffs, but it seems to me it is not.

Like the river, proportionality is hallowed ground.

[Sawfish]

Post by Sawfish
About to start a new way to vote for city officials here in PDX. I've
spent some time trying to get my head around it but it really seems
counter-intuitive to me, and apparently to many others here. And it
seems both pointless and a bit disconcerting to make the public voting
mechanism less transparent rather than more transparent.
It seems like the goal is to make the process cheaper and quicker for
those who administer the voting system, since it eliminates
run-offs. It's also not really clear what are the thresholds for
re-counts, or if there ever will even be such a circumstance any more.
I recall that you implied that in Alaska there's a ranked choice
system. How does it compare to the one for PDX?
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/heres-how-portlands-one-of-a-kind-city-council-elections-will-work-but-with-doughnuts.html

Yes, it's essentially the same system.  Except in your case the race has
multiple winners so the tabulation system is more complicated.
Here is the system in Alaska (state and federal elections only), copied
and reformatted from a state website...
===
What: In all state and federal general elections, voters rank candidates
in order of preference, instead of only choosing one.
How: Ballots are counted in rounds. If a candidate gets 50% + 1 vote in
round one, they win.  Candidates are eliminated until two candidates
remain and the candidate with the most votes wins.
Round 1: Only your 1st choice ranking is counted.  If a candidate gets
50% + 1 vote, they win.  If not, the counting goes to Round 2.
Round 2: The candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated.  If you
voted for that candidate, your vote goes to your next choice and you
still have a say in who wins.  If more than two candidates are left,
counting continues.
Round 3 and Beyond: If two candidates are left, the candidate with the
most votes wins.  Otherwise, counting continues
===
* No party nominations :: All candidates run together regardless  of
party.  So party bosses can't simply pick a candidate against  the will
of the party in the primary.
* No run-offs :: In my mind this is important because we all know  that
it's hard to get people to vote ONE day, even harder to get  them to
vote in a run-off too.  I've always found it unsettling  that a
different set of voters vote in run-offs.  It's also  cheaper.
* Eliminates some forms of "strategic" voting" :: In a  multi-person
race, have you ever wanted to vote for someone but  instead voted for
someone you think is more likely to win?  I  know I have.  In this
system you aren't really penalized for  voting for the unlikely person,
if they're eliminated your  second choice can go to the "acceptable"
person you think is  more popular to others.  If enough other people
feel the same,  there is a better chance of an upset.
* Easy, from a voter's perspective :: They often say that it's too
 complicated.  It's not, small children can choose things in  order of
preference, so voting adults should be able to as well.  You're not
obligated to vote for more than one choice.
* It legitimizes multi-person races ::  The winner has to win at  least
50% of the weighted votes.
Regarding your points.. First of all, the system is deterministic. Given
the same set of input (the completed ballots) the tabulation system
should always produce the same result.  So, I'm not necessarily
disagreeing with you, but I don't understand what you mean when you say
it's less transparent.  Is it not good enough to have the rules clearly
delineated like above?  Anyone involved in a recount could apply the
same system to the raw data and arrive at the same result.  In regards
to recounts, yes I agree there should still be an opportunity for a
recount and/or an "automatic" threshold.  If it's not already encoded in
the system in PDX it should be, but that's more of an implementation
problem than a problem with the system itself.
I do agree that the system there in PDX is a lot more complex due to the
fact it's being used in races with multiple winners.
In Alaska conservatives hate it and are trying to get it repealed. I've
heard so many say it's "rigged" against them somehow... that from now on
only libs have a chance to win.  But it defies all logic, if republicans
want to win they should just vote for only republicans.  Obviously some
aren't doing that!  I think it's just a case of sour grapes because Mary
Peltola won the congressional seat with the system, after 40+ years of
Don Young.

Good response; useful. Thanks.

Maybe the biggest problem is that in Oregon, in PDX specifically, our
*first* exposure is more complex than a simpler case of one winner per
office.

Too, it's combined with exclusive vote by mail, and those procedures are
somewhat non-transparent, as the incoming ballot envelopes are opened as
received and the voters' signatures identify who voted early. Those who
did not are then specifically targeted by either party for phone calls.

And of course, once the ballots are opened, are they counted as
received? And if so, are there observers there each day? If counted, are
the tabulations also shared with all parties?

So any move away from transparency makes one queasy if one thinks about
it too long.

[PeteWasLucky]

About to start a new way to vote for city officials here in PDX. I've spent some time trying to get my head around it but it really seems counter-intuitive to me, and apparently to many others here. And it seems both pointless and a bit disconcerting to make the public voting mechanism less transparent rather than more transparent.It seems like the goal is to make the process cheaper and quicker for those who administer the voting system, since it eliminates run-offs. It's also not really clear what are the thresholds for re-counts, or if there ever will even be such a circumstance any more.I recall that you implied that in Alaska there's a ranked choice system. How does it compare to the one for PDX?https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/heres-how-portlands-one-of-a-kind-city-council-elections-will-work-but-with-doughnuts.html-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"I done created myself a monster." --Boxing trainer Pappy Gault, on George Foreman~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What happens if voters fill in only one candidate?

[jdeluise]

Post by PeteWasLucky
What happens if voters fill in only one candidate?

You don't have to use all your choices. If your choice(s) get
eliminated then you just don't contribute to the later rounds of
counting.

[PeteWasLucky]

I get that, but what I meant if voters filled only first choice,
then that system won't work as planned.
Right?

[jdeluise]

Post by PeteWasLucky

voters fill in only one candidate?You don't have to use all
your choices. If your choice(s) get eliminated then you just
don't contribute to the later rounds of counting.

I get that, but what I meant if voters filled only first choice,
then that system won't work as planned.
Right?

What do you mean by "as planned"? It's clearly stated in the
rules that voters can do that, and it would still "work" if
everyone did it. But there is an incentive to use all or most of
your choices because it gives you more opportunity to get your
desired candidates in office.

[PeteWasLucky]

For the system to work as planned people need to fill a ranked list, and if people just decided to vote for their favorite person then that system fails miserably. Did I get this correctly?

If yes, then it's something that can't be ignored because most people can't comprehend even basic instructions and asking people to exhaust their mental abilities thinking about other possibilities and what-if scenarios isn't logical.
But asking people to come for re-voting is probably much easier to succeed in.


I know you will be laughing on what I said, but you really need to deal with the average citizen everywhere in USA to understand the types of mental and educational challenges this system can have.

[jdeluise]

Post by PeteWasLucky

fill in only one candidate?You don't have to use all >> your
choices. If your choice(s) get eliminated then you just >>
don't contribute to the later rounds of counting.>> I get that,
but what I meant if voters filled only first choice,> then
that system won't work as planned. > Right? What do you mean by
"as planned"? It's clearly stated in the rules that voters can
do that, and it would still "work" if everyone did it. But
there is an incentive to use all or most of your choices
because it gives you more opportunity to get your desired
candidates in office.

For the system to work as planned people need to fill a ranked
list, and if people just decided to vote for their favorite
person then that system fails miserably. Did I get this
correctly?

I've said multiple times that the system works fine if people
makes one choice. These people have just given up their
opportunity to influence who wins once their first choice is
eliminated. It *everyone* chooses one (unlikely) then it's not
really any different from a typical election. It still has the
advantage of eliminating party influence on nominations.

Post by PeteWasLucky
If yes, then it's something that can't be ignored because most
people can't comprehend even basic instructions and asking
people to exhaust their mental abilities thinking about other
possibilities and what-if scenarios isn't logical.
But asking people to come for re-voting is probably much easier to succeed in.

Really? You say the vast majority of people are too stupid to
pick their top three choices on one day? Yet smart enough to know
what a run-off is, recognize that it's happening, identify when it
is taking place, locate the polling location and get there in the
allocated time window? That sounds a lot more complicated. Some
people take time off work to vote, it's less these people would
take time off twice for a single election.

Post by PeteWasLucky
I know you will be laughing on what I said, but you really need
to deal with the average citizen everywhere in USA to understand
the types of mental and educational challenges this system can
have.

I am aware. But even toddlers can list of their preferences in
order. If they can't and want to just choose one, that's fine
too.

[PeteWasLucky]

No, when some percentage of voters fill only their first choice, then the system doesn't work as intended.

Read below how this system creates one person - N votes system that violates the concept of one person one vote concept.
But if you allow it and not every person provides the same number of votes then it's extremely and more flawed.

https://www.rankedvote.co/guides/understanding-ranked-choice-voting/pros-and-cons-of-rcv

https://www.wweek.com/news/dr-know/2022/07/23/will-my-vote-still-be-counted-in-ranked-choice-voting-if-i-only-like-one-candidate/

[jdeluise]

Post by PeteWasLucky

fill in only one candidate?You don't have to use all >> your >>
choices. If your choice(s) get eliminated then you just >> >>
don't contribute to the later rounds of counting.>> I get that,

but what I meant if voters filled only first choice,> then
that system won't work as planned. > Right? What do you mean

by >> "as planned"? It's clearly stated in the rules that
voters can >> do that, and it would still "work" if everyone
did it. But >> there is an incentive to use all or most of
your choices >> because it gives you more opportunity to get
your desired >> candidates in office.>> For the system to work
as planned people need to fill a ranked > list, and if people
just decided to vote for their favorite > person then that
system fails miserably. Did I get this > correctly? I've said
multiple times that the system works fine if people makes one
choice. These people have just given up their opportunity to
influence who wins once their first choice is eliminated. It
*everyone* chooses one (unlikely) then it's not really any
different from a typical election. It still has the advantage
of eliminating party influence on nominations.>> If yes, then
it's something that can't be ignored because most > people
can't comprehend even basic instructions and asking > people to
exhaust their mental abilities thinking about other >
possibilities and what-if scenarios isn't logical.> But asking
people to come for re-voting is probably much easier > to
succeed in.Really? You say the vast majority of people are too
stupid to pick their top three choices on one day? Yet smart
enough to know what a run-off is, recognize that it's
happening, identify when it is taking place, locate the polling
location and get there in the allocated time window? That
sounds a lot more complicated. Some people take time off work
to vote, it's less these people would take time off twice for a
single election.>>> I know you will be laughing on what I said,
but you really need > to deal with the average citizen
everywhere in USA to understand > the types of mental and
educational challenges this system can > have.I am aware. But
even toddlers can list of their preferences in order. If they
can't and want to just choose one, that's fine too.

No, when some percentage of voters fill only their first choice,
then the system doesn't work as intended.

I don't agree, since that's a valid choice. The system still
works just fine.

Post by PeteWasLucky
Read below how this system creates one person - N votes system
that violates the concept of one person one vote concept.
But if you allow it and not every person provides the same
number of votes then it's extremely and more flawed.
https://www.rankedvote.co/guides/understanding-ranked-choice-voting/pros-and-cons-of-rcv
https://www.wweek.com/news/dr-know/2022/07/23/will-my-vote-still-be-counted-in-ranked-choice-voting-if-i-only-like-one-candidate/

Well, you could easily make the argument that the current system
also doesn't work "as intended" because not every potential voter
votes. Other advanced democracies (like Australia) have
compulsory voting for that reason. At the end of the day with
ranked choice voting everyone has the same opportunity to vote.
Voters may choose to not use all (or any) of their available
choices, just the same as in the current system.

[PeteWasLucky]

you could easily make the argument that the current system also doesn't work "as intended" because not every potential voter votes.

So you agree it has issues.

At the end of the day with ranked choice voting everyone has the same opportunity to vote. Voters may choose to not use all (or any) of their available choices, just the same as in the current system.

If you read the example in the second link for the three candidates case, you should see why this system has logical flaws even on the assumption that every voter puts many ranked choices.

[Sawfish]

Post by PeteWasLucky

you could easily make the argument that the current system also doesn't work "as intended" because not every potential voter votes.

So you agree it has issues.

At the end of the day with ranked choice voting everyone has the same opportunity to vote. Voters may choose to not use all (or any) of their available choices, just the same as in the current system.

If you read the example in the second link for the three candidates case, you should see why this system has logical flaws even on the assumption that every voter puts many ranked choices.

There's a way to view the new PDX system as an attempt to ameliorate the
situation created by having three representatives per district. They
therefore were looking for a way to quickly come to a conclusion and
chose this system.

Where formerly we had 4 council members elected at large, and a mayor,
we now have 4 districts each with 3 representatives and they represent
the new districts, not an at large vote.

They mayor will be an at large office, with a new city manager hired by
the mayor, ostensibly with approval by the 1w2 district reps.

Reassuring...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish

[jdeluise]

Post by PeteWasLucky
So you agree it has issues.
If you read the example in the second link for the three
candidates case, you should see why this system has logical
flaws even on the assumption that every voter puts many ranked
choices.

I've never said RCV or any system is perfect. It's not. But I
think it's a lot better than the current system.

[Sawfish]

Post by PeteWasLucky
So you agree it has issues.
If you read the example in the second link for the three candidates
case, you should see why this system has logical flaws even on the
assumption that every voter puts many ranked choices.

I've never said RCV or any system is perfect.  It's not.  But I think
it's a lot better than the current system.

Fair enough.

[Sawfish]

Post by PeteWasLucky

writes:>> What happens if >> voters >> fill in only one candidate?You
don't have to use all >> your >> choices.  If your choice(s) get
eliminated then you just >> >> don't contribute to the later rounds
of counting.>> I get that, >> but what I meant if voters filled only
first choice,>  then >> that system won't work as planned. > Right?
What do you mean by >> "as planned"?  It's clearly stated in the
rules that voters can >> do that, and it would still "work" if
everyone did it.  But >> there is an incentive to use all or most of
your choices >> because it gives you more opportunity to get your
desired >> candidates in office.>> For the system to work as planned
people need to fill a ranked > list, and if people just decided to
vote for their favorite > person then that system fails miserably.
Did I get this > correctly? I've said multiple times that the system
works fine if people makes one choice.  These people have just given
up their opportunity to influence who wins once their first choice is
eliminated.  It *everyone* chooses one (unlikely) then it's not
really any different from a typical election.  It still has the
advantage of eliminating party influence on nominations.>> If yes,
then it's something that can't be ignored because most > people can't
comprehend even basic instructions and asking > people to exhaust
their mental abilities thinking about other > possibilities and
what-if scenarios isn't logical.> But asking people to come for
re-voting is probably much easier > to succeed in.Really?  You say
the vast majority of people are too stupid to pick their top three
choices on one day?  Yet smart enough to know what a run-off is,
recognize that it's happening, identify when it is taking place,
locate the polling location and get there in the allocated time
window?  That sounds a lot more complicated.  Some people take time
off work to vote, it's less these people would take time off twice
for a single election.>>> I know you will be laughing on what I said,
but you really need > to deal with the average citizen everywhere in
USA to understand > the types of mental and educational challenges
this system can > have.I am aware.  But even toddlers can list of
their preferences in order.  If they can't and want to just choose
one, that's fine too.

No, when some percentage of voters fill only their first choice, then
the system doesn't work as intended.

I don't agree, since that's a valid choice.  The system still works just
fine.

Post by PeteWasLucky
Read below how this system creates one person - N votes system that
violates the concept of one person one vote concept. But if you allow
it and not every person provides the same number of votes then it's
extremely and more flawed.
https://www.rankedvote.co/guides/understanding-ranked-choice-voting/pros-and-cons-of-rcv
https://www.wweek.com/news/dr-know/2022/07/23/will-my-vote-still-be-counted-in-ranked-choice-voting-if-i-only-like-one-candidate/

Well, you could easily make the argument that the current system also
doesn't work "as intended" because not every potential voter votes.
Other advanced democracies (like Australia) have compulsory voting for
that reason.  At the end of the day with ranked choice voting everyone
has the same opportunity to vote. Voters may choose to not use all (or
any) of their available choices, just the same as in the current system.

Are you still doing a hybrid system, where you have mail in, absentee,
and precinct ballot boxes?

[jdeluise]

Post by Sawfish
Are you still doing a hybrid system, where you have mail in,
absentee,
and precinct ballot boxes?

Yes, although I've only ever done in-person.

[PeteWasLucky]

The same here.

[Sawfish]

Post by PeteWasLucky

About to start a new way to vote for city officials here in PDX. I've spent some time trying to get my head around it but it really seems counter-intuitive to me, and apparently to many others here. And it seems both pointless and a bit disconcerting to make the public voting mechanism less transparent rather than more transparent.It seems like the goal is to make the process cheaper and quicker for those who administer the voting system, since it eliminates run-offs. It's also not really clear what are the thresholds for re-counts, or if there ever will even be such a circumstance any more.I recall that you implied that in Alaska there's a ranked choice system. How does it compare to the one for PDX?https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/heres-how-portlands-one-of-a-kind-city-council-elections-will-work-but-with-doughnuts.html-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"I done created myself a monster." --Boxing trainer Pappy Gault, on George Foreman~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What happens if voters fill in only one candidate?

Lawfully, or otherwise?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfis

[TT]

Post by Sawfish
About to start a new way to vote for city officials here in PDX. I've
spent some time trying to get my head around it but it really seems
counter-intuitive to me, and apparently to many others here. And it
seems both pointless and a bit disconcerting to make the public voting
mechanism less transparent rather than more transparent.
It seems like the goal is to make the process cheaper and quicker for
those who administer the voting system, since it eliminates run-offs.
It's also not really clear what are the thresholds for re-counts, or if
there ever will even be such a circumstance any more.
I recall that you implied that in Alaska there's a ranked choice system.
How does it compare to the one for PDX?
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/heres-how-portlands-one-of-a-kind-city-council-elections-will-work-but-with-doughnuts.html

You should definitely vote for your city officials, it's more important
than people realize.

I never did, but hellbent on voting the next Helsinki council
election... the Green Party & other leftist morons are really fucking up
things in Helsinki.

[Sawfish]

Post by TT

Post by Sawfish
About to start a new way to vote for city officials here in PDX. I've
spent some time trying to get my head around it but it really seems
counter-intuitive to me, and apparently to many others here. And it
seems both pointless and a bit disconcerting to make the public voting
mechanism less transparent rather than more transparent.
It seems like the goal is to make the process cheaper and quicker for
those who administer the voting system, since it eliminates run-offs.
It's also not really clear what are the thresholds for re-counts, or
if there ever will even be such a circumstance any more.
I recall that you implied that in Alaska there's a ranked choice
system. How does it compare to the one for PDX?
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/heres-how-portlands-one-of-a-kind-city-council-elections-will-work-but-with-doughnuts.html

You should definitely vote for your city officials, it's more important
than people realize.

For many years I've voted at the state and local level, but not the
national election. I think that socio-political atmosphere and
leadership at the local level is where I actually interface with the
community, not at the national level. With the exception of federal
taxes, what happens in DC seldom has much affect on me, with rare
exceptions.

Too, my votes is less diluted, although I'd guess it's still more of a
gesture than actual exercise of control.

Post by TT
I never did, but hellbent on voting the next Helsinki council
election... the Green Party & other leftist morons are really fucking up
things in Helsinki.