Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Chris Bortz on PR and Issue 8

Posted by Media Release

Guest article by Chris Bortz.

I noticed you blog posting on the robo call I recorded in opposition to Issue 8.  I think it is important first to note that the Charter Board vote in support of PR was a very close one, a margin of about 4 or 5 votes out of over 30. 

As you may already know, during the last Electoral Reform Commission, I fought hard for Proportional Representation.  Since that time, I have written articles and blogs touting the benefits of PR.  However, in the last few months, I have spoken up at Charter Board meetings and to constituents in opposition to PR at this time for very specific reasons.

First and foremost, there has been no process to be inclusive and educate people on this new system.  Charter amendments should never be taken lightly, nor should ballot initiatives.  A change of this kind should be discussed, debated, and deliberated over in a public forum.

· Is single transferable vote the best form of PR for our city?

· What would it do to other electoral reforms that have been debated over the years?

· How long will it take to develop the software?

· How much will it cost?

· What impact might it have on voter turnout ?

These are just a few questions, for some of which conflicting answers have been offered.

For example, the Director of the Board of Elections (a professional source) testified in front of Council that it would likely cost millions, may be physically impossible to develop software in a timely manner, and manual counting could potentially be prohibited, per the Secretary of State, due to the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

And, under the single transferable vote PR system, there truly is the statistical probability that some votes would not be counted, depending on the order in which they are counted.  It will be difficult to develop a software system that could assign, and reassign, the votes without great risk of susceptibility to programming “flaws”.

The voting instructions for Issue 8 are very different than the “directions to voters” for PR.  While voters don’t read Ohio’s statute on the Electoral College as they go to vote for president, I would sincerely hope that if we were changing the way that the Electoral College worked, that voters would read the entire petition.

Again, people will be voting on Issue 8, and the description of the amendment is lengthy and complicated.  The PR Charter amendment ordinance (attached - yes, over four pages) would result in placement of the petition language in its entirety on the November 2008 ballot.  While Ohio Revised Code does allow for a summary to be placed on the ballot, a copy of the petition text in its entirety would be required to be posted in each polling station under state law.  While some voters may choose not to read the entire 4 pages, that does not negate the fact that there are 4 pages of very complicated instructions, which Council was required to approve on September 4.

Finally, I believe it would be irresponsible at this time to be a proponent of a system in which the average voter, and even some of the more informed voters, have a difficult time explaining.

==

Editor’s Note: The attached document contains four pages for the proposed charter amendment, but the actual directions for voters is just under one page long. 

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Anon says:
29 Oct 2008  at  07:22 pm | #

What a load of bullshit from the councilperson. What he meant to say was “I won’t be re-elected because my family and friends can no longer buy the votes by funding my media buys”. Law School was money well spent, Chris. Learned to exchange truth for something more intellectually stimulating did you?

L.G. says:
29 Oct 2008  at  08:34 pm | #

As you may already know, during the last Electoral Reform Commission, I fought hard for Proportional Representation.  Since that time, I have written articles and blogs touting the benefits of PR.

This is like saying

I voted for it before I voted against it

.

Charter should not endorse Bortz in 2009 since he thinks it’s appropriate to undermine a fundamental issue his party has always supported to save his own political life.  Unbelievable…

Bob from Northside says:
29 Oct 2008  at  08:41 pm | #

Not all of us were winners of life’s lottery like you Bortz. You and all your money will not be allowed to keep buying votes. Go ahead, keep talking out of both sides of your mouth. We saw what you’re trying to do to the homeless and now you’re trying to suppress their vote. I guess since they don’t have phones they won’t get to hear one of the 1000000’s of robocalls you’re sending out. Then again they don’t have homes either and that’s how you like them.

Bearman says:
29 Oct 2008  at  10:15 pm | #

Is single transferable vote the best form of PR for our city?

This has been my question all along and some have been very helpful in explaining the position of those supporting Issue 8 but I am still not thoroughly convinced.  Maybe Chris can offer his idea of a type of PR that he thinks would work right now instead of the currently proposed one.

cincysuz says:
30 Oct 2008  at  05:46 am | #

Do geographics affect the outcome? If the west side if counted first for instance, does that give first preference to the candidates they support? Or vice versa? Not all ballots can be counted at exactly the same moment.

says:
30 Oct 2008  at  08:05 am | #

Convictions are a greater threat to truth than ignorance! - Nietzsche

L.G., Bob from Northside and Anon attacks the messenger but not the arguments. I guess that when one confronts overwhelming facts, that is all that they can do in desperation.

I didn’t know L.G. was on the Electoral Reform Commission; at least, I don’t remember anyone with those initials.

I don’t know how Bob and Anon can argue that PR would keep the wealthy from buying votes, after all, the candidates are essentially at-large and advertising would be citywide unless the PR system is indeed a system that allows for manipulation as charged. What happened to one man one vote?

L.G. says:
30 Oct 2008  at  03:36 pm | #

Dieter: You’re incorrect.  I started off my entry with Bortz’ OWN WORDS.  I also stated that Bortz indicates that he, at one point in time, was for PR.  Now he’s against it.  I conclude by saying Charter should not endorse Bortz for City Council in 2009 due to him not agreeing with one of Charter’s core principles which is proportional representation.  I’m dealing with facts, not rumors.  Nor did I attack Bortz personally...I only attacked his flip-flop on the issue.  All Dieter has done is google a quote and attack everyone who’s calling Bortz out on the issue.  Great job, Dieter...at least we know you can use a computer effectively because your exposition on the quote is very weak.

says:
30 Oct 2008  at  04:27 pm | #

cincysuz:

One of the options—the fractional one using computer software—would, in a way, amount to them all being cast at once.  The program would analyze all data, and all second choices, and so forth, assigning the transferrable vote in a proportional manner.

The other option, if necessary, is the handcounting method used in our city’s history.  In this one, a random sample is taken—say, one in every four ballots in each precinct—as a manner for determining the transfer.  But the tabulations are not instant, and that lack of instantaneity is due to the fact that the counting will not be conducting on a first come first serve basis.  Second choices, in terms of each precinct, would be computed so the transfer is proportional.

says:
30 Oct 2008  at  06:41 pm | #

L.G.!

Oh now I see what you were doing, but I can’t hear inflections on a blog posting. If you would have used quotation marks, I would not have had the same impression. Do you know that if you click on “quote”, the quote is even indented so we know of what you are talking. That Dean thinks of everything.

Bob from Northside says:
30 Oct 2008  at  07:27 pm | #

let the facts stand as they are...Bortz is talking out both sides of his mouth and is a liar. Let’s vote this jerk out at the next election.

Bearman says:
30 Oct 2008  at  07:54 pm | #

LG...I took it that Bortz may support a form or PR but not the one proposed in Issue 8.  If so, hoping he can follow up with what form of PR he does support.

says:
31 Oct 2008  at  06:32 pm | #

We’ve had people out trying to educate the public about PR for a long time. There’s been debates going on for years and we’ve already had this system before. Why would you say it’s untested? That’s not true and we know it’s still being used in Cambridge. There aren’t any problems going on up there.

Where’s Bortz been? Certainly not helping educate the public about the benifits of PR, he just said it was “too complicated” and called the Dean an “imbecil” when he tried to get clarification from the councilman about where he stands on the issue. (Very unprofessional Mr. Bortz!) You’re spreading misinformation with your robocalls. How is that helping the debate?

says:
31 Oct 2008  at  11:22 pm | #

It will be difficult to develop a software system that could assign, and reassign, the votes without great risk of susceptibility to programming “flaws”.

Chris, the software already exists. It’s open source and used for elections in Cambridge, without a hint of any programming flaw. The fact that the order of the ballots matters is a problem they’ve already successfully solved in Cambridge . . . it’s really not that big an issue.

says:
02 Nov 2008  at  07:33 am | #

well, since the City’s on optical scan I’m not sure why hand counting and/or sampling would be required.

All ballots will be counted, as they must for all other races and issues on those ballots.  The order of the counting shouldn’t matter either.

Once all ballots are counted then the tabulation can begin without “discarding” any votes cast.

The hiccup in counting I can see is how the reporting progresses throughout election night.  Now the votes are simply added as more ballots are counted.  If the BOE issues progress counts as they now do, this could cause mass confusion and consternation to those watching.

Under 9X vote totals only increase as ballots are counted; under this form of PR candidates’ ranking can fluctuate wildly depending upon the order of the count.

Bortz makes good points about how PR was sold to voters, but he and Charter have had decades to do it better and put something onto the ballot they all support.  Sour grapes.

Yes on 8 says:
02 Nov 2008  at  10:15 am | #

Waaaah, waaaaah.

City Council wont have money to spend on the software? Dangit! Can they get back some of the money wasted on moving the Fountain or the other crappy ways they’ve wasted taxpayer money in the past? Get the bums outta City Hall!

VOTE YES ON ISSUE 8!!!!!

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: