ISSUE # 29 ... DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT ALGEBRA
February 16
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for
But I do know that one and one is two
And if this one could be with you
What a wonderful world this would be.
Sam Cooke
(CLICK HERE to listen to the oldie while you read)
What a wonderful world it would be indeed if Aspen City officials had more respect for some of the basic democratic principles we treasure in America! If you're like everybody else we've talked to about this, you're not gonna believe The Red Ant at first, but see for yourself...
The bottom line is that in the upcoming May election for Mayor and two council seats, Aspen will be using an election system that's never been tried before in the United States, where, depending on the mathematical scheme chosen to tabulate votes, there could be different results as to who is declared the winner. And guess who's designing and proposing the new election rules? Of course, Mayor Mick and Councilman Jack Johnson -- two incumbents likely seeking re-election!
Unfortunately you have to wade through a bit of background to get the troubling picture of how this bizarre, unhealthy circumstance came to be.
Election Exhaustion Lead to Voter Naiveté
In the summer and fall of 2007, just after the Mayor Mick had taken office following a run-off, he and Councilman Jack Johnson led the charge to convince Aspen voters that election runoffs after the initial vote (if there were no candidates who reached the winning threshold) were too expensive and too time consuming. City Council placed a measure on the November 2007 ballot asking Aspenites to adopt a vague concept of "Instant Runoff Voting" (IRV) for future mayoral and council races. Sounds simple enough -- voters would rank their choices of candidates and avoid having to come back to the polls for a runoff a few weeks later.
A few of us, but alas too few, didn't like the idea at the time. (click through-- Letter to Editor, 11/07) But the vast majority of Aspen voters trusted their council that a system mimicking a true runoff could and would be easily constructed. The vote was 615 FOR the new IRV concept, and 186 AGAINST, although the ballot wording was vague and conceptual at best.
(Had the recent Presidential elections been handled this way, without a primary to narrow the field to two final contenders for the Democratic candidate, it's likely that Hillary would have been the presidential candidate.)
So WHO Sets the Rules??
Accept for the moment that depending on the rules adopted, the mathematical alternatives can produce different winners. We will come back to that. In September 2008, contemplating the upcoming May 2009 election, City Council named a task force to recommend rules for IRV. While the committee initially included a handful of private citizens, by the time the complex and difficult choices were being made, Mayor Mick, Councilman Johnson, and three city employees made up five of the seven voting members of the task force.
Turns out that Mayor Mick was not initially appointed as a voting member of the task force by Council but appointed himself later.
The meetings of the committee were not announced to the public, to our knowledge, nor were minutes taken of the discussions or even to record the votes.
Even if the system were fairly simple without the opportunity for variable results, it's poor practice for incumbents, or City employees who work for them, to be establishing new rules for their own re-election. You can't make this stuff up!
Who Cares? The Biggest Vote Getters Will Win -- Won't They?
That's probably what most of the voters who favored instant runoff voting (IRV) thought when they approved the measure. What the advocates didn't disclose was that different results may be achieved in a multi-seat contest such as our city council race, depending on which mathematical tabulation scheme is chosen. The Ant believes that MOST voters who approved the concept were not aware that:
1) No other municipality in the United States uses the system. (You'll soon understand why.)
2) Aspen would have to create a new system and debate the mathematical merits of various vote counting alternatives.
3) The 2 candidates receiving the most votes are not necessarily included in the automatic run-off (in one IRV system under consideration).
4) Different winners could be declared depending on the tabulation method chosen.
5) The body recommending the new rules would not be independent.
6) Council, all of whom are eligible for re-election in the future, would have final say in selecting the voting scheme.
Will It Really Matter?
Of course, without a crystal ball, that is impossible to predict today. Chances are, the systemwill not produce perverse results, depending on what method is chosen. (There are 3 alternatives on the table today.) However, don't forget Florida's hanging chads, the Franken-Coleman never-ending recount in Minnesota, and other unexpected difficulties in close elections. These unexpected consequences seem more likely to be encountered in elections with a large pool of candidates (such as our 2 seat council races) using IRV.
Even such low probability troubles should be avoided if at all possible. And certainly, in adopting any new voting scheme, the electorate should be fully informed as to the anomalies that may be built into the system. And how certain schemes will result in "strategic" voting methods, as some voters may try to game the system. The Red Ant feels that Aspen voters were done a real disservice in the way this detail of democracy has been handled by some of our City officials.
It may make no difference over the next few elections. No one knows. But that's not the point. Should we really be using an untested scheme designed by a less-than-independent committee and decided on only by elected officials who inherently have conflicts of interest? It's certainly not the kind of transparent democracy The Red Ant wants to see in Aspen.
See For Yourself
The Red Ant appreciates the efforts of Kathryn Koch, Aspen's long serving City Clerk, and Jim True, Assistant City Attorney, for their openness to demonstrate the anomalies of IRV and organization of an outreach effort to inform the public of the issues prior to Council's decision on February 23. They will conduct a demonstration of the various voting schemes under consideration on Wednesday, February 18, at 5:00 PM in City Council chambers, where they will demonstrate how the alternative methods work to produce sometimes consistent and sometimes inconsistent results. This demonstration will enable the public to see the system in play, and determine a personal preference for tabulation of votes. The Red Ant encourages concerned citizens to check this out so that you can weigh-in with your preferred tabulation method at the time of Council decision on the 23rd. (And yes, Aspen apparently MUST utilize IRV for the May election. Based on the results in 2007, the city charter was changed and IRV is now a mandate.)
Proposed Voting Schemes -- A Mathematical Brainteaser
Marilyn's nephew, Douglas, a PhD candidate with emphasis in computational algebra, took the time to try to explain to Ant Marilyn, in plain English, the mathematically generated concerns.(Understanding IRV--Click Here)He strongly favors the Task Force recommendations, but for those who dare test their college math skills, read the background materials and decide for yourself.(Click thru--Task Force Recommendations.) Councilman Johnson adamantly opposes the Task Force recommended method and presents his own, which are included in the referenced links. (Click thru--Johnson memo, Johnson Supporting docs, FairVote.org Analysis)
The Ant's opinion is more philosophical. Any vote tabulation method which requires 14 pages of rules and dozens more pages of analysis, is the wrong system for important elections. We'd like to return to the traditional run-off system. We don't know much about algebra these days, and don't really want to, in order to feel comfortable in the voting booth.
Ethics and Governance
Regardless of which method is ultimately chosen, we must question our elected officials' failure to disclose to the public during the November 2007 election the inherent risks with their proposed IRV system. Similar to an earlier City misrepresentation to voters concerning the expected subsidies at Burlingame, IRV was sold to Aspen voters as just an easier and cheaper way to elect officials that would mimic results of run-off elections, without disclosing the risks.
Itis obvious that an INDEPENDENT task force should have been formed to recommend a specific IRV method BEFORE the voters were asked to approve the IRV concept. They asked for voters' blind approval and trust for a new voting method.
The Ant is discouraged to think that Aspenites must question the disclosures in City-generated ballot measures.
Even more of a concern are the conflicts of interest our elected officials frequently employ, granting themselves far too much input in making this decision, among others. Whether of not IRV directly affects May's election results is anyone's guess.
BACK ISSUES OF THE RED ANT
There are all here on the ANThology.
Some of the more popular issues have been:
1) "Shakedown Street" CLICK-"Shakedown"
2) "Aspen Cross-Checks Locals Click-Hockey Goons vs. City of Aspen
3) "Welcome, Chairman Mao's Diner Click-Chairman Mao's
REMINDER--new Regulations Require Carbon Monoxide Detectors in ALL Homes by March 2.
Join the Conversation by leaving your comments below.
UPDATE 2.20.09
MATERIALS FOR 2.23.09 COUNCIL MEETING ON INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING
These were to be posted on the city website yesterday. They have still not made these available on the web, so we are, as service to those interested. The Red Ant is not too pleased with the public process employed by the City since the initiation of the entire IRV subject. (There was never even a discussion at Council meetings on either the first or second reading where the 2007 IRV ballot measure was adopted.)Therefore the Council and the public had little idea what they were adopting. Let's hope for a full discussion on Monday.
http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/IRVMemo_2nd%20Reading_2.pdf
http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/Instant%20Runoff%20Alternative%200ne1.pdf
http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/Instant%20Runoff%20Alternative%20Two2.pdf
Elizabeth
Nephew Douglas presents a "braintwister" on how moving someone higher on your ballot could change them from being elected to them not to be elected (this could happen in either FairVote method). Admittedly a low probability, thank goodness.
http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/Monotone%20Violation.pdf
While Su Lum and Jack Johnson say that this is simple and that there is no math involved, they've got one on me!! Surely looks hard to me, and it's what I call math. But I'll take their words for the fact that it's simple to them.
Then there's this memo in response to a question that one reader posted for him:
http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/VoterINEQ.pdf
My summary---This level of complexity of choosing a voting system can't possibly be what the Aspen voters had in mind when they voted for IRV in November, 2007. We need to ask why our leaders brought us this system, with all of its complexities. What was their reasoning?
Tonight during the demostration session, even the City Attorney said that he did not understand the issues and complexity when he voted for IRV.
Elizabeth
Reader Comments (13)
New Aspen Tag line:
'Beats Me'
Runoff choices for Venuzuela President for life:
Hugo
Hugo
Hugo