On 11/8/2013 6:47 AM, Carol Becker wrote:
> Dean Carlson wrote:
>
>> Wow Carol, really? I think I will chalk this post up to bitterness over
> the fact that you mayoral candidate didn't win. But that had nothing to do
> with RCV that coalition has lost won a mayoral race since 1997.
>
> Actually Dean, my highest ranked candidate did win me! I have been
> elected twice now using ranked choice voting and if there was anyone who
> you would think would be singing its praises, it would be me. But I am
> not.
Well, you're widely liked and respected. And well known, at least by
BET standards. You'll likely be one of the winners, no matter what
form of voting is used.
> For folks who think this all worked well, to what degree are you in your
> own echo chamber? Here is what I would ask everyone who wrote into this
> thread saying that they loved rank choice voting, could you send me
> privately an email if you door knocked 250 or more doors or made equivalent
> phone calls. Because I believe if you did, you would have found a huge
> amount of confusion out there. How do I game this? Do I bullet vote? What
> if I dont like three candidates? How do you count the votes for a two or
> three person race? I don't know how to choose among all these candidates.
> On and on and on.
I was an election judge, and spent a substantial amount of time as a
"greeter" (carrying the RCV handouts and asking people if they had any
questions) and as a "demo" (asking people if they had any questions
immediately before they were handed a ballot). I found the entire
explanation could usually be summed up (while pointing) as "There are
3 columns. They're numbered 1, 2, and 3. Mark column 1 for your first
choice, column 2 for your second choice, column 3 for your third
choice. You don't have to do all 3, you can do zero, one, two, or
three choices, it's up to you how many."
About 2/3 of the voters said they didn't need any help and 1/3 said
"ah, remind me how it works". But after being told, they almost all
said "oh, that's pretty simple." Not everybody liked it, I'd guess
perhaps a third didn't like it, a third thought it was wonderful, and
the rest said "eh, whatever". But just about everybody understood
what to do when they took their ballot. Out of 860 ballots at my
precinct, there were only a few spoiled because the voter didn't know
what to do (of the 150 or so that were collected while I was the
"ballot counter judge" at the machine, there was only one spoiled for
that reason, and we told her how to do it and gave her a new ballot).
>
> Brian Stricherz wrote:
>
>> Wasn't RCV implemented after a majority of voters said they wanted it?
> Those who want RCV gone can bring it to the voters again, but to make a
> change without the voters' consent is clearly anti-democratic.
>
> Yes I agree. We should put it back on the ballot and see if people want to
> keep it now that they have tried it twice. This was always billed as an
> experiment, not the end all, be all of voting.
In my opinion, it was always going to take a decade or two to fairly
try it out, given that it's different from what people were used to.
No problem, we've got time.
> Robin Garwood wrote:
>
>> And, contra the predictions of folks like Larry Jacobs, a huge
> supermajority of voters used their second and third rankings. Of all the
> people who voted for mayor, 87.7% used a second ranking.
>
> That would be because a lot of people didnt understand that they could
> leave the second and third place blank.
The RCV handout at the polls made that clear. And we certainly told
anyone who asked "do I have to vote for 3?""
But it takes time for people to learn. For some, it was their first
RCV election. They'll get it.
If we had asked the question
> differently, something along, if you want to have a second place vote, you
> can have one, I guarantee that number would have been much lower. But the
> question was worded such that people felt compelled to put a third choice
> down even if it was someone they didnt want to ever see in office. It all
> has to do with the choice architecture that was set up.
> Mark Anderson wrote:
>
>> And Carol Becker's post blaming it all on RCV is a red herring. In a
> primary system, we would have had the exact same issue in September on the
> primary ballot. There would have been less publicity since fewer people pay
> attention to the primary.
>
> Except that there would have been a huge outreach from all the campaigns to
> educate and engage voters at that point, instead of just nothing. By
> eliminating the primary, we lose a hugely important moment for educating
> voters.
You think that the lead candidates (for mayor, Andrews and Hodges, for
CC in my ward, Cano and Moore) didn't do "huge outreach"? I thought
they did, at least as much as they ever did back before RCV. And some
of the non-leaders (e.g. Bob's Mayor Council group) did a pretty good
job with the limited resources they had.
>
> Mark Anderson wrote:
>
>> But if the issue is about good government, then we should be just as
> concerned about the primary voters having difficulty discerning who to vote
> for out of the 35. The difference is that the November election would have
> been limited to the two voted for by the few that vote in the primary.
>
> I guess the difference here is whether you think it is wrong for voters to
> choose to not participate in the primary.
I don't think it is "wrong" for them to choose not to participate. But
I think it's clear that by not voting in the primary, you are giving
up the larger part of your say in who ultimately wins. You and I
(probably everyone in this discussion) always vote in primaries, so
that works ok for us.
I think that people who vote in
> the general and not in the primary are making an informed choice about
> participating or not. They are not elites as much as people who just
> choose to not go through the hassle of wading through all the folks
> running. If you want high primary turnout, make compelling races. Dont do
> away with the primary.
If by "elite" you mean, "shadowy group of 1%ers to whom the average
person cannot hope to join", you're right. But if you mean "a smaller
number of highly involved people", it's pretty obvious that group
does control much of the outcome with primaries. I am quite accustomed
to having a general election where I have to figure out which of the
candidates sucks the least, and thought it was refreshing to be able
to vote for some candidates that I actually liked.