Ever since 1987, Peoria, Illinois, has elected 5 at-large members to its city council, along with 5 members elected from districts. For the at-large seats, the city uses cumulative voting. Each voter is free to distribute five votes however he or she wishes. This means a voter can give all five votes to just one candidate, if the voter really wants that one particular candidate elected. Or a voter can give two votes to one candidate, and one vote to each of three other candidates, or any other combination.
According to this story, the city council may vote on November 15 to eliminate the system, although that might require approval from the Voting Rights Section. Peoria is 27% black and has one black city council member. Cumulative voting started in 1987 when blacks complained that no blacks had ever been elected.
Going from Cumulative Voting to Single-Member Plurality is a downgrade by any measure. More votes go towards electing no one, minorities get shut out, voters who voted against their district’s council member get an unsympathetic ear to complain to, and gerrymandering is back on the table.
This quote is ridiculous:
“Everyone talks about the cumulative voting system and that it doesn’t seem effective and it’s complicated and whatever happened to one person, one vote and that kind of thought process,” Mayor Jim Ardis said. “If the community really wants to change the system or not, then let’s (look at it). It’s a perfect time. The Census data is out there for us. It seems like it makes a lot of sense.”
The mayor seems to be using a rhetorical tactic by saying “Everybody talks about . . .” This would appear to allow him to make ridiculous claims (as he does) while distancing himself from accountability.
The talk is of __possibly__ doing a ballot measure. But Peoria also would need to explain why its alternative would be at least equal or superior to keeping cumulative voting. That could be difficult.
The Peoria news article has various errors, fyi, as has been an ongoing problem in news coverage of this issue.
Pingback: Peoria Considers Abandoning Cumulative Voting for At-Large City Council Elections | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
CV is one more SHAM election reform — like the IRV and NPV SHAM reforms.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — pending Condorcet head to head math.
P.R. simple — Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner — via pre-election candidate rank order lists – to move excess votes down and loser votes up.
ALL voters elect somebody.
According to the article, the reason that Peoria has cumulative voting was in response to a lawsuit under VRA. The federal court apparently retains jurisdiction in the case, so the city would have to get approval from the court.
Illinois is not covered by Section 5, so doesn’t need approval from the USDOJ, though the USDOJ could intervene in the case.
Since the original lawsuit appears to have been intended to create an all-district city council, it might be relatively easy to get court approval.
Based on their pictures, it would appear that Peoria has two Black city council member. The article said one at-large member is Black.
The cumulative votes are pretty lumpy, and appear to be getting lumpier. In 2011, the winning candidates received between 25% and 10% of the vote. Peoria reports fractional votes, so if someone votes for 3 candidates, they must get 1-2/3 votes each.
A voter who splits his votes increases the risk of electing none. And a candidate who tries to encourage votes for a colleague, risks his own seat. The one successful Black at-large councilman has been losing voting share. The most plumped candidate in 2011 only received 4% of the vote, but since he was Black, all of those votes may have come from the incumbent Black at-large member.
# 5 CV = one more place your bets [votes] gambling scheme.
Cumulative voting is a very poor method for proportional representation, but at least it’s better than five at-large independently elected seats. And depending on gerrymandering, it could be better or worse than adding five more district seats (which is one of the proposed fixes, and the one they could most-easily argue for.)
It doesn’t sound like they’re even going to consider any actual proportional systems; a missed opportunity. 🙁
# 7 With 5 gerrymander seats —
3/5 x 1/2 x 100 = 30 percent minority rule.
How EVIL stupid are New Age election folks and the much worse math morons in the courts ???