Lemdro.id

1 point

10 days ago

The thing is, the system completely changed to a point where it’s not comparable.

Old system:

5 city council members, elected city wide, vote for one person per seat, first past the post.

New system:

12 city council members, elected 3 per district, rank 6, top 3 elected.

So there’s more representation district by district, in fact, this is the very first time my district has had representation on the city council.

report

voiceofchris @lemmy.world

[ - ]

2 points

10 days ago

If you cannot compare the previous voter engagement to the current voter engagement then why title your post in such a way? Why blame ranked choice voting for “cratering” voter engagement if you have no metric by which to judge that?

report

[ - ]

1 point

10 days ago

Because the title of the post a) comes from the original source and b) also has nothing to do with previous elections.

1 in 5 voters, in this election, failed to vote on the ranked choice options when presented.

report

voiceofchris @lemmy.world

[ - ]

0 points

10 days ago

So A) i will have to assume that the original article is a bit of journalistic malarky. It’s locked behind a login so i don’t know if the article provides some reasonable backdrop to this 1 out 5 = cratering engagement BS, but i doubt it. More likely is that this is just more anti-alternate voting scheme propoganda.

B) it has everything to with previous elections. You can’t claim that a voting process has had a negative effect on some metric or another without inherently referencing previous elections. Something getting worse (voter engagement) requires that it was previously better. So yeah, the entire claim that this headline makes requires that it was better under the previous system.

1 in 5 voters, in this election, failed to vote on the ranked choice options when presented.

Sure, and if the headline stopped there it’d factual and i’d have no issue. Instead it specifically says voter engagement has worsened and then doesn’t back that up.

So i say again, show us the data on voter engagement from the previous system or stop spreading this status quo, two-party-maintaining hogwash.

report

[ - ]

0 points

10 days ago

The headline doesn’t need to mention previous elections because, in this election, 20% of voters skipped those lines while voting on other lines.

That’s where the “20% drop” is coming from. Compared to other lines on the SAME ballot, not previous elections.

So, they voted for President, Congress, etc, but skipped the ranked choice lines resulting in a 20% undervote compared to the rest of the ballot.

report

voiceofchris @lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

10 days ago

Which still means absolutely nothing unless we have the context to judge it by. What if 25% of voters skipped over the city council part during the last election when ranked choice was not used? In that context is it still fair to blame ranked choice for the “disengagement”? Maybe people just naturally vote for congress and presidents a heck of a lot more than they do for city council. Maybe ranked choice actually increased the percentage of voters placing votes for city councilors. If that happens to be true, how could this headline be anything but intentionally misleading? And without last election’s city cousel percentages this scenario i describe might as well be true.

report

[ - ]

https://www.portland.gov/auditor/elections/city-election-results/2020-city-elections-results

1 point

10 days ago

If that were the case, then the 20% drop in this election would not be notable, but again, you can’t compare to the previous election as it was not remotely the same kind of election (mayor + 1 city councilman, winner take all, vs. mayor + 12 council members, rank 6, 1 mayor + 3 council members per district win.)

But what you can do, as they did here, is note that of the ballots which were returned, 20% of active voters, chose to skip the ranked choice lines but not the other lines resulting in under votes for mayor and city council.

You can’t even compare raw numbers between 2020 and 2024 because 2024 was ranked choice and 2020 was not.

Mayor 2020:

Ted Wheeler - 167,260 - 46.07%
Sarah Iannarone - 147,964 - 40.76%
Write-In - 47,832 - 13.17%
Total Votes Cast - 363,056 - 100.00%

No notable skipped lines, but again, not the same kind of election.

Mayor 2024:

https://rcvresults.multco.us/Reports/a3df36c7-9b95-4614-a357-759ae2ca223f-City_of_Portland_Mayor

Initial results went through 19 rounds of counting and elimination before someone hit more than 50%.

Round 1:

Round 19:

If you assume the first round votes, which would have been all the #1 voted candidates, represents the total number of ballots for mayor, that means 170,050 people voted in round 1. 46.84% of the 363,056 ballots cast in 2020.

We should have done what was done in 2020… Primary to eliminate all the fringe candidates, then a general for the top 2.

report