It's a little strained to say RCV is “working” for this election. Since every race except for the third seat in district #4 has been won by its first round winner, RCV's mechanics only came into play once. Other than that one seat, there would have been no difference in any outcome if voters had only been allowed to mark a single candidate on their ballot. So RCV didn't factor into the selection process in any obvious way for this election cycle.
However, RCV's quirks did come into play in a more obscure manner. Since there were dozens of candidates in each race and ballots only allowed for six ranks, some ballots are going to run out of rankings before the winners are determined. This is called ballot “exhaustion.” A certain amount of it is expected in any RCV election. The mayoral and most districts had a 10-12% exhaustion rate. Fairly typical. But the area where it failed the most is district #1. Over 27% of the ballots were thrown away before the winners were determined. That means that more than a quarter of East Portlanders' votes didn't matter at all, despite having cast a ballot.
and then there's this in this morning's Oregonian that: "From 17% to 29% of residents who voted in each of the city’s four new council districts — an average of 20% citywide — didn’t rank a single candidate to represent them, far more than the share who sat out City Council contests in the previous two election cycles."
I actually wonder if Shane isn't misinterpreting the numbers. His “no vote” numbers are similar to the exhaustion numbers, just a little bit larger. It looks like possibly the percentages were calculated by taking the number of ballots received in a district and subtracting from that the number of final votes that were still alive in the final runoff round. That would include ballots that didn't vote at all in that particular race as well as ballots that were exhausted through the runoff process. He didn't cite his source in the article, so it's hard to say for sure. I wrote him yesterday to inquire but have yet to hear back.
@Clay Fouts, Exactly-- the intent at enfranchisement for district 1 resulted in disenfranchisement for ca. 20,000 voters.
Not to mention the lower turnout.
Other salient points for me:
How any council member will garner support during their term when their base is only a quarter at best, of their constituency will be interesting to say the least.
Given the power of incumbency and the "guarantee"of city funding it will also be of interest to see how the current slate of candidates will fair in their next election.
The RCV and multiple representatives were "sold" as a way of decreasing partisanship. No coalitions developed during the campaign. It may well be that this system will end up entrenching partisanship.
As to Mr Wilson's election. His margin of victory was convincing,. Unfortunately, due to Charter Reform, he most likely will find himself with a pulpit that has no real power to affect the change he wants to accomplish.
Last: City Manager-- it was pitched as a non-partisan position-- That will be eroded from day 1. As the power of the purse and the running of the city's bureaucracy is inherently a political position.
I would concur with the speaker that thought District 1 is the most progressive of the 4 Districts; which isn't in line with the people who live in that district. However, one has to remember that many of the people in that District are non-English speaking individuals and I'm sure the ballot was tossed in the trash upon opening it. 😫
Gonna be a rough time for pragmatism in Portland with the big lurch to the left in City Council and the election of two JVP supporters to Multnomah County Commission.
Shocked to hear the idea that this was a "good" year for labor. I think frustrations around this election coupled with the fact that "labor" backed truly insane candidates signals something quite dangerous for Oregon's unions.
The public perception of unions in Portland, outside of middle-class Inner-Eastside families is in the toilet. We just watched the unions we've supported for decades help elect Communists to city council. Not "communists" in an exaggerated Trumpian sense, but actual red flag waving idiots who hang photos of Mao on their wall and believe Trump and Harris were two sides of the same "fascist" coin.
I won't support Oregon's unions going forward and many of my neighbors feel the same.
If Bernie Sanders was right that Democrats have lost the working class, Oregon's "Labor Movement" just lost adults with a capacity for basic critical thinking.
Max, I appreciate your point that labor is not a monolith. When I said the result was a win for labor, I simply meant that early analysis indicated that labor groups had the most success in seeing their endorsed candidates get elected. I do not mean to suggest that all voters who care about workers' rights support all candidates who had labor endorsements. My point was merely that it is notable how many of the large labor organizations saw their top picks get elected, such as NW Labor Council, which endorsed 3 candidates in each district and saw 2 of those candidates get elected in each district.
It's a little strained to say RCV is “working” for this election. Since every race except for the third seat in district #4 has been won by its first round winner, RCV's mechanics only came into play once. Other than that one seat, there would have been no difference in any outcome if voters had only been allowed to mark a single candidate on their ballot. So RCV didn't factor into the selection process in any obvious way for this election cycle.
However, RCV's quirks did come into play in a more obscure manner. Since there were dozens of candidates in each race and ballots only allowed for six ranks, some ballots are going to run out of rankings before the winners are determined. This is called ballot “exhaustion.” A certain amount of it is expected in any RCV election. The mayoral and most districts had a 10-12% exhaustion rate. Fairly typical. But the area where it failed the most is district #1. Over 27% of the ballots were thrown away before the winners were determined. That means that more than a quarter of East Portlanders' votes didn't matter at all, despite having cast a ballot.
and then there's this in this morning's Oregonian that: "From 17% to 29% of residents who voted in each of the city’s four new council districts — an average of 20% citywide — didn’t rank a single candidate to represent them, far more than the share who sat out City Council contests in the previous two election cycles."
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/11/portlands-ranked-choice-debut-causes-voter-engagement-to-crater-1-in-5-who-cast-ballots-chose-no-one-for-city-council.html
I actually wonder if Shane isn't misinterpreting the numbers. His “no vote” numbers are similar to the exhaustion numbers, just a little bit larger. It looks like possibly the percentages were calculated by taking the number of ballots received in a district and subtracting from that the number of final votes that were still alive in the final runoff round. That would include ballots that didn't vote at all in that particular race as well as ballots that were exhausted through the runoff process. He didn't cite his source in the article, so it's hard to say for sure. I wrote him yesterday to inquire but have yet to hear back.
Have you heard back from Shane? FYI the Oregonian did another dive into the election with a spotlight on how RVC played out in district 2.
No, he has not responded to my email.
@Clay Fouts, Exactly-- the intent at enfranchisement for district 1 resulted in disenfranchisement for ca. 20,000 voters.
Not to mention the lower turnout.
Other salient points for me:
How any council member will garner support during their term when their base is only a quarter at best, of their constituency will be interesting to say the least.
Given the power of incumbency and the "guarantee"of city funding it will also be of interest to see how the current slate of candidates will fair in their next election.
The RCV and multiple representatives were "sold" as a way of decreasing partisanship. No coalitions developed during the campaign. It may well be that this system will end up entrenching partisanship.
As to Mr Wilson's election. His margin of victory was convincing,. Unfortunately, due to Charter Reform, he most likely will find himself with a pulpit that has no real power to affect the change he wants to accomplish.
Last: City Manager-- it was pitched as a non-partisan position-- That will be eroded from day 1. As the power of the purse and the running of the city's bureaucracy is inherently a political position.
I would concur with the speaker that thought District 1 is the most progressive of the 4 Districts; which isn't in line with the people who live in that district. However, one has to remember that many of the people in that District are non-English speaking individuals and I'm sure the ballot was tossed in the trash upon opening it. 😫
Gonna be a rough time for pragmatism in Portland with the big lurch to the left in City Council and the election of two JVP supporters to Multnomah County Commission.
RCV can’t go away soon enough. Glad it was rejected at the state level. Need to get rid of it in Portland as well.
Shocked to hear the idea that this was a "good" year for labor. I think frustrations around this election coupled with the fact that "labor" backed truly insane candidates signals something quite dangerous for Oregon's unions.
The public perception of unions in Portland, outside of middle-class Inner-Eastside families is in the toilet. We just watched the unions we've supported for decades help elect Communists to city council. Not "communists" in an exaggerated Trumpian sense, but actual red flag waving idiots who hang photos of Mao on their wall and believe Trump and Harris were two sides of the same "fascist" coin.
I won't support Oregon's unions going forward and many of my neighbors feel the same.
If Bernie Sanders was right that Democrats have lost the working class, Oregon's "Labor Movement" just lost adults with a capacity for basic critical thinking.
Max, I appreciate your point that labor is not a monolith. When I said the result was a win for labor, I simply meant that early analysis indicated that labor groups had the most success in seeing their endorsed candidates get elected. I do not mean to suggest that all voters who care about workers' rights support all candidates who had labor endorsements. My point was merely that it is notable how many of the large labor organizations saw their top picks get elected, such as NW Labor Council, which endorsed 3 candidates in each district and saw 2 of those candidates get elected in each district.
Yep the new confusing voting system seemed to shift a lot of power to the far left unions (SEIU, PAT) and left leaning Portland area PAC’s.