IRV -- Aspen Reconsiders on November 3 (Don't Forget to Vote)
October 14
DON’T FORGET THAT 61 CENTS POSTAGE IS REQUIRED ON YOUR RETURN BALLOT
Aspen voters will tell City Hall how they feel about continuing to use the IRV method for municipal elected office, which was used for the first time in May.
Whether or not you liked the outcome, you probably have views on the methodology. Did you understand it? Do you know whether yours was one of the 17% of the ballots not counted in the Council race runoff?
This site will be used to collect information and opinions regarding IRV and the upcoming advisory vote in November’s mail in ballot election. DON’T FORGET THAT 61 CENTS POSTAGE IS REQUIRED ON YOUR RETURN BALLOT. (that information is not on the ballot.)
October 14th Aspen Times has two columns expressing views on IRV. Please share your opinions. We encourage you to identify yourself and avoid screen names which can lead to irresponsible on line comments, which will be deleted. We’re happy for spirited, even controversial discussions. But we will insist that the comments remain on topic and avoid personal attacks.
Andy Stone: A Stone's Throw
My uncle Irv messed up Aspen's elections
Andy Stone
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Aspen Times
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20091014/COLUMN/910139980/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1061
Feel free to post comments, as I've posted mine below.
The Red Ant information below has all the data on the litigation Andy references:
Su Lum: Slumming
Time for November election endorsements
The Aspen Times
Aspen, CO Colorado
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20091014/COLUMN/910139979/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1061
Feel free to post your comments (with your name please) below as I've posted mine.
You Tube IRV!
Don't feel that you know enough about IRV? See some of these just produced videos, which are actually totally fun to watch.See entry on IRV YouTube below.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
Su says "I thought we should have some kind of “weeding” process early on and then have the “real” election as the finale.
We're being asked if we want to continue IRV voting, but are being given no choices as to what would replace it. In the absence of alternatives, I'm going to vote to continue Instant Runoff Voting. It worked, no one has challenged the results, and I am sick to death of the fear-mongering tactics and legal challenges to a system that actually worked. Like, duh! Not a single candidate is disputing the outcome, so what's the problem? "
Marilyn says: I agree that a "weeding process" is needed to focus the race on issues when there are a managable number of finalists. While not perfect, the traditional run off system seemed to accomplish that. We lacked any chance to get to know the candidates or their stance on issues with IRV.
Just because no one is challenging the election surely does not mean that "it worked," as Su claims. Most of the candidates didn't have the technology or mathemathical expertise avialable to know whether they even merited a recount.
Few people have enough understanding of IRV to know how the tabulation was done. The promises that we could all test for ourselves didn't come true. That does not fit my definition of "working." The tabulations still have not been audited. Apparently, "it worked" means to some that there was no paper jam in the black box that created a delay in achieving the results. Maybe "it worked" merely means that Mick won.
Vote NO to return to some understandable form of voting.
My response to Andy Stone:
ANDY says--"The exact reasoning behind her demand seems a little obscure. Does she want the ballots? Does she want the scanned images of the ballots? Is she checking the runoff system? Is she checking the counting system? Is she checking privacy protection? Or, maybe even, is she checking the results?"
MARILYN says--While I'd like to have the ballots reviewed as an audit step, that is not what I am seeking. I am seeking the intermediate record of the CD of the ballot images as stated in the litigation. The ballot images are needed to review all the things you suggest above. No one isolated purpose.
ANDY Says--"She consistently says she has no desire to overturn the election, but her lawsuit claims there were some serious problems with the process and that some of these problems were concealed from the public until after the date for protesting the results had passed. That sounds like someone laying the groundwork for a protest."
MARILYN says--It may sound that way to those who haven't read the facts, but the deadline for a legal contest was May 22nd. I knew the issues then, and chose to work toward an audit with long term improvement recommendations. If I wanted to contest the outcome, I had my fair chance. No reason to try to do it long after the law allows. I fear the Andy has bought into some of Mick's false claims that this is about a "recount."
ANDY says, "But, what the heck, I'm going to take Marilyn at her word."
MARILYN says,-- Thanks, Andy. MIght as well since the law wouldn't allow me to contest the election if I tried."
ANDY says, “But runoffs have their own set of problems.
There's the expense, of course. Elections aren't cheap.”
MARILYN says, “Election quality is about the worst place I can think of for making government cuts. Besdies IRV cost us more than the traditional run off. But low costs should not be a measure of election quality. "
ANDY says, “Then there's fatigue — both candidate and voter fatigue. Good candidates can burn out when they're required to run a second all-out campaign, right after the first one ends.”
MARILYN says, “If a candidate can’t take another month of focused campaigning with the voters, then they aren’t tough enough and dedicated enough for public office.”
ANDY says, “More important, of course, voters get burned out and turned off. People stop paying attention. They tune out. They don't bother to vote the second time around. In the end, that can favor a highly motivated minority, voters who care fiercely but don't represent a true majority of the citizens.”
MARILYN says, “Two problems with that Andy. The "burnout” for the run off portion of the May election was the worst ever, I believe. 17% of the voters didn’t turn out for the run off in the Torre/Behrendt race. And almost that many were “no shows” in the Johnson/Johnson race. They were standing in the voting booth and "no showed/burned out" before they finished marking the ballot.
Additionally, even Mick says that the great number of candidates and the short campaign didn’t allow even him, who knows all the candidates to get to hear enough about their positions. Finally, a place that Mick and I agree. I also knew all the candidates and still couldn’t learn enough about their positions. We had 13 candidates (CC + mayor) to learn about and rank. Very few voters can do that.”
ANDY Says: “And, perhaps, some motivation to fine-tune the IRV system before the next election. Even as we remember that nothing is perfect.”
MARILYN Says, “IRV will take a lot more than fine tuning to even become legal in Aspen before the next election. I’d say that is far from perfect.”
Marilyn -- you write "We lacked any chance to get to know the candidates or their stance on issues with IRV." Are you saying that Aspen voters can't learn about their choices in one round of voting? That's disturbing to hear, as elections always should have consequences and ideally voters could learn about their options before an election.
As noted in my comment on the videos directly, those videos present "paradoxes" that are exactly the same with traditional runoffs. If those paradoxes trouble you, I'm confused that you say you support runoff elections.
yes, Rob, I'm saying that Aspen Voters cannot learn about their choices in one round of voting nearly as well as they can with a tranditional run off system. Even our mayor acknowledges that that was one of the realistic results of IRV. Too many candidates (13) for a small press to follow. You are right about ideally learning enough BEFORE the first election, but the world is not ideal, and we basically have only limited media coverage here---two newspapers with shrinking staff and pages.
"Ireland said he has mixed feelings. On one hand, the results come in quicker and IRV doesn't require an extra month of campaigning, as has been the case in the city's traditional June runoff election. But the mayor agrees that the nine City Council candidates who ran this past spring didn't get enough exposure; the additional month before the June runoff could have given the top vote-getters more time to distinguish themselves." --Aspen Times
"Councilman Torre has publicly stated his opposition to IRV because he likes having an extra month to learn about candidates"--aspen times
I have heard Ireland joke with Johnson recently saying that he (the mayor) attended all the CC public information sessions, and read everything in the paper and there was so little time with 9 CC candidates that he knew little more about Johnson than that he had kids and coached footballl. I knew every canddiate personally, and read everything and attended all events. And because of the lack of time for any issue coverage, I had little idea on the candidates' positions in most cases.
I believe that that is the most serious flaw in IRV!
Marilyn
I think the key is looking at ways for Aspen to get more information out to folks, as again, the point is that any election should have consequences and you want people to be informed of those consequences.