The IRV advisory referendum will not be appearing on this fall's ballot in Cunningham Township after being defeated again last night.
It doesn't appear that Urbana voters will get a chance to weigh in on whether they would like to see city adopt instant-runoff voting for city elections.
At a special Cunningham Town meeting Monday night, a decisive majority of those in attendance, 98 to 43, rejected a proposed advisory referendum about whether the city should adopt instant-runoff voting for municipal primary and general elections.
Democratic regulars, along with some Republicans, jammed the 6 p.m. meeting and outnumbered instant-runoff-voting proponents headed by Urbana resident Durl Kruse. Any township resident who is a registered voter was eligible to attend.
I must admit that I find it both a little strange and very admirable that nearly 150 people care enough about an advisory, non-binding referendum effort to show up at a Township meeting on a beautiful summer evening. The picture of the crowd voting at the meeting is just awesome.
I don't think Kruse's definition of democracy includes being outvoted at a public meeting.
It is quite interesting to see Urbana Republicans in the photograph voting against the referendum. Interesting that the local GOP does not recognize that a coalition of Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and "Ron Paul Republicans" will be at least useful if not essential to turn the WQ out of office next spring. If all the anti-WQ's are divided, she could possibly be reelected.
The value of IRV to minority parties like the GOP is that in split contests with other minority parties, the Anti-WQ vote split among two or more parties could be united if there was not a majority in the first round of IRV. Of course the WQ knows this, hence her efforts in opposition to IRV. The opposition from Republicans is harder to understand.
I watched a little of this last night. One woman stood up, in and in favor of the IRV, stated that if people voted Democrat, by default, they were more in favor of the Greens or whatever, than the Republicans, and therefore, if IRV were passed, the effect would be to elect the people whose views are closest to those of the voter. I'm not sure that's a true statement, at least not for all voters. As an example, at the national level, McCain's views may be closer to those of moderate Democrats than those of Obama.
That NG article title is a little misleading. The people at the township meeting didn't say no to IRV, they said no to putting it on the ballot to the broader electorate.
As an example, at the national level, McCain's views may be closer to those of moderate Democrats than those of Obama.
In which direction? Obama seems more and more right-wing by the day.
xian, that right wing talk is just soooo divisive. Just trust him. he'll do the right thing. only people bereft of hope with no belief in change could possibly not see in obama the judgement that America needs...we reject labels...except for the One label...OBAMA.
Not wanting it on the ballet is the same as not wanting it.
I don't like IRV so I'll put it before the voters????.....lacks logic.
IRV doesnt query your ideology. The voter is asked to state his preference for candidates in ranked order. IRV is only needed when there are more than 2 candidates in the race, and one does not get a clear majority. IRV does not differ from plurality voting when there are only two candidates.
Let's imagine a likely scenario A for next spring's Mayoral Race, and assume that the Laurel Lunt Prussing seeks reelection. If there are no other candidates but Rex Bradfield and the WQ, and if Rex can draw more Anti-WQ votes than what Pro-WQ votes she can get, he wins. Let's say that Rex get 35% of the voters those who really like Rex plus another 20% who arent hot about Rex but truly despise the WQ and wins, 55-45. Done. Rex wins and the WQ retreats to her cackles, I mean castles.
More likely, the Greens will have a candidate also, so lets imagine for scenario B that Tom Abram runs as the Green Party Candidate. Now the spoiler effect of plurality voting enters. Tom steals 5% from the voters who like Rex, 5% from among the WQ-likers, and more than half of the WQ-haters (15%), for a respectable total of 25% of the vote, but doesnt win. But look. He spoiled Rex's anti-WQ victory, and Prussing wins with 40% while Bradfield and Abram trail her with 35% and 25%, respectively.
Under Instant Runoff Voting, voters indicate their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd preference. Since no one got a majority, TA is eliminated and the second choices from the ballot are tabulated. The 25% of the vote that Tom got is reallocated to the second choices of the voters who favored him, which is +20% for Bradfield and +5% for the WQ and Rex wins, 55-45 just as if there were only two candidates.
Under the plurality system, the disadvantage for the Voters of Urbana in this quite likely scenario B is that the WQ stays in office and in power although 60% of the voters wanted someone else. The advantage for the WQ and the Dems is that she and they stay in power, which is the most obvious reason for the folderol and dust she and they generated.
A further disadvantage of the present plurality system for the Voters of Urbana is that 3rd and 4th party candidates are discouraged from running for election because of the fear that all they can accomplish is to split the anti-incumbent vote (which generally insures that the incumbent gets reelected).
Again, the Dems dont care at all about any disadvantages for voters, since they are in power, and perhaps the GOP dislikes IRV as well because it might encourage 3rd parties.
Hope this helps.
"Not wanting it on the ballet is the same as not wanting it. I don't like IRV so I'll put it before the voters????.....lacks logic." Not so Dane. As a civil libertarian I respect the democratic right for citizens to present referendum and initiatives to the public. I would consider myself anti-chief, but if the pro-chief supporters wanted a referendum to bring back the Chief, I would support their right to put it on the ballot, but I would campaign and vote no at the actual referendum. Not everyone isn't a Machiavellian or plays politics Dane.
"Hope this helps."
I can remember when Florida's simple butterfly ballot was so complicated as to constitute disenfranchisement.
What's WQ?
I can remember when Florida's simple butterfly ballot was so complicated as to constitute disenfranchisement.
I can remember when canned soda required an opener, and vienna sausages and spam had a key on the bottom of the can...
but,
The Daily Illini wrote just this morning:
Ward 1 Council member Charlie Smyth said other cities who have used this type of voting have indicated it can be confusing with their exit polls.
"It is like Florida and the butterfly ballot," Smyth said. "If it weren't for that, Al Gore would have been president, and probably still be president today."
(to understand the argument, one has to know that the speaker, "Smyth", seems to think that having Al Gore for president would have been a Good thing, therefore this is an argument Against IRV.)
"I can remember when canned soda required an opener, and vienna sausages and spam had a key on the bottom of the can..."
I'm not arguing against IRV because I think we should use what we've always used.
I'm arguing against it, in part, because the litigation it will spawn in the first close important election will further undermine the public's already shaky confidence in our electoral system. Imagine 2000 recount in Florida if IRV had been used, and the morass of legal challenges that would have resulted.
Wayne, Urbana Republicans who showed up which included myself, and Fred and Marilyn Welch were only individuals. I know there was talk of actually starting an Urbana Republicans group. However, I dont know if the rest of the Urbana Republicans would like the weird conspiracy theory that I heard after the vote. Apparently, the Urbana Republicans and the Democrats on the Urbana City Council are in a secret conspiracy to keep Libertarians and Greens off of the ballot.
Guess what, cats out of the bag, everyone is invited to Ralph Langenheims basement or bunker. Free rides in his personal black helicopter used to terrorize supporters of IRV. Actually Durl thinks that both of the central committees are in cahoots together. I think we should make it official. Tony Fabri and Jason Barickmanshouuld join the Democratic and Republican County Parties into the Countywide Vast Conspiracy to Disenfranchise Durl Kruse and Friends!
Best bit: "I think people came with their minds made up and there wasn't an opportunity to have a good discussion and explain it," he said. "I believe the Democratic Party is fearful of getting the community's opinion at large. Otherwise, why wouldn't they allow this to be on the ballot?"
Because surely people could not have listened to you and still disagree with you. Philistines!
I think the IRV ballot would be extremely easy for voters to understand. And the idea that there would be litigation over it is not really supported. I don't really know what that would be about.
After this election is over, I intend to a demo here in Champaign County so that at the very least this debate can be had with a sound factual basis instead of conjecture. It's far less complicated for voters than most are suggesting.
"I think the IRV ballot would be extremely easy for voters to understand. And the idea that there would be litigation over it is not really supported. I don't really know what that would be about. "
You certainly know more about it than I do, so I stand corrected.
It's the Calculations in IRV that have them all confused:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4NCXOX0p8
I can remember when Florida's simple butterfly ballot was so complicated as to constitute disenfranchisement.
I can remember when having the "wrong color name" was so horrific as to demand disenfranchisement.
We know from every exit poll from those jurisdictions that have adopted IRV, that IRV is really easy to understand. Moreover, those voters overwhelmingly prefer IRV to their previous system. It's used and well-understood in places around the world -- do Cunningham Township meeting goers think Urbana voters are fundamentally dumber than the rest of the world that uses IRV? That's quite an insulting implication.
Any Democrat that opposes this forever loses right right to complain about Ralph Nader and "spoiled" elections. As does any Republican who complains about Bob Barr. Here was their opportunity to promote a method for ending spoiled elections once and for all, and some of them opposed it. If they express dismay about another spoiled elections in the future, they will only have themselves to blame.
IMHO.. better NOT to have a candidate win with only %40 of the popular vote. I am for any system that gets us all closer to a candidate we all "don't hate"even if that candidate be the 2nd choice of the majority... as opposed to the candidate that the majority clearly doesn't want. IRV doesn't confuse me.
Can anyone give a good statistical explanation as to why IRV doesn't get us closer to a consensus? I am willing to be convinced.. but up to now I don't see the problem with it.. beisides that it might take a few elections before everyone totally understands it... I have little doubt that we would all understand it in a year or two.
My first question would be... can you vote your 1,2,3rd choices all for the same candidate.. or must you pick seperate candidates? And the next would be: If you only vote for one, and NOT a 2nd or 3rd, would it disqualify your vote?
I'm responding from work here with some answers as I see them.
Can you vote for the same person for all your preferred choices ? The answer is Yes, under the system as I see it. There is definitely no current software that would have error detection that would prevent this from happening. And there really is no reason that the system can't work if a voter wants to do that.
If you only vote for one, and NOT a 2nd or 3rd, would it disqualify your vote? The answer here is no. The vote would not be "disqualified". The only catch here is that if your first candidate fails in one of the runoffs, then your vote is not going to count because you didn't cast a vote for any of the candidates left. Which is fine. If voters only want to vote for one candidate and accept the consequences of that candidate dropping off, then they ought to be able to do that. For example, if IRV was happening in the presidential election, I might choose to vote for McCain as my first choice, Nader as my second choice, and leave my 3, 4 and 5 choices blank.
Because Obama ran over Shelden's dog.
I kid, I kid.
Approval voting looks like the winner to me. For each candidate, the citizen either approves or disapproves, and the candidate with the highest total wins. Range voting is more sincere, but more complicated. Approval voting can be implemented on the current machines. Also, it avoids the vote "this other guy" for number 2 strategy.
Charlie is right: if it weren't for the butterfly ballot, Al Gore MIGHT have won Florida and would still be President. But if Florida had IRV, Gore would have won in a landslide.
Approval voting looks like the winner to me. For each candidate, the citizen either approves or disapproves, and the candidate with the highest total wins. Range voting is more sincere, but more complicated. Approval voting can be implemented on the current machines. Also, it avoids the vote "this other guy" for number 2 strategy.
A couple of weeks ago, Charlie Smyth suggested a discussion of different methods of voting (not just plurality and IRV). I'm not categorically opposed to IRV, but I'd like to see this discussion before there are any referenda on the ballot. It also wasn't clear to me whether the current voting machines were capable of doing the vote-counting for IRV - someone told me that they were not.
I think the IRV ballot would be extremely easy for voters to understand. And the idea that there would be litigation over it is not really supported. I don't really know what that would be about.
After this election is over, I intend to a demo here in Champaign County so that at the very least this debate can be had with a sound factual basis instead of conjecture. It's far less complicated for voters than most are suggesting.
I'd be very interested in seeing that. It felt like there was a lot of conjecture, not to mention finger-pointing, at the recent meetings. It'd also be useful to see examples of different voting systems, including information about where they've been implemented and what has and has not worked.
Because Obama ran over Shelden's dog.
I kid, I kid.
Why is Xian allowed to continually post ridiculous comments that contribute nothing to the discussion and are only a flacid attempt to arouse ire from other readrrs? However, if anyone attempts to criticize his inane drivel, those comments are considered unworthy of posting and deleted.
It'd also be useful to see examples of different voting systems, including information about where they've been implemented and what has and has not worked.
I agree with you on this. If we're going to change the voting system we should look at all the alternatives, not just adopt the suggestion of a few people. They say they did their own research and that IRV is the best option, but they haven't presented any of their research into other systems. Why not? I also find it a little hard to trust the idea that they really did much research given the fact that they couldn't even look up how many signatures they needed for their petition drive to be lawful. Further, adoption of IRV is a national Green party platform position and it seems that they're simply following that direction. That's fine, but then don't tell me the selection of IRV is based on a full evaluation of all the options.
"Why is Xian allowed to continually post ridiculous comments that contribute nothing to the discussion and are only a flacid attempt to arouse ire from other readrrs? However, if anyone attempts to criticize his inane drivel, those comments are considered unworthy of posting and deleted."
First, your premise is wrong. I'm not deleting comments from anyone who is criticizing xian or his remarks. You can view the unpublished comments queue that I posted a few days ago and see that clearly.
Second, in most instances, xian is using humor or sarcasm to make his point, which goes a long way for me, as it means the discussion is less likely to devolve into a name-calling content. Here, he's lampooning Shelden's statement that Nader would be his second choice. His comment is not a personal attack, but a response to Mark's stated political position, and it's actually pretty funny.
IMO, a little sense of humor would go a long way towards easing tensions on here, and in our national discourse in general. There's way too much manufactured outrage over stuff that should just be laughed at. And I'm guilty of it too.
curio,
My support of irv is based on a full evaluation of all the options. If that were not so, i would have told you otherwise. There were people at the meeting monday prepared to discuss comparisons of irv with other voting systems, but they did not get any chance to speak because the dems decided enough was enough, were not interested in any further discourse and were ready to call for the question.
You note correctly that the greens favour IRV, but it really is a NonPartisan (para-partisan) issue that is part of the drive to enhancing democracy. Barack Obama introduced sb 1789 in the illinois senate in 2002 which would have forced irv for certain elections in the state of illinois. Even John McCain has spoken out in favour of IRV. The fact that McCain and Obama support IRV doesnt turn me against IRV just because they like it, but it sure does give me pause.
I think that you really are serious in your call for more discussion. I cannot disagree with the idea that discussion is a good thing. What is an appropriate venue?
I would suggest that we should establish a citywide Poly-Partisan (dems, gop-ers, ronpaulistas, libertarians, greens, socialists, independents, and et cetera-ers) series of "Town Meetings" to discuss "Voting Systems". All sides of the arguments could be placed in an organized scheduled fashion until everyone was satisfied that there had been a full hearing of all possible viewpoints. It could be fun. It could be unifying for our community, and maybe we could even manage to reach some sort of consensus result. Or not. It ought to be fun anyway, right?
I really am concerned about all of the tension and anger that is developing in regard to the way that we are presently going about this. There was a lot of anger evident at the township meeting. It is a good thing to have conflicting opinions but strife is divisive for our community and will hamper our ability to live and work with one another and be cooperative and productive. We need to agree to disagree in a way that is not disagreeable and try to work toward a harmonious resolution.
What do you think?
I am a big believer in instant do-over voting, which means if at any time after an election you change your mind, you can change your recorded vote to match. I am still undecided on Peter Fitzgerald versus Loleta Didrickson.
As Kcin pointed out, this is a multi-partisan endeavor, although there are Greens involved. curious - the claim that the national Green Party platform supports IRV as the best electoral system isn't quite correct. Looking through the GPUS platform, it does call for IRV for executive races, including mayor. However, for other races, like city council, it calls for some form of proportional representation, listing several options.
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#316100
Citizens for IRV attended a caucus meeting and suggested an electoral system task force, but that was shot down by the mayor and a few other councilmembers, although some were supportive.
It's incredibly simple to understand how a voter would use IRV. Just rank your favorite candidates in order. We do that with movies, song countdowns, favorite foods, etc. It's a very simple concept. It is a bit more difficult to understand how the counting works, but not if you take some time to actually think about it. Also, I don't know exactly how a car works, but I know what I need to do on my end to make it operate. The next time this system would have been used is in almost five years. I think we can teach voters to rank their favorite candidates 1,2,3 AND how the votes carry over by then. The arguments by the Democrats that voters wouldn't understand it, particularly by arguing disenfranchisement of African-Americans, is insulting to their supporters.
I would suggest that we should establish a citywide Poly-Partisan (dems, gop-ers, ronpaulistas, libertarians, greens, socialists, independents, and et cetera-ers) series of "Town Meetings" to discuss "Voting Systems". All sides of the arguments could be placed in an organized scheduled fashion until everyone was satisfied that there had been a full hearing of all possible viewpoints. It could be fun. It could be unifying for our community, and maybe we could even manage to reach some sort of consensus result. Or not. It ought to be fun anyway, right?
I'd be interested in this. However, I do think that time limits might be necessary. It's true that on Monday, the Dems finally said that enough was enough, but this was after some of the IRV proponents had gone over their time the first time they talked and were going for second turns. It was starting to feel like a filibuster.
Citizens for IRV attended a caucus meeting and suggested an electoral system task force, but that was shot down by the mayor and a few other councilmembers, although some were supportive.
This might be worth pursuing again. At the least there might be more council members supportive of the idea.
The arguments by the Democrats that voters wouldn't understand it, particularly by arguing disenfranchisement of African-Americans, is insulting to their supporters.
The *only* people I ever heard mention disenfranchisement of minorities were IRV proponents (by accusing Dems of saying that). I never once heard a Dem say this. Can you name one? How any system affects the minority vote is an important topic, but I haven't seen any research into how IRV works in this respect. As I recall from watching the meeting, I think Belden Fields may have mentioned a paper worth looking up.
curious - the claim that the national Green Party platform supports IRV as the best electoral system isn't quite correct. Looking through the GPUS platform, it does call for IRV for executive races, including mayor. However, for other races, like city council, it calls for some form of proportional representation, listing several options.
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to mislead in any way. Since the likelihood of a city like Urbana using more than one electoral system (one for Mayor, Clerk, etc, and another for council) is about zero, it looks to me like what's being pushed is the system the Green party suggests for Mayor (IRV).
I'd be interested in this. However, I do think that time limits might be necessary. It's true that on Monday, the Dems finally said that enough was enough, but this was after some of the IRV proponents had gone over their time the first time they talked and were going for second turns. It was starting to feel like a filibuster.
Time limits are always a good idea. There needs to be a visible clock for the speaker so that he/she can start to wind down rather than getting clotheslined by the buzzer. Time limits is part of "arguments placed in an organized scheduled fashion".
The population has learned to use personal computers. IRV is certainly easier.
Mark, maybe John McCain should actually get Ralph Nader to be his running mate! Both support regulations on political speech and have a weird view of the 1st Amendment.