Bear in mind, Burke and his crew don't want PR either.
While I realize that absolutely EVERYTHING revolves around racism, do you know why the charter folks wanted PR ? I think I do. is there a charter equivalent of the Federalist papers ?
This seems to be breaking down into an insider-outsider reaction. Republican insiders don't like PR, but Republican voters just may react differently. And yes, Tim Burke and Democratic insiders have come out against PR, but you can bet the farm that a majority of Democratic voters will support PR, just as they did in 1988 and 1991.
Of the nine city councilors, eight of them either were appointed or raised at least $100,000 to win a seat -- that's a real measure of an insider game. PR would allow new voices to break through without necessarily being vetted by party leaders, and that seems to make them awfully nervous.
Guess it comes down to who really owns City Hall -- is it ordinary voters or party leaders?
Alex's comment is similar to Trent Lott's comment about Strom Thurmond.
However, people of all political stripes should oppose PR for an entirely different reason: It isn't consistent.
Randomly selecting surplus ballots for second and third choices isn't something that can be done more than once. If for some reason we needed to have a recount, we would always see an entirely different outcome, since different ballots would be randomly selected during a recount.
Instead of drawing names out of a hat, we would effectively be drawing ballots out of a hat.
I believe they can make our voting system more proportionally representative, but this isn't the way to do it.
Random selection of ballot papers for surplus transfer is not a problem with recounts in Ireland. Once the ballot papers have been shuffled and sorted, that order must be maintained in each parcel.
If you don't like random selection, you could always adopt slightly different STV-PR rules that do not involve any random selection. The rules used for STV-PR public elections in Northern Ireland have no random selection and can be counted by hand.
Wow Griff, the UK is reading your blog, even after midnight.
Unfortunately, the random selection of ballots is apparently part of Issue 8. Even without the recount problems though, it would still give more of a voice to people whose ballots were randomly selected.
Burt,
If you read the initiative language, there are two options for surplus transfers (when a candidate receives more than the amount needed, 10% + 1 vote). that is left up to the city council in the language. So it is disingenous to say the committee that drafted this initiative SELECTED random surplus transfer options.
The fairer method, articulated very clearly in this link, is fractional transfers, and the city council can and should implement it. That would be our position: that this is the best, more fair way to ensure equality.
Not having read the mind of the attorney who worked to draft the document, i would have to assume the reason was because most elections in the U.S. are counted by machines. Machines require sophisticated software to count elections, and if the proponents specified a specific kind of system, it might have stopped implementation until such software was developed. The point was to leave the method of counting (in case hand counts ended up being the only option) as simple as possible and so it could be implemented as efficiently (and cost efficiently as well) as possible. Seems like logical stuff to me...
And as for the random ballot transfer, the requirements are that if 1% is surplus, that 1% from EACH PRECINCT be randomly selected, so the sample you will get will be from ALL PARTS of Cincinnati, not that they can all be selected from either Over-The-Rhine or Hyde Park, to very different communities, but that so 1% will come from each giving an accurate and truly cross-section of Cincinnati grouping of 2nd choices on those ballots.
Does that ease some of your fears about the langauge?
Sure would love to hear your reasons for opposing PR, Mr. Donald. Would also love to have a conversation with you and answer your questions over the phone: 513-381-4947. I am also happy to set up presentations with any community groups in Cincinnati to discuss PR. Please feel free to contact me and the Better Ballot for Cincinnati committee.
The Charter Committee's main point during the 1924 campaign was that PR would break up "political party boss" control of Cincinnati politics. It appears the party chairs' (of each party) do in fact remember what the goal of PR is and have a good sense of their history after all. I doubt this was a slip.
But hey, if you like low voter turnout, poor representation, party boss (and thus corporate control) of elections, money highly influencing city elections, systems that don't ensure majority OR minority representation, less women and African Americans in office, or a system that 0.27% of voters make errors and their votes aren't counted (as opposed to 99.9% counting in a ranked choice system used in Burlington, VT), then by all means, you should probably vote NO on issue 8.
I do care about all those things and more, and so for me, Issue 8 is a no-brainer and my vote will be a loud and clear YES.
PR supporter here. I'm disappointed in the reasons the Republican Party cited for their position - confusion over how PR works and the cost of implementation.
The Better Ballot for Cincinnati campaign has been looking closely at implementation options, and has a realistic, legal plan that could be implemented for less than $100,000 and does not involve time-consuming manual counts. Details will be forthcoming shortly.
As far as PR being confusing, here are the two things voters need to know about how it works:
1) When you vote, you rank the candidates you support in order from 1 (highest) to a maximum of 9 (lowest). This is a more intuitive way to vote, and it ensures that your favorite candidate actually benefits from your strong support.
2) At the "macro" level, PR ensures that groups win seats in proportion to the percentage of voters that support them. If people vote primarily by party, and 60% rank Democratic candidates highest, Democrats will win about 60% of the seats. If the three big parties in the city each have about 33% of voters' support, each of them would win three seats. This feature of PR ensures majority rule and fair minority representation.
Are these concepts really too hard for the average voter to understand? If you're undecided about PR but you think it's confusing, please ask yourself why you think it's confusing and what specifically is confusing about it. If you look into it a little, you may find that you've simply bought into the IDEA that it's confusing. That's the result of a different process than taking five minutes to try to understand it.
Burt: Even without the recount problems though, [random transfer] would still give more of a voice to people whose ballots were randomly selected.
This misunderstanding of PR is pretty common, but it is a misunderstanding nonetheless. Everyone's vote carries the same weight as a everyone elses -- one person, one vote. Your vote counts for your highest ranked candidate who can use it to win, so that you have representation you actually voted for on the city council.
How do I get to be one of the people who gets their second choice randomly selected? Can I pay extra?
Seriously, I realize that each person has only one vote in the final tally. However, if I vote for my first choice of Roxanne Qualls, and she has a large surplus anyway... then why do some of my fellow Qualls supporters get to have their second place vote counted, and others don't? We all played a part in electing Qualls, but some Qualls voters get to have "more of a say", despite only representing one vote in the final tally.
I like the idea of PR, but this surplus transfer issue strikes me as unfair and willy-nilly.. whether you are pulling the surplus ballots out of one hat or pulling them out of 1000 hats.
The rankings give the ballot marching orders similar to the process used in Iowa, a very Caucasian state that first went to Obama. Just like in Iowa, if voters showed up at caucuses, and they had more votes than they needed, or not enough to get a delegate, they could move to support another candidate and help their next choice get elected. Some got to move, some had to stay to keep the next level of votes to win a delegate. If your candidate had too few voters, you could move to another candidate to help them get a delegate. In this case, the delegate is elected to city council though.
Just like this process, proportional representation accomplishes the same thing with your ballot. Whether they use this method, or fractional transfers, as described at the link below, almost every vote counts to elect someone. Whereas in 9X, some votes do elect someone, but potentially large segments of voters elect no one. That also happens with districts, but it almost never happens with proportional representation. 90% of the voters, based on research from Cambridge, will elect their first or second choice.
The issue of whether fractional transfers are used is one that was left up to City Council, and should be clearly defined via their action when the voters approve proportional representation. It also can be changed by the newly elected, and more proportionally representative city council, depending on whether the same 9 are re-elected or not. We saw a massive turnover during the first proportional representation election, from 33/35 Republicans, to only 3 out of 9, and 6 out of 9 Charterites the first year proportional representation was used. The people had a mechanism to express their frustration, and they did rebel against the Party Bosses, electing a minor party to lead the city.
We want a system that ensures every vote counts, that every vote matters, and that we have better representation for Cincinnati. We want a system that allows voters to elect their favorite and rank candidates in order of preference. That is what is on the table. We hope a majority agree with us and vote YES on ISSUE 8.
Here's the link I promised about ballot transfers, and the city council can implement this method easily with a majority vote. We certainly plan on being involved in discussions with the Board of Elections moving forward to determine what options are best for Cincinnati.
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1982
"but potentially large segments of voters elect no one."
Yeah, it's called an election. You don't always win.
And your history lesson is really misplaced, isn't it? In the 1920s, there was a republican machine that actually had a party boss. Now, the party bosses don't have that kind of power--if they did, why can't the democrats get a working majority on council? No, the way that parties influence the council elections are through money, which your "ballot in a hat" proposal does absolutely nothing to address.
"This misunderstanding of PR is pretty common, but it is a misunderstanding nonetheless."
No, it's not a misunderstanding. Some votes count more than once. The transferred votes count more since they are used in the calculation to get two people elected.
And I notice that none of the "Ballot in a Hat" supporters address recounts. If you have three recounts, you could have three different totals and three different candidates winning. Maybe you should be for it, Donald--think of all the new legal work for you and your colleagues.
"...city council can implement this method easily with a majority vote." I had to go back and read this to figure out what you mean. And it's much worse than that. Council can change the election procedures on their own at the drop of a hat. That doesn't sound like a recipe for abuse, does it? You know, since those party bosses that you keep saying are in charge won't have any influence over that process?
But, hey, as Lorenzo told me on the other thread, I'm against pulling ballots out of a hat, so I "don't really support democracy."
And in response to Krekeler's comment--no, it's really confusing. I'd encourage everyone to actually read the issue. It's not written in bizarre legalistic language. It's just very complicated.
It's the kind of thing that kids in a basement would have come up between sessions of Dungeons and Dragons.
But, hey, as Lorenzo told me on the other thread, I'm against pulling ballots out of a hat, so I "don't really support democracy."
Proportional representation is no magic trick. These are voters ballots. The ones not selected already counted to elect their first choice. So every vote counts. No one can say that about 9X. Not every vote counts for someone that matches the voters most important values.
Single Transferrable Voting, the specific form of proportional representation we are talking about today, was invented in the 1800's, long before Dungeons and Dragons was invented, brother.
Proportional Representation ensures that 90% + 9 voters elect their first or second choice. Voter turnout increases. Minorities-not just enthnic minorities, but political minorities as well--can elect a fair share of the representation. Women are better represented.
You are defending a system that accomplishes none of this, Jacob, and in fact has depressed turnout from 70% in 1955 to 29% in 2007. You are defending a system in which 45% of the voters can win (and do win) 66%, or a majority, of the representation. You are defending a system that throws out 2.7 out of every 1000 ballots (9X had a 0.27% ballot spoilage rate from picking more than 9).
I agree with you that the other option written in the petition would be better, actually, and this is up to city council to fix, so you should be talking to them about what you think should be done. There is another option in the petition... try reading the document. But it is apparent from comments on here that few of you have really read and analyzed the whole thing, as i have only read the thing ONCE and i know what it says.
Again, voting NO on issue 8 will get you the same status quo city council, with the corporate donations ruling the party bosses/politicians, and with the politicians largely ignoring the people of Cincinnati. A NO vote gets you to keep your same flawed system, with its disman 29% turnout, with poor representation of women and people of color, and where it is not the most preferred candidates of the people being elected.
Voting YES will BRING SOME OF THAT CHANGE HOME TO CINCINNATI. It will ensure we finally have equality, fairness and better representation. PR will ensure the BEST of CINCINNATI are elected, not just those who have the most business connections.
So again, i stand very firmly behind my statement: If you don't support proportional representation, you don't support democracy. Take that however you please.
"You are defending a system that accomplishes none of this."
No. I am not.
I'm disparaging your glorified lottery system that makes some votes count more than others. As I said in my other post, other forms of PR make more sense--to which you said that since I don't agree with you, I don't believe in democracy.
"I agree with you that the other option written in the petition would be better, actually, and this is up to city council to fix..."
So, you are admitting that the ballot initiative is flawed. Then it should be withdrawn and fixed, not relying on the votes of a council that you argue was elected by party bosses.
"If you don't support proportional representation, you don't support democracy."
Thanks for making my point.
Actually, what "Ballot out of a hat" (STV) support is Animal Farm voting. All votes are equal, but some votes count more than others.
Voting Yes on Issue 8 will get you confused voters, a lottery-based system that will prone to manipulation by the hand-counters and in which some votes will count more than others, and unknown results in terms of electing different persons. Indeed it does nothing to address the influence of big money--a far bigger issue than these party bosses that Lorenzo is so terrified of.
Hardly an admission that the amendment is flawed, it is identical to what Cincinnati used for 30 years, with it being OPEN to city council to adopt the more advanced and better fractional transfers. Leaving the opportunity to improve the process is hardly a flaw, it is a strength.
Well, Jacob, thanks for defending the party bosses. I guess that gives me some insight about what you are really about. 
This is pretty telling that you think the party bosses should be defended. See you on the other side, brother.
What's telling, Lorenzo, is that you don't respond to the perfectly decent point about recounts, but instead obfuscate the issue by arguing against a point that I don't make.
Look back on my two references to bosses:
"Indeed it does nothing to address the influence of big money--a far bigger issue than these party bosses that Lorenzo is so terrified of."
"Then it should be withdrawn and fixed, not relying on the votes of a council that you argue was elected by party bosses."
Nowhere do I defend the party bosses. I merely suggest that money interests are a bigger problem that bosses or the party structures. But then, I shouldn't expect intellectual integrity from someone who believes that disinterest in his lottery-based election system indicates a lack of belief in democracy.
Sorry, but if you think you can get away with foisting your "ballot from a hat" system on people by obscuring the issues, then you're sadly mistaken.
When a vote is transferred from the voter's first choice to the voter's second choice, it no longer counts for the first candidate. It only counts for the second candidate. Contrary to what Burt and Jacob think, every vote is counted once in the final totals, just like every other vote.
Using fractional transfers instead of random transfers doesn't change this one bit. The fractional parts always add up to one vote.
There are advantages to the fractional transfer method, but the traditional Cincinnati method is a perfectly good one too.
Jacob, the method you are opposed to is the same one used in Cincinnati for 30 years by our grandparents. People were happy with it. What we added was the newer and fairer method (as an OPTION) for City Council to be able to implement if they so desire. We are confident a new, fully representative city council will do the right thing.
As for recounts, the same method is used in Cambridge and they hand counted ballots until 1998, just 10 years ago. They have no problem doing recounts and proportional representation can be conducted, and should be, with recounts being very possible.
And yes, second choice votes are still one voter's vote, and every vote counts in proportional representation. No one's vote is counting a second time; each counts just once. The person whose vote is counting for their first choice to be elected has counted, as is the vote of the second choice of another voter who is selected in the transfer. Each vote counts one time. Period.
Proportional representation does a lot to impact money in politics: you simply can't buy someone's trust, or purchase their first place vote just with fancy TV ads, or full color glossy mailers that business money can afford more of. Trust is earned through leadership and participation in the community for a first choice vote. Endorsements of groups around town become relevant.
Besides, the current city council is all appointed or big-money connected.
4 of the members were appointed by party bosses, not elected, in their first election. The other 4 councilmembers raised a minimum of $100,000 to win their first election. PR ensures you only need the support, though it is first choice support, of 10% (6,051 votes in last election) to win, meaning you don't have to campaign to all 60,000 voters. First choices will ensure we have better representation--the best Cincinnati has to offer--elected to serve the community.
Lorenzo--
You are wrong on so many accounts.
First of all, with appointments, Cincinnati allows the appointment of a "chooser"--someone who choose a replacement for a given member should that member step down during their term. What you obviously missed out on was the whole controversy about Monzel--he was picked OVER the consensus of the party bosses because Sam Malone refused to pick Leslie Ghiz. As for Qualls getting on council, that was driven by Tarbell. If you don't know what's going on, and you don't the history of these choices, you should really not act like you do. It's embarrassing.
"PR ensures you only need the support, though it is first choice support, of 10% (6,051 votes in last election) to win, meaning you don't have to campaign to all 60,000 voters."
Great. So, we end up with councilpeople accountable to even FEWER people? So we end up with demagogues like Smitherman? Oh, wait. He's behind the whole "Ballots from a hat" issue anyway.
Keep this in mind, everyone. A vote for Issue 8 is a vote for Smitherman. And Patton. And all the other crazies also-rans that support this crazy, randomly run election system. Why are they behind it? Because they can't get elected under a system where all the votes count the same.
This isn't the first time that Alex T. deleted an entire blog post when he got embarrassed.
http://blogs.citybeat.com/porkop...you-see-
it.html
Alex T. is an asshole.
Anyone that would delete comments from their blogs is an anal control freak.
Are Griff and Alex T. related?
"Anyone that would delete comments from their blogs is an anal control freak."
moron, the article says he deleted his own post.
Thank you Jacob for reiterating the talking points of the opposition. Now I can see that at no point was anything other than alienating you a possibility in this discussion. I actually thought you had a need to feel understood here. I realize now i was mistaken, that we are having a discussion between myself, a proponent, and you, an opponent.
If anyone here is legitimately trying to understand proportional representation, get in touch with us via the Web Site and I am happy to answer your questions.
I find it highly amusing that a paid consultant that doesn't even live in Cincinnati is saying that I am repeating talking points. You don't even know Cincinnati's history so you're cutting and pasting things you have no idea about.
"Our grandparents"? You're not even from here. So the election integrity people send someone on these board to lie about his background? Keep this in mind when you vote, everyone.
You're losing the argument on this thread, and that has to be humiliating, since you're a paid expert on this.
Just remember everyone, a vote for Issue 8 is a vote for every extremist supporting it. Did you like Smitherman the last time he was on Council? A vote for Issue 8 is a vote for him and the the kooks that are supporting this.
Commenting by HaloScan
