Keep reading, Richard. The disclosure is at the end of the post. Portland's proposed elections code was released today. As proposed, voters can rank up to 8 candidates.
I feel compelled to comment on your interview with Mr. Scott. Full disclosure: I opposed the proposed charter and was part of the Partnership for Common Sense Government, largely because of the proposed single transferable voting method to be used in 4 three member districts- untested in any multimember district council election in the United States.
First of all, it is clear that the Charter commission sold the voters a bill of goods with respect to the votie allying method. The auditor's presentation to the City Council on June 29, 2022 included The Charter Commission’s Progress Report # 6, their final report dated June 2022.
That report- submitted on behalf of the entire Commission (or at least the 17 of 20 who supported it) clearly states that “Ranked choice voting would give Portland voters the ability to indicate all of the candidates they support in order of preference by marking their ballots to indicate "1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc." for as many or as few as they care to rank.
So, when Mr. Scott states that only “some members of the Charter Commission made it clear that they wanted voters to be able to rank all candidates,” that is simply not the case. The Commission officially stated that was the case, and more importantly, told the voters that when the Commission gave final approval to the plan. In the Multnomah County Voter pamphlet, the statement in favor by Portland United for Change- the main advocacy group, stated that “You can rank some candidates, all of them, or just one.” That what voters were told would be the case.
The same final Commission report also stated that “Clear Ballot, the major vendor for Multnomah County, is preparing for a 2023 ranked choice voting election in Colorado that is very similar to the Charter Commission’s proposal.” That was untrue, and the Commission knew or should have known that. After doing some of my own research, which Commission staff could have easily done as well, I commented at the June meeting to the Council and Commission members who were in attendance remotely.
"The Commission report states that 'Clear Ballot, the major vendor for Multnomah County, is preparing for a 2023 ranked choice voting election in Colorado that is very similar to the Charter Commission’s proposal.'
After first reading the report on ranked choice by the research arm of the Colorado Legislature, I contacted election officials in the 2 Colorado jurisdictions scheduled to begin using RCV in 2023.
• Boulder: Boulder will be using instant run off RCV for mayor only. The 8 council members continue to be elected as before. The voting systems vendor: Dominion. The elections official had never heard of Clear Ballot.
• Broomfield City and County: Broomfield will move to instant runoff RCV for mayor and council. Council members are elected by ward, 2 each in 5 wards. The voting system vendor: Dominion.
I also confirmed with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office that those are the only 2 jurisdictions, as far as they know, scheduled to implement some form of RCV in 2023.
The point is that: (1) neither entity uses Clear ballot, so it likely that it will be a complex and expensive undertaking to change voting systems in Multnomah and the other 2 counties to a certified system that accurately tallies a first-in-the-nation voting method. (2) The new 2023 RCV elections in Colorado are not at all “very similar” to the single transferable vote method proposed for council elections in Portland. Why is the commission saying otherwise?
If I could get that information in a few phone calls, one wonders why Commission staff failed to do the same."
Now let’s turn to the ballot design itself. During the campaign, the Chatter Commission and advocates for the Charter used simple cartoon-like ballots with just several candidates and rankings, yielding a small number of “bubbles” on the ballot. The fact that this was misleading was pointed out. Since we recently had 10 or so candidates running for council seats, it seems conceivable that we would have as many as 30 candidates running for 3 seats in a district. 30 candidates with 30 rankings means 900 bubbles; this does not include space and bubbles for write-ins.
As you know, Cambridge is the only city in the United States to use single transferable voting in its council elections, though on at at-large- not district- basis. However, the method for vote tallying is the same whether at-large or by district. I repeatedly suggested that the Commission tell the voters what a ballot would look like in reality, using the Cambridge ballot as an illustration. My suggestion was ignored.
Mr. Scott stated: “A grid-style ballot with 24 candidates and 24 rankings just isn’t physically possible, unless we want to hand count ballots.” With all due respect, I believe that statement is not true. Surely if Cambridge can do it with 19 candidates/write-ins and 19 rankings, Portland can do the same- or more.
Furthermore, the official Cambridge brochure on “VOTING BY PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION” states: “Computerized Ballot Tabulation: In 1997 the Election Commission computerized the City of Cambridge PR elections using a precinct-based optical scanning system and specially designed software.
Tabulating the Votes: The PR Count, which used to be performed manually during the course of a week by a staff of over a hundred, is now completed in a matter of minutes through the electronic sorting, counting, and transfer of votes.
If Cambridge can do it, one must ask: why not Portland?
In closing, it seems that the County needs to go back to the drawing board and make every effort to come up with a system that counts “as many rankings as a voter wants,” just like the Charter Commission promised, rather than seemingly taking the easy way out by placing artificial and unnecessary limits on the number of allowed rankings.
I feel compelled to comment on your interview with Mr. Scott. Full disclosure: I opposed the proposed charter and was part of the Partnership for Common Sense Government, largely because of the proposed single transferable voting method to be used in 4 three member districts- untested in any multimember district council election in the United States.
First of all, it seems clear that the Charter commission sold the voters a bill of goods with respect to the vote tally method. The auditor's presentation to the City Council on June 29, 2022 included The Charter Commission’s Progress Report # 6, their final report dated June 2022.
That report- submitted on behalf of the entire Commission (or at least the 17 of 20 who supported it) clearly states that “Ranked choice voting would give Portland voters the ability to indicate all of the candidates they support in order of preference by marking their ballots to indicate "1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc." for as many or as few as they care to rank.
So, when Mr. Scott states that only “some members of the Charter Commission made it clear that they wanted voters to be able to rank all candidates,” that is simply not accurate. The Commission officially stated that was the case, and more importantly, told the voters that when the Commission gave final approval to the plan. In the Multnomah County Voter pamphlet, the statement in favor by Portland United for Change- the main advocacy group, stated that “You can rank some candidates, all of them, or just one.” That is clearly what voters were told would be the case.
The same final Commission report also stated that “Clear Ballot, the major vendor for Multnomah County, is preparing for a 2023 ranked choice voting election in Colorado that is very similar to the Charter Commission’s proposal.” That was untrue, and the Commission knew or should have known that. After doing some of my own research, which Commission staff could have easily done as well, I commented at the June meeting to the Council and Commission members who were in attendance remotely.
"The Commission report states that 'Clear Ballot, the major vendor for Multnomah County, is preparing for a 2023 ranked choice voting election in Colorado that is very similar to the Charter Commission’s proposal.'
After first reading the report on ranked choice by the research arm of the Colorado Legislature, I contacted election officials in the 2 Colorado jurisdictions scheduled to begin using RCV in 2023.
• Boulder: Boulder will be using instant run off RCV for mayor only. The 8 council members continue to be elected as before. The voting systems vendor: Dominion. The elections official had never heard of Clear Ballot.
• Broomfield City and County: Broomfield will move to instant runoff RCV for mayor and council. Council members are elected by ward, 2 each in 5 wards. The voting system vendor: Dominion.
I also confirmed with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office that those are the only 2 jurisdictions, as far as they know, scheduled to implement some form of RCV in 2023.
The point is that: (1) neither entity uses Clear ballot, so it likely that it will be a complex and expensive undertaking to change voting systems in Multnomah and the other 2 counties to a certified system that accurately tallies a first-in-the-nation voting method. (2) The new 2023 RCV elections in Colorado are not at all “very similar” to the single transferable vote method proposed for council elections in Portland. Why is the commission saying otherwise?
If I could get that information in a few phone calls, one wonders why Commission staff failed to do the same."
Now let’s turn to the ballot design itself. During the campaign, the Chatter Commission and advocates for the Charter used simple cartoon-like ballots with just several candidates and rankings, yielding a small number of “bubbles” on the ballot. The fact that this was misleading was pointed out. Since we recently had 10 or so candidates running for council seats, it seems conceivable that we would have as many as 30 candidates running for 3 seats in a district. 30 candidates with 30 rankings means 900 bubbles; this does not include space and bubbles for write-ins.
As you know, Cambridge is the only city in the United States to use single transferable voting in its council elections, though on at at-large- not district- basis. However, the method for vote tallying is the same whether at-large or by district. I repeatedly suggested that the Commission tell the voters what a ballot would look like in reality, using the Cambridge ballot as an illustration. My suggestion was ignored.
Mr. Scott stated: “A grid-style ballot with 24 candidates and 24 rankings just isn’t physically possible, unless we want to hand count ballots.” With all due respect, I believe that statement is not true. Surely if Cambridge can do it with 19 candidates/write-ins and 19 rankings, Portland can do the same- or more.
Furthermore, the official Cambridge brochure on “VOTING BY PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION” states:
“Computerized Ballot Tabulation: In 1997 the Election Commission computerized the City of Cambridge PR elections using a precinct-based optical scanning system and specially designed software.
Tabulating the Votes: The PR Count, which used to be performed manually during the course of a week by a staff of over a hundred, is now completed in a matter of minutes through the electronic sorting, counting, and transfer of votes."
If Cambridge can do it, one must ask: why not Portland?
In closing, it seems that the County needs to go back to the drawing board and make every effort to come up with a system that counts “as many rankings as a voter wants,” just like the Charter Commission promised, rather than seemingly taking the easy way out by placing artificial and unnecessary limits on the number of allowed rankings.
Keep reading, Richard. The disclosure is at the end of the post. Portland's proposed elections code was released today. As proposed, voters can rank up to 8 candidates.
I feel compelled to comment on your interview with Mr. Scott. Full disclosure: I opposed the proposed charter and was part of the Partnership for Common Sense Government, largely because of the proposed single transferable voting method to be used in 4 three member districts- untested in any multimember district council election in the United States.
First of all, it is clear that the Charter commission sold the voters a bill of goods with respect to the votie allying method. The auditor's presentation to the City Council on June 29, 2022 included The Charter Commission’s Progress Report # 6, their final report dated June 2022.
That report- submitted on behalf of the entire Commission (or at least the 17 of 20 who supported it) clearly states that “Ranked choice voting would give Portland voters the ability to indicate all of the candidates they support in order of preference by marking their ballots to indicate "1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc." for as many or as few as they care to rank.
So, when Mr. Scott states that only “some members of the Charter Commission made it clear that they wanted voters to be able to rank all candidates,” that is simply not the case. The Commission officially stated that was the case, and more importantly, told the voters that when the Commission gave final approval to the plan. In the Multnomah County Voter pamphlet, the statement in favor by Portland United for Change- the main advocacy group, stated that “You can rank some candidates, all of them, or just one.” That what voters were told would be the case.
The same final Commission report also stated that “Clear Ballot, the major vendor for Multnomah County, is preparing for a 2023 ranked choice voting election in Colorado that is very similar to the Charter Commission’s proposal.” That was untrue, and the Commission knew or should have known that. After doing some of my own research, which Commission staff could have easily done as well, I commented at the June meeting to the Council and Commission members who were in attendance remotely.
"The Commission report states that 'Clear Ballot, the major vendor for Multnomah County, is preparing for a 2023 ranked choice voting election in Colorado that is very similar to the Charter Commission’s proposal.'
After first reading the report on ranked choice by the research arm of the Colorado Legislature, I contacted election officials in the 2 Colorado jurisdictions scheduled to begin using RCV in 2023.
• Boulder: Boulder will be using instant run off RCV for mayor only. The 8 council members continue to be elected as before. The voting systems vendor: Dominion. The elections official had never heard of Clear Ballot.
• Broomfield City and County: Broomfield will move to instant runoff RCV for mayor and council. Council members are elected by ward, 2 each in 5 wards. The voting system vendor: Dominion.
I also confirmed with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office that those are the only 2 jurisdictions, as far as they know, scheduled to implement some form of RCV in 2023.
The point is that: (1) neither entity uses Clear ballot, so it likely that it will be a complex and expensive undertaking to change voting systems in Multnomah and the other 2 counties to a certified system that accurately tallies a first-in-the-nation voting method. (2) The new 2023 RCV elections in Colorado are not at all “very similar” to the single transferable vote method proposed for council elections in Portland. Why is the commission saying otherwise?
If I could get that information in a few phone calls, one wonders why Commission staff failed to do the same."
Now let’s turn to the ballot design itself. During the campaign, the Chatter Commission and advocates for the Charter used simple cartoon-like ballots with just several candidates and rankings, yielding a small number of “bubbles” on the ballot. The fact that this was misleading was pointed out. Since we recently had 10 or so candidates running for council seats, it seems conceivable that we would have as many as 30 candidates running for 3 seats in a district. 30 candidates with 30 rankings means 900 bubbles; this does not include space and bubbles for write-ins.
As you know, Cambridge is the only city in the United States to use single transferable voting in its council elections, though on at at-large- not district- basis. However, the method for vote tallying is the same whether at-large or by district. I repeatedly suggested that the Commission tell the voters what a ballot would look like in reality, using the Cambridge ballot as an illustration. My suggestion was ignored.
Mr. Scott stated: “A grid-style ballot with 24 candidates and 24 rankings just isn’t physically possible, unless we want to hand count ballots.” With all due respect, I believe that statement is not true. Surely if Cambridge can do it with 19 candidates/write-ins and 19 rankings, Portland can do the same- or more.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/BD029816F80C4CDC89FD22B40EEBE4BE.ashx
Furthermore, the official Cambridge brochure on “VOTING BY PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION” states: “Computerized Ballot Tabulation: In 1997 the Election Commission computerized the City of Cambridge PR elections using a precinct-based optical scanning system and specially designed software.
Tabulating the Votes: The PR Count, which used to be performed manually during the course of a week by a staff of over a hundred, is now completed in a matter of minutes through the electronic sorting, counting, and transfer of votes.
If Cambridge can do it, one must ask: why not Portland?
In closing, it seems that the County needs to go back to the drawing board and make every effort to come up with a system that counts “as many rankings as a voter wants,” just like the Charter Commission promised, rather than seemingly taking the easy way out by placing artificial and unnecessary limits on the number of allowed rankings.
I feel compelled to comment on your interview with Mr. Scott. Full disclosure: I opposed the proposed charter and was part of the Partnership for Common Sense Government, largely because of the proposed single transferable voting method to be used in 4 three member districts- untested in any multimember district council election in the United States.
First of all, it seems clear that the Charter commission sold the voters a bill of goods with respect to the vote tally method. The auditor's presentation to the City Council on June 29, 2022 included The Charter Commission’s Progress Report # 6, their final report dated June 2022.
That report- submitted on behalf of the entire Commission (or at least the 17 of 20 who supported it) clearly states that “Ranked choice voting would give Portland voters the ability to indicate all of the candidates they support in order of preference by marking their ballots to indicate "1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc." for as many or as few as they care to rank.
So, when Mr. Scott states that only “some members of the Charter Commission made it clear that they wanted voters to be able to rank all candidates,” that is simply not accurate. The Commission officially stated that was the case, and more importantly, told the voters that when the Commission gave final approval to the plan. In the Multnomah County Voter pamphlet, the statement in favor by Portland United for Change- the main advocacy group, stated that “You can rank some candidates, all of them, or just one.” That is clearly what voters were told would be the case.
The same final Commission report also stated that “Clear Ballot, the major vendor for Multnomah County, is preparing for a 2023 ranked choice voting election in Colorado that is very similar to the Charter Commission’s proposal.” That was untrue, and the Commission knew or should have known that. After doing some of my own research, which Commission staff could have easily done as well, I commented at the June meeting to the Council and Commission members who were in attendance remotely.
"The Commission report states that 'Clear Ballot, the major vendor for Multnomah County, is preparing for a 2023 ranked choice voting election in Colorado that is very similar to the Charter Commission’s proposal.'
After first reading the report on ranked choice by the research arm of the Colorado Legislature, I contacted election officials in the 2 Colorado jurisdictions scheduled to begin using RCV in 2023.
• Boulder: Boulder will be using instant run off RCV for mayor only. The 8 council members continue to be elected as before. The voting systems vendor: Dominion. The elections official had never heard of Clear Ballot.
• Broomfield City and County: Broomfield will move to instant runoff RCV for mayor and council. Council members are elected by ward, 2 each in 5 wards. The voting system vendor: Dominion.
I also confirmed with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office that those are the only 2 jurisdictions, as far as they know, scheduled to implement some form of RCV in 2023.
The point is that: (1) neither entity uses Clear ballot, so it likely that it will be a complex and expensive undertaking to change voting systems in Multnomah and the other 2 counties to a certified system that accurately tallies a first-in-the-nation voting method. (2) The new 2023 RCV elections in Colorado are not at all “very similar” to the single transferable vote method proposed for council elections in Portland. Why is the commission saying otherwise?
If I could get that information in a few phone calls, one wonders why Commission staff failed to do the same."
Now let’s turn to the ballot design itself. During the campaign, the Chatter Commission and advocates for the Charter used simple cartoon-like ballots with just several candidates and rankings, yielding a small number of “bubbles” on the ballot. The fact that this was misleading was pointed out. Since we recently had 10 or so candidates running for council seats, it seems conceivable that we would have as many as 30 candidates running for 3 seats in a district. 30 candidates with 30 rankings means 900 bubbles; this does not include space and bubbles for write-ins.
As you know, Cambridge is the only city in the United States to use single transferable voting in its council elections, though on at at-large- not district- basis. However, the method for vote tallying is the same whether at-large or by district. I repeatedly suggested that the Commission tell the voters what a ballot would look like in reality, using the Cambridge ballot as an illustration. My suggestion was ignored.
Mr. Scott stated: “A grid-style ballot with 24 candidates and 24 rankings just isn’t physically possible, unless we want to hand count ballots.” With all due respect, I believe that statement is not true. Surely if Cambridge can do it with 19 candidates/write-ins and 19 rankings, Portland can do the same- or more.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/BD029816F80C4CDC89FD22B40EEBE4BE.ashx
Furthermore, the official Cambridge brochure on “VOTING BY PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION” states:
“Computerized Ballot Tabulation: In 1997 the Election Commission computerized the City of Cambridge PR elections using a precinct-based optical scanning system and specially designed software.
Tabulating the Votes: The PR Count, which used to be performed manually during the course of a week by a staff of over a hundred, is now completed in a matter of minutes through the electronic sorting, counting, and transfer of votes."
If Cambridge can do it, one must ask: why not Portland?
In closing, it seems that the County needs to go back to the drawing board and make every effort to come up with a system that counts “as many rankings as a voter wants,” just like the Charter Commission promised, rather than seemingly taking the easy way out by placing artificial and unnecessary limits on the number of allowed rankings.