[EM] [FairVoteOR] Certified ballot title for #35 (fwd)

[Forest Simmons]

It looks like the "higher ups" didn't go for all the "majority" hype on
the ballot language proposed by FAVOR.

Cheers to Doug Zier from the Oregon Attorney General's Office for
referring to the IRV "majority" as an "artificial majority." That's a
pretty accurate and succinct description.

Most of the rank and file FAVOR members are happy with this result, but
note the concerns of Mr. Rhyne, their leader.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:15:21 -0700
From: Fillard Rhyne <fillard at hevanet.com>
To: FairVoteOR <FairVoteOR at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [FairVoteOR] Certified ballot title for #35

Petition #35 now has a certified ballot title:
==================================================
ESTABLISHES INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING PROCEDURE DETERMINING WINNER
BASED ON VOTERS' RANKED PREFERENCE AMONG MULTIPLE CANDIDATES

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote establishes an instant runoff
voting procedure at primary and general elections that determines
winner based on the voters' ranked preference among multiple
candidates.

RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains current voting procedure
determining election result based on highest number of votes, even
when no candidate received majority of total votes cast.

SUMMARY: Currently, candidates receiving the highest number of
votes cast at election are nominated or elected. This measure
creates an instant runoff voting procedure to determine winner
based on voters' ranked preference among multiple candidates. If no
candidate for partisan office (including write-in candidates)
receives a majority of total votes cast after the initial vote
count, the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated and
that candidate's votes are transferred to the voter's next-ranked
preferred choice. Elimination of individual candidates continues
until one candidate receives a majority of the total votes. In
elections for nonpartisan office, similar procedure establishes
majority winner or determines two nominees for the general election
ballot. Measure requires public report of election results,
including disposition of transferred votes. Other provisions.
==================================================

The May 17 letter from the attorney general's office explaining the
rationale behind the certified title is at
<http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2002/035cbt.pdf>
(pages 3 to 6).

My May 9 comments on the draft ballot title are at
<http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2002/035cmts.pdf>.

If we decide to appeal the ballot title, the deadline is June 1
(and of course we would want to move quickly anyway).

The certified ballot title never actually uses the word "majority"
in describing instant runoff. This omission could in theory be a
matter of priorities - that is, Doug Zier (the person in the
attorney general's office who signed the letter) could have felt
that it was more important to clarify various other matters, such
as the fact that instant runoff would apply both to nominations and
to elections. I actually _don't_ think it was a matter of
priorities, largely because Zier used the phrase "artificial
majority" within the letter while discussing instant runoff. This
suggests that Zier probably made a concrete decision to never use
the word "majority" in describing instant runoff, a decision we
might easily see again at the supreme court level.

Note that while the certified ballot title doesn't credit instant
runoff with a majority, it does explicitly state that the current
system can't be credited with a majority either. It does that in
the "no" result. So that's good. Of course it would have been
better if this explicit statement were appended to _both_ places
where the current system is credited with "highest number of votes
wins", or alluded to in the caption (the first 15 words) like in
the title for petition #26.

Our three biggest options at this point are:
  o  Move forward with petition #35.
  o  Move forward with petition #26.
  o  Challenge the title for petition #35.

I'll get back to you with my thoughts on which option is best.
Two relevant questions are:
  o  What specific improvements do we realistically think the
     supreme court would accept?
  o  How much time would it take the supreme court to process our
     challenge? What resources would we expend? Would the potential
     improvements be worth it?

Fillard

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
InstantRunoffOR-unsubscribe at egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/