On November 8, Portland, Oregon voters will decide whether to pass an initiative to change future city council elections. The initiative provides for single transferable voting, which is a form of proportional representation. There would be four city council districts, each electing three members. Candidates with slightly more than 25% support would be elected. Thus minority as well as majority viewpoints would be represented on the council.
The Portland Tribune endorsed the measure in its October 13 issue. The Portland Tribune is a free weekly print publication. Thanks to Fairvote for this news. The editorial itself is behind a pay wall.
Sounds like more commie garbage.
@“Rick”…. So more ideologically diverse representation is communist? Thought communists favored less choice? Are you saying that your ideology favors less choice and that’s a good thing? How does that equate to a free market where there would be more choice? Wouldn’t that mean you actually favor less choice in general, if your against a multi-ideological government? Wouldn’t that put YOU on the left side of the political spectrum? Elections are a form of market place.
Your arguments are consistently contradictory, you call everyone you disagree with a commie but actively pursue advocating for both economic and social collective thought and policies.
Not to mention, the current Portland government is entirely Democrats (officially they’re all non-partisan)…. Doing this will likely see Republicans get seats, along with a couple independents and minor party representatives here and there.
pre- election candidate rank order lists of other candidates in all districts.
TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = RATIO TO ELECT.
SURPLUS VOTES DOWN.
LOWEST LOSER VOTES UP.
ALL VOTES COUNT.
—-
PENDING CONDORCET.
This is a unique proposal that I have never head of before. Has any other city or county ever tried this?
The Portland scheme appears to be a variation of the Cambridge, Mass [Harvard Univ] city council scheme.
However 25 pct of the votes in each district would not elect anybody —
compared to the about 40 pct in single member district gerrymander schemes.
@GW,
Cambridge MA has used STV for decades. Minneapolis uses STV for its park board, but that is mostly an accident.
TV/TM example —
(11) Example 100 Votes, Elect 5
Ratio = 100/5 = 20
Surplus Moved
C1 25-20 = 5 Surplus
C2 19+1 = 20
C3 14+4 = 18
Final
C1 20 = 20 Elected
C2 20 = 20 Elected
C3 18+2 = 20 Elected
C4 17+3 = 20 Elected
C5 15+5 = 20 Elected
Sum 90+10 = 100
Losers 10 are moved to elected persons.
COPY AND PUT ON WALL.
——
In a REAL Democracy —
PRINCIPLE ONE — a legislative body exists ONLY because ALL Electors-Voters can not assemble in person and enact laws by majority rule.
BOTH SMD gerrymander systems and at large systems subvert PRINCIPLE ONE.
***MODERN*** GERRYMANDERS SINCE LATE 1200S IN OLDE ENGLAND — 700 PLUS YEARS.
REALLY OLDE GERRYMANDERS IN OLDE ROMAN REPUBLIC – VOTING BY TRIBES IN DOWNTOWN ROME.