IRV -- Take the Post-Election Survey

May 28th-- Error FoundMayoral Race IRV Software:

http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/TallyCorrectedTB.pdf

Please share your thoughts on IRV in the recent Aspen Election.

http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2imsis1fumvwxa7/start

See the results:

http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2imsis1fumvwxa7/results

See entry below for interesting Election Statistics!

Five Different Counting Methods. Four Different Winners:

http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/CC%20Results.pdf

Aspen Daily News article:

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/134684

Comments

[Marilyn]

Survey Takers' Comments:

Did you initially support Instant Run-Off Voting when it was proposed in 2007?

-I thought it would be helpful as so many full-time residents are gone during the regular election and for the run-off. I feel the May election is kind of "loaded" due to many being absent and so few voters. A better time would be June. I have now changed my view on the IRV. Anonymous
-Wasn't sure Anonymous
-I think not because I did not know enough about it. Anonymous
-No experience with it. Anonymous
sounded good at the time! Anonymous
-I had no idea how flawed the methodology would be. Anonymous
-I didn't know about IRV in 2007. Anonymous
-I thought it was going to be another way for Mick’s Party to fix the election.

Many voters ranked only one or two candidates in the Mayor's race, rather than ranking 3 or 4 candidates. Why do you think that happened?

-Although I ranked everyone, I was not particularly excited about that aspect (even though it wasn't required, as some were led to believe) because there were individuals I did not want elected or re-elected in any case. In a regular run-off that would have been avoided. Anonymous
-voters did not understand too complicated Anonymous
-That's what someone told me to do, but I didn't do it beacause I forgot. Anonymous
-I don't think voters were given enough information regarding the ramifications of not voting for secondary candidates. Anonymous
-Everywhere else in the country and previously here
we voted the way we always have. Our council and mayor decided to remake the wheel. ---Most people I know didn't understand the process and many never will. Anonymous
and I think people didn't understand the importance of ranking all the way out. Anonymous

Over 35% of the voters in the Council race voted for 3 or less candidates, taking a risk that their votes would not count in the run-off. Why do you think that they did not rank more candidates?

-same as above "other" comment Anonymous
-It was mathematically adventageous to vote for a single candidate if you really wanted that candidate to win. Anonymous
-This question is biased. There was no risk that their votes wouldn't count if they named three or less candidates. Anonymous
-I don't think voters were given enough information regarding the ramifications of not voting for secondary candidates. Anonymous
-All the above, at least!! Anonymous

Do you believe that the results of the Council race would have changed if there had been a traditional run off among Derek Johnson, Jack Johnson, Michael Behrendt, Torre, and Adam Frisch? (Frisch was added for this survey to the top 4 because the IRV counting method excluded him despite his heavy #1 rankings.)

-chances are Derek would have won and chances are that Jack would have won rather then Torre??? Anonymous
-So what? The results would be "different" if we ran an IRV vote 30 days later, too.

-Top 4 candidates were all very close and I think the citizens of Aspen should be happy about that and satisfied with the result no matter which 2 won. Anonymous
-I would hope so. Anonymous
-I need to know the actual vote count to have an opinion on this. Anonymous
-adam frisch would have beaten Torre Anonymous
-The people who voted for Derek Johnson would have voted for Adam too, so those would have been the winners. Anonymous
-Certainly it "could" have changed! Anonymous
-This is reflective of this flawed sstem

If you answered yes above on Question 6 on the council race, why do you think that the results might have changed in a traditional run-off?
-Half of the people able to vote don't anyway. Those that are out of town vote before they leave or do a mail in ballot. Waiting for people to come back to town does not change the number of voters. Anonymous
-Most of the above Anonymous
-The IRV is fixed so that more voters are NOT included. Anonymous
-In a traditional runoff voters would have been permitted to voice their preference in the second election more clearly than under IRV. Anonymous
might have voted differently knowing the outcome of the mayoral election.
Anonymous

Do you believe that most voters understand that the particular IRV mathematical method chosen, among various alternatives considered, for the Council race can (and did) have impacts on who wins the race?

-more likely...is that the voters had little if any understanding of the method chosen...let alone that there was more then one method to choose from...let alone that the method for the Mayoral race was different then the method for the Council race! Anonymous
-This is what the voters were told. Anonymous
-I doubt very much that voters understood the methodology used. Anonymous

If the "Sequential Elimination " IRV method (as used in the Mayor's race) were used for the Council race, rather than the much debated IRV "Batch Method", it appears that Frisch would have won the Council race, rather than Torre. Would that mathematical anomaly surprise voters?

-read my comments as above... Anonymous
-I think they understand but were "sold" on the idea of saving time, money, etc. (which in Aspen is ironic). Anonymous
-Naive questions...the only thing valid here is to assess an individual opinion, not what we each thing "most voters" would do...isn't relevant or meaningful Anonymous
-Frish was not in the "top 4" of the original count -- therefore he would not have "made the cut" in the old (pre-IRV) runoff. So seems the system chosen worked similarly to how it used to with a separate runoff Anonymous
-Who actually understands all this? Anonymous
-Adam should have won instead of Torre. Anonymous
-Most voters also don't understand that Jack Johnson is an alien being from Planet Zog. Anonymous
-This is very unfair to Frisch Anonymous

If there had been no IRV during this election and, instead, the TRADITIONAL June run-off, what is your prediction of the impact on the Mayor's race election results?

-Results change, no sure thing on outcome. Ross Perot knew the value of the 3rd party candidate and used it to defeat George H.W. Bush.
-The liberals want to look more like France and give the socialists and communists a bigger voice. Anonymous
-Again, more people in town does not mean more votes cast. A large number of people vote early or with mail in ballots. If a person didn't vote in the May election, they are unlikely to vote in a run off election. Given more time, I think the voting public would have come to realize that of all the candidates for Mayor you were the worst candidate. Anonymous
-I think the differences would have become clear and focused resulting in reduced clutter and more enlightening debates. Anonymous
-Don't know. Anonymous
-Mick's machine is too good. A traditional run off would be to his advantage. As much as I do not care for the IRV system, it's the best way to beat Mick (if voters only understand that). Anonymous
-I don't know how they would have voted, so I don't know if they would have changed the results. You assume they would have voted for Marks. Anonymous
-This question is biased again. The voters, if educated, will always vote for Mick. -The issue isn't whether there are more people in town. Anonymous
I think their were two basic groups of voters, one group that voted for Mick and one group that voted for someone else. In a runoff, Mick may lose being that the "others" would cast their vote for the non-Mick canidate. Anonymous
-IRV hurt Ireland and helped Marks. She'd have won if more LJ and Kole secondary voters went with her. But in a traditional runoff election the Ba'ath Party would always win, and about a week before the election the Aspen Times and Daily News would both show pictures of Marks in bed with a camel or somesuch nonsense. Anonymous
-Why is the election in May when locals leave town?? Should be July or August, when people are back. Anonymous

How do you feel about the validity of the tabulation system?

-I would hope that a test of the system happened before it was implemented. Who checked the test results? Who devised the test? Anonymous
-actually I have decided that no one will ever know as those that know don't want any one to know one way or the other. Anonymous
-Certainly the system and outcome should be fully tested before we use it again. -Council should make this review fully transparent. Anonymous
-We need to test it, not to change the results of this election, but to understand what should be done in the future Anonymous

Would you prefer to continue to use the IRV system in future elections?
-There is more than one way to skin a cat. Saving money in an election in this town seems like a bit of a trojan horse. Efficiency is good, but why stop there. A guillotine is efficient. Anonymous
-No one wants to return to the run off election process. Enough is enough, we want to go back to our lives in May not endure a second election in June. Anonymous
-only if the same tabulation method is used for the mayoral and the council election and only if the voters learn how to vote and the outcome of how they vote using the ranking system Anonymous
-I think they should go back to "old" way. The one with the most vote wins, not 50% plus one. I feel it would bring out more people to vote, because you would have a feeling, that your vote counts Anonymous
-Again, another biased question. How about a "No" because runoffs allow additional education of voters. Anonymous
-57% of the people voted against Ireland the first time around, so under IRV there's an opportunity to beat him but under a traditional run-off election he'll never lose. Anonymous
-I'm curious how much a traditional run-off costs the city. Anonymous

Do you favor keeping local elections in May, or moving them to a time of year where more people are in town?
-Having them in November would be a way to 'save money and give good results'. Anonymous
-For the 3rd freaking time....When the election occurs makes no difference at all. -People who vote, vote, those that don't, don't. Whether they are in town or out of town. You really aren't going to make any drastic changes to the number of people who vote by changing the date. Anonymous
-What are the "stricter rules" for a November election? Anonymous
-...but provide absentee ballots sooner. Anonymous
-Are we talking people or voters, any voters who are not in town can do absentee ballots but I think local property owners should have a local vote no matter where they vote for state and national elections. Anonymous
-That would insure highest voter turnout Anonymous
-IRV is a disaster. How can it be revoked? I am strongly against it. Anonymous
-Only registered Mick Party members should be allowed to vote in Aspen elections, using ballots pre-marked and pre-counted by Mick and Bob. Su Lum shall be the sole election official. So no more instant runoff voting -- first we publish results, then we have election. We will have order! Anonymous