Do not rank
Not that it's going to make any difference, but I tried to explain how it works (or doesn't) in a series of posts a couple of years ago. Some of them are here, here, and here.
Opinions may differ about this bizarre system, but there's one important point that every voter should understand, and I doubt that they all do: No matter how low you rank a candidate, you are voting in their favor by ranking them at all. For example, in District 4, as shown above, there are currently 12 running, and you get to rank up to six. But even if you rank someone sixth, you're helping them get elected. If you don't like a candidate, do not rank them at all.
There's no real way to vote "no" on someone other than to not blacken any of the circles next to their name. And that's the same as saying you don't know or care about them one way or the other. Whether you hate a candidate or are merely indifferent to them, you must do the same thing: refrain from ranking them at all.
Here's another tip: You do not have to rank six candidates. In fact, you don't even have to rank two or three; you can vote for just your one or two favorites if you like. And in deciding whether to fill in a lower rank for someone you're not really sure about, remember that if your first choice is a winner, your second and lower rankings may matter very little anyway, or not at all. If your favorite candidate comes in fourth in the "final round" of counting, your second and lower rankings will never be looked at by anyone. And so feel free to stop before you rank six!
And while we are on the subject, here are a few that you should leave out. These folks are, or would be, blisters on the heel of progress in the city.
District 3
- Tiffany Koyama Lane
- Angelita Morillo
District 4
- Mitch Green
- Jamey Evenstar
- Jeremy Beausoleil-Smith
We all should find it disturbing that even someone with your education & abilities is still working-on figuring out how to best use this system.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone reads/comprehends at the same level, but everyone has the right to be able to participate in elections. Making the process so incomprehensible that it's like the IRS wrote it (ha ha) & we need BoJack to translate it, that has to be impacting participation.
When you have time, would you please explain why it's, "maybe even unconstitutional"-??
Some people get many "rounds" in which their lower-rank votes count in full, whereas some people's lower-rank votes are not counted at all. Isn't "one person, one vote" somewhere enshrined in the state constitution, or maybe even the federal constitution? Doesn't this violate that principle? With three seats open, everyone should get three full votes. In Portland, some of us get only only one.
DeleteThanks for that, Professor BoJack. Some of this is now coming back to me, I guess the same confusion & discussions will come up during every election cycle, unless we can change it.
DeleteThe courts seem to back states using RCV, so far, but there's now 19 states that have completely banned it. If Portlanders want to go back to normal elections, the best approach would probably be to bypass the City completely & try to get a statewide ban enacted.
Also, if your first choice gets a ton of votes, you get to vote twice.
DeleteRemember, you need to get 25%+1 to get elected. Say your first choice gets 50% of the first-choice votes. They cleared the hurdle by double, and they don't need that other 25%.
So, under this version of RCV, half of your first-choice votes get transferred to your second choice, because the winning candidate needed only half of your vote to clear the hurdle.
Yes, but if your first choice gets 25% of the first-choice votes plus 1 vote, your second choice gets essentially nothing. And if your first choice comes in fourth in the end, your second choice gets absolutely nothing. As I say, it doesn't seem immune from a constitutional challenge.
DeleteSpread the word, please.
ReplyDeleteDO NOT RANK - cause most of them STANK
ReplyDeleteMight be wise to read posts by Robert Miller on his Substack,, NW Examiner and PortlandDissent. His analysis indicates that people ranked SECOND (sorry, no italix here) can win against candidates wiith more first-choice votes. Rank-choice voting was engineered by the folks running in plays at the Charter Commission to amp "minorities." Fooled voters, but not the DSA.
ReplyDeleteI try reading Robert Miller, but I can never quite understand his point. Yes, under the Portland version of RCV, if your first choice doesn't get 25% plus one on the first count, they could wind up losing to someone with fewer first-choice votes.
Delete"Rank choice" with one office at a time is one thing, but "rank choice" with multiple races combined into one count is insane. And to me it smells vaguely unconstitutional.
I’m old enough to remember when the democratic and republican organizations actually vetted candidates.
ReplyDelete