All posts in the topic IRV (Short link)

From: Jack Ferman Date: May 08 00:29 UTC Short link

Last week in an email from CC Glidden readers were directed to the
Mpls Ordinances section of the Mpls web pages to read about the next
election voting procedures. Chapter 2 of Ordinances contains two short
paragraphs: Sec 5A Conduct of Elections and Sec 5B Voting Method.
Neither section details the ballot counting precedures - so anything
goes, whatever a precinct judge thinks is the way to do it - look for
massive confusion and election fraud.

Jack Ferman
Kingfield
<email obscured>
    

From: Jack Ferman Date: May 09 03:49 UTC Short link

Rules and procedures that are not in Ordinances are not law and are
not binding. In order for the RFP to be definitive and binding, that
document must be specifically cited in Ordinances. There is no such
citation; therefore, the ElectionsEquipRFP.pdf is not law and is not
binding. Hence, the election judges may determine how to count and
assess the Intent of the Voter as State law requires. Here is a
question for those with expert knowledge of election law. Suppose the
first choice on 5,000 ballots is to a person who is eliminated on the
first round. Suppose 1/2 of those ballots 'bullet' vote for the
dropped candidate, 1/3 of theose ballots leave all choices from #2 and
higher blank. Suppose the remaining 1/6 of those ballots have a 2nd
choice for either of the 2 leading candidates. Since 5/6 of 5,000
ballots are now invalid, they must be discarded. Suppose the election
was for 5 offices and 7 referendem items - the discarded ballots can
be counted in those 5 races and 7 issues. The Rules and Procedures
Ordinances had better be extremely explicit and cover every imaginable
and unimaginable contingency; else you have heard that old refrain -
see ya in court.
    

On May 8, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Jeanne Massey wrote:

> Jack Ferman:
> Last week in an email from CC Glidden readers were directed to the
> Mpls Ordinances section of the Mpls web pages to read about the next
> election voting procedures. Chapter 2 of Ordinances contains two short
> paragraphs: Sec 5A Conduct of Elections and Sec 5B Voting Method.
> Neither section details the ballot counting precedures
>
> Me:
> The detailed rules and procedures for conducting Minneapolis' IRV
> elections
> were adopted by the Minneapolis City Council on April 18th.  They are
> included in the city's RFP for voting equipment.
>
> See full RFP and Rules at:
> http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/procurement/ElectionsEquipRFP.pdf
>
> Jeanne Massey
> Kingfield
> FairVote Minnesota
>
>



Jack Ferman
Kingfield Neighborhood
<email obscured>

From: Bill Kahn (D) Date: May 09 13:51 UTC Short link

My suppositional expert glared at me and walked away in disgust when
I presented John Ferman's scenario to her. I'll try to suppose
another one, but I'll ask John to suppose how many total ballots cast
in this supposed election before I put it to the new expert. I'll
expect a clearer scenario late tonight as John is out of posts until
some time after 10 P.M. Of course I am supposing a whole lot here.
    

On May 8, 2008, at 10:49 PM, John Ferman wrote:

> Here is a
> question for those with expert knowledge of election law. Suppose the
> first choice on 5,000 ballots is to a person who is eliminated on the
> first round. Suppose 1/2 of those ballots 'bullet' vote for the
> dropped candidate, 1/3 of theose ballots leave all choices from #2 and
> higher blank. Suppose the remaining 1/6 of those ballots have a 2nd
> choice for either of the 2 leading candidates. Since 5/6 of 5,000
> ballots are now invalid, they must be discarded. Suppose the election
> was for 5 offices and 7 referendem items - the discarded ballots can
> be counted in those 5 races and 7 issues.

From: Jack Ferman Date: May 10 04:09 UTC Short link

> On May 8, 2008, at 10:49 PM, John Ferman wrote:
>
>> Here is a
>> question for those with expert knowledge of election law. Suppose the
>> first choice on 5,000 ballots is to a person who is eliminated on the
>> first round. Suppose 1/2 of those ballots 'bullet' vote for the
>> dropped candidate, 1/3 of those ballots leave all choices from #2 and
>> higher blank. Suppose the remaining 1/6 of those ballots have a 2nd
>> choice for either of the 2 leading candidates. Since 5/6 of 5,000
>> ballots are now invalid, they must be discarded. Suppose the election
>> was for 5 offices and 7 referendem items - the discarded ballots can
>> be counted in those 5 races and 7 issues.

I meant to say that 5/6 of those 5,000 ballots, being discarded, may
not be tallied for the other 4 races and the the 7 referendum issues.

However, consider what happened over 50 years ago - back when paper
ballots were marked with pencil. In one south Mpls preceinct there was
an especially prissy election judge. At the top of the ballot there
was an instruction to strike an X in the box - the printer used
perfectly straight strokes exactly corner to corner. There was a
further instruction to use the provided PENCIL to mark the Xs. Well,
this prissy judge invalidated ballots where the voter just checked the
box, or made a scribble in the box, or the strokes were up-down,side-
to-side, or were made with an Ink Pen (this was before ball points).
At the end of the day the pile of 'invalidated' ballots was large and
complaints were made. The situation landed in Court where the ruling
was that every mark represented the Intent of the Voter which could
not be invalidated. That ruling still binds the election judges.

Fast forwarding to 21st Century, we shall find the 'bullet' voting and
blank choices or write-in votes can not be invalidated legally.

Over the years, I have noticed that wherever an office opens up there
are many folks who come out of the woodwork to make their try for
fame. Given that IRV replaces the primary election, might it not be
unusual to have lots and lots of candidates. I can only hope the next
Mpls election might have many dozens of candidates. There will be
those who will try to erect limits on who can run for office. I nice
21st Century bit of unconstitutionality, should we say. But what the
heck the numerology comes out 51% to 49%. Modern phrenology, no less.
>>
>
>


Jack Ferman
Kingfield Neighborhood
<email obscured>
    

From: Anissa Hollingshead Date: May 10 17:02 UTC Short link

While the staff of the City Clerk's office is very competent and efficient
:-), an ordinance does not immediately appear in the accessible version of
the code upon ratification.  The ordinance was passed April 18th, 2008, by
the Council, and was then ratified by the mayor early the next week.  An
ordinance is considered officially enacted upon its publication as part of
the Council proceedings, which occurs both in Finance and Commerce (the
official paper of the city for legal publications) and on the city website
the following Saturday, or in this case April 26th.

From there, the Council Information Division of the Clerk's office works
with a third party vendor who maintains the code to supply new ordinances
for inclusion in the code.  I don't personally know all the ins and outs of
that process, but I do know the CID staff does an excellent job processing
all the many ordinances passed during any given Council meeting in as timely
a manner as possible.  The fact that the particular ordinance in question is
not yet in the online database for the code accessible to public just 14
(calendar) days after it was officially enacted makes it no less valid or
official.  The proceedings are the official record of council actions and
are available to anyone to see what has been enacted until such time as all
updates post to the online version of the code.

Anissa Hollingshead
Hawthorne
    

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM, John Ferman <<email obscured>> wrote:

> I not 5 minutes ago visited the Mpls Ordinances web page and looked up
> Ch 167 in Title 8.5, here is what is there:
>
> CHAPTER 167.  RESERVED*
>
> __________
> *Editor's note:  Ord. No. 2001-Or-057,  1, adopted April 20, 2001,
> repealed Ch. 167,  167.10--167.50, which pertained to campaign
> contribution limitations. See the Code Comparative Table.
>
> __________
> 167.10--167.50.  Reserved.
>
>
> So much for IRV rules and Procedures.
>
> Jack Ferman
> Kingfield Neighborhood
> <email obscured>
>
>
> *****
>
> On May 9, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Anissa Hollingshead wrote:
>
> > On April 18th the Council did enact an ordinance AND issue the RFP.
> > From the Official Proceedings:
> > The ELECTIONS Committee submitted the following reports:
> > ELECTIONS - Your Committee, to whom was referred an ordinance
> > amending Title 8.5 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances relating to
> > Elections, by adding a new Chapter 167 relating to Municipal
> > Elections: Rules of Conduct, establishing rules for counting ranked
> > choice voting elections, now recommends that said ordinance be given
> > its second reading for amendment and passage.
> > Adopted 4/18/2008. Yeas, 9; Nays, 4 as follows:
> > Yeas - Remington, Benson, Hodges, Samuels, Gordon, Ostrow, Schiff,
> > Lilligren, Glidden.
> > Nays - Goodman, Hofstede, Colvin Roy, Johnson.
> >
> > The full ordinance follows, and is several pages.  The proceedings
> > are available on the city's website, and the link to that meeting
> > follows:
>
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/archives/proceedings/2008/20080418-proceedings.pdf
> > Anissa Hollingshead
> >
> > Hawthorne
> >
> >
> > On 5/8/08, John Ferman <<email obscured>> wrote: Rules and
> > procedures that are not in Ordinances are not law and are
> > not binding. In order for the RFP to be definitive and binding, that
> > document must be specifically cited in Ordinances. There is no such
> > citation; therefore, the ElectionsEquipRFP.pdf is not law and is not
> > binding. Hence, the election judges may determine how to count and
> > assess the Intent of the Voter as State law requires. Here is a
> > question for those with expert knowledge of election law. Suppose the
> > first choice on 5,000 ballots is to a person who is eliminated on the
> > first round. Suppose 1/2 of those ballots 'bullet' vote for the
> > dropped candidate, 1/3 of theose ballots leave all choices from #2 and
> > higher blank. Suppose the remaining 1/6 of those ballots have a 2nd
> > choice for either of the 2 leading candidates. Since 5/6 of 5,000
> > ballots are now invalid, they must be discarded. Suppose the election
> > was for 5 offices and 7 referendem items - the discarded ballots can
> > be counted in those 5 races and 7 issues. The Rules and Procedures
> > Ordinances had better be extremely explicit and cover every imaginable
> > and unimaginable contingency; else you have heard that old refrain -
> > see ya in court.
> >
> >
> > On May 8, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Jeanne Massey wrote:
> >
> > > Jack Ferman:
> > > Last week in an email from CC Glidden readers were directed to the
> > > Mpls Ordinances section of the Mpls web pages to read about the next
> > > election voting procedures. Chapter 2 of Ordinances contains two
> > short
> > > paragraphs: Sec 5A Conduct of Elections and Sec 5B Voting Method.
> > > Neither section details the ballot counting precedures
> > >
> > > Me:
> > > The detailed rules and procedures for conducting Minneapolis' IRV
> > > elections
> > > were adopted by the Minneapolis City Council on April 18th.  They
> > are
> > > included in the city's RFP for voting equipment.
> > >
> > > See full RFP and Rules at:
> > > http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/procurement/ElectionsEquipRFP.pdf
> > >
> > > Jeanne Massey
> > > Kingfield
> > > FairVote Minnesota
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> John Ferman
> Kingfield, Minneapolis
> Info about Jack Ferman: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnferman
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3DEBgjDI9otVuAlFNCyblz
>  -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Minneapolis Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/>
>
>  1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
>   If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
>   <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
>
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>



--
Anissa Hollingshead