November 5, 201410 yr Interesting, Ohio-centric article. Even Without Voter ID Laws, Minority Voters Face More Hurdles to Casting Ballots Heavily black and Latino precincts often have long lines and fewer voting machines on Election Day. Why? By Stephanie Mencimer Over the past decade, Republican legislators have pushed a number of measures critics say are blatant attempts to suppress minority voting, including voter ID requirements, shortened early voting periods, and limits on same-day voter registration. But minority voters are often disenfranchised in another, more subtle way: polling places without enough voting machines or poll workers. These polling places tend to have long lines to vote. Long lines force people to eventually give up and go home, depressing voter turnout. And that happens regularly all across the country in precincts with lots of minority voters, even without voter ID or other voting restrictions in place. Nationally, African Americans waited about twice as long to vote in the 2012 election as white people (23 minutes on average versus 12 minutes); Hispanics waited 19 minutes. White people who live in neighborhoods whose residents are less than 5 percent minority had the shortest of all wait times, just 7 minutes. These averages obscure some of the unusually long lines in some areas. In South Carolina's Richland County, which is 48 percent black and is home to 14 percent of the state's African American registered voters, some people waited more than five hours to cast their ballots. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/minority-voters-election-long-lines-id Mother Jones, lol
November 5, 201410 yr I live in Akron proper in a precinct that I would guess is at least 50% minority. I didn't experience any delays at the church that was set up as my polling place, and I stopped by at 8:15 a.m. on my way in to work. (I think the elderly women poll workers that vanished from E Rocc's district arrived at mine. I got the impression that they'd probably done this for the last 50-ish elections and they were probably all church friends. There was a small line but it moved quickly.)
November 5, 201410 yr I live in Akron proper in a precinct that I would guess is at least 50% minority. I didn't experience any delays at the church that was set up as my polling place, and I stopped by at 8:15 a.m. on my way in to work. (I think the elderly women poll workers that vanished from E Rocc's district arrived at mine. I got the impression that they'd probably done this for the last 50-ish elections and they were probably all church friends. There was a small line but it moved quickly.) Sounds almost exactly like mine in 2004. There was a line outside before they opened the school, no incidents except the guy that came inside the limit and addressed the line about voting rights. Once he said the "D word" I stepped out and pointed him to behind the flags, he tried to claim it didn't apply to him but went back. Once we were in, it went quickly. I heard 2008 was a real cluster-clinton there, by then I had moved.
November 6, 201410 yr In Cuyahoga County, aren't election resources determined and assigned by the county election board? They are strictly non-partisan, in any case it would be hard to accuse them of being biased towards the GOP. What I took from the article was that a significant amount of these issues are the result of poor planning, and not necessarily overt voter suppression. By the way, when I attended the University of Akron the polling places were very hard to locate. In one year they were in the basement of project housing development - no signs. I always thought that was ingenious bit of Akron style corruption in effect.
November 6, 201410 yr Part of the reason the voting lines are longer in the poorer districts is because the poll workers are overwhelmed with having to assist in filling out provisional ballots, which are required when the voter does not have acceptable ID or when the voter has moved and not updated his/her voting registration info (occurs most often in transient areas).
November 13, 201410 yr The tallies are in nationwide. Only 36% of eligible voters cast a ballot in this year's midterms, the lowest percentage in over 70 years.
November 13, 201410 yr The tallies are in nationwide. Only 36% of eligible voters cast a ballot in this year's midterms, the lowest percentage in over 70 years. I actually missed first election in probably 10 years - mostly because I'm an idiot and forgot I had an early flight that day so I didn't have time. It's too bad, I would have actually voted for a republican for county exec.
November 3, 20159 yr Anybody else notice Issue 1 while voting today? It's the anti gerrymandering one. It must have gotten buried underneath all the pot talk.
November 3, 20159 yr Pretty much everyone is in favor of Issue 1. There is no organized effort against it. Both parties agree it's good and the ACLU is in favor of it. So it's probably good.
November 3, 20159 yr The only bad thing I've heard about Issue 1 is that it doesn't go far enough. I think it only prevents gerrymandering on state districts, not on federal districts. But it's still a good step in the right direction.
November 3, 20159 yr The state reps help determine the us congressional districts so indirectly it will help.
November 3, 20159 yr Plenty of "suburbanites behaving badly" leading up to Election Day where the metro areas come together. A very contentious vote in Macedonia, and I got an anonymous mailing piling on the former mayor (trying to get back into office) in the village.
November 3, 20159 yr ^you see.... even a guy with a Bob Marley avatar is voting no on 3. It doesn't stand a chance.
November 4, 20159 yr The state reps help determine the us congressional districts so indirectly it will help. Long term, this is a beauty of a reform. Hopefully fewer safe districts for both parties will result in less brinkmanship and more cooperation in 2021 and beyond.
November 4, 20159 yr Issue 1 is passing 72%-28% in Hamilton County so far. Probably won't be that much of a landslide state-wide, but it's looking good so far.
November 4, 20159 yr ^Macedonia is a city Oops, slipped into Nordonia area shorthand there. "The village" means Northfield Village.
March 15, 20169 yr 62,500 have cast ballot in Hamilton County so far in #OhioPrimary -- 38,000 Republicans and 24,000 Democrats. High number! Gotta vote people!
January 18, 20232 yr Strict New Ohio Voter ID Law Challenged in Court The same day Gov. Mike DeWine signed the bill into law, Ohio’s new photo voter ID law saw its first court challenge. The Elias Law group filed suit on January 6th on a behalf of a handful of Ohio interest groups. The firm, headed up by Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, rose to national prominence in part by opposing the Trump campaign’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. The firm has also carved a niche for itself pursuing voting rights and redistricting cases around the country. In Ohio, for instance, the firm has challenged maps on behalf of the National Redistricting Action Fund. It went on to argue against the state’s “independent legislature theory” appeals in the U.S. Supreme Court. Elias attorneys filed its suit on behalf of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans, and the Union Veterans Council. More below: https://columbusunderground.com/strict-new-ohio-voter-id-law-challenged-in-court-ocj1/ "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
January 18, 20232 yr New Voter ID Law Could Disenfranchise Poor Communities Across Ohio When Gov. Mike DeWine signed what’s been called the nation’s strictest voter ID law earlier this month, it raised fears that it would disenfranchise large numbers of voters in poor communities where people are less likely to meet the new requirements. Those fears seem to be supported by a September report that estimates 1 million Ohioans have suspended licenses because of debts from things such as a lack of insurance, unpaid fines, and court costs. That’s in a state with 8 million registered voters. The analysis, by the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, said the suspensions by far fall most heavily on impoverished urban communities of color. In other words, debt-related suspensions disproportionately affect some of the communities least likely to vote for the Republican officials who passed and signed the voter ID law. DeWine and legislative sponsors sold the state’s controversial law by saying that it would boost public confidence in elections. That confidence, however, has likely been undermined by numerous lies by former President Donald Trump, and by dubious voting claims by Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Ohio Auditor Keith Faber, and others. Meanwhile, LaRose found the rate of possible fraud in the 2020 Ohio General Election to be a vanishingly small 0.0005%. Way more below: https://columbusunderground.com/new-voter-id-law-could-disenfranchise-poor-communities-across-ohio-ocj1/ "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
January 19, 20232 yr Organizers to Help Disenfranchised Ohio Voters Get Proper IDs The reaction was swift after Ohio instituted what critics call the “most restrictive” voter ID restrictions in the country. Already, a handful of organizations are suing to block to the new law. Others are gearing up to help Ohioans navigate the new reality by helping them get the IDs they need to vote. Vote Riders Vote Riders is a non-partisan organization focused on voter ID and the challenges it presents to voting access. Executive Director Lauren Kunis describes their approach as “soup to nuts.” “We really do everything we can to remove every logistical, financial, legal barrier that an eligible voter has,” she explains. In some cases that’s helping a person get a ride. In others it might be helping secure vital documents like a birth certificate. During the 2022 elections, the organization had a significant on-the-ground presence in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. But Kunis notes they offer online services in every state. More below: https://columbusunderground.com/organizers-to-help-disenfranchised-ohio-voters-get-proper-ids-ocj1/ "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
October 2, 20231 yr Voter Fraud Extremely Rare in Ohio Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has referred 641 cases of suspected voter fraud since taking office. The vast majority of those incidents, 521 in all, are allegations of a noncitizen violating Ohio’s elections laws. But an Ohio Capital Journal review of LaRose’s referrals found just one case in which a noncitizen was charged with voter fraud. That dramatic mismatch doesn’t come as a surprise to advocates working with immigrant and new American communities. But explaining the discrepancy is difficult. LaRose didn’t agree to talk about this investigation’s findings, but prosecutors and community advocates offered a few ideas for how the secretary could wind up with so many false positives. More below: https://columbusunderground.com/voter-fraud-extremely-rare-in-ohio-ocj1/ "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
October 24, 20231 yr Who Are the Ohioans Who Don’t Vote? And Why Don’t They Vote? “It all comes down to turnout.” The enduring mantra of candidates and campaigners is self-evident to the point of banality. But buried in that simple formula are questions about how exactly to drive engagement and who specifically needs additional encouragement. On the eve of an election with two hot button statewide issues topping the ballot, Innovation Ohio Education Fund has released a report digging into the 2.7 million voters sitting out of Ohio’s elections. The report details demographics for voters who are eligible but not registered as well as those who are registered but inactive. Report data Innovation Ohio’s study relies on data from the U.S. Census, the Ohio Secretary of State and the commercial voter database Catalist. Researchers started with Ohio’s universe of potential voters — the citizen voting age population, or CVAP — and compared it those who actually showed up between 2018 and 2022. Then they split those who didn’t cast ballots into two camps: unregistered and inactive. In all, 2 million eligible Ohioans remain unregistered. Another 700,000 are on the rolls but have missed the past three federal elections. “They’re in danger of being purged, right?” Innovation Ohio President and CEO Desiree Tims explained. More below: https://columbusunderground.com/who-are-the-ohioans-who-dont-vote-and-why-dont-they-vote-ocj1/ "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
October 31, 20231 yr Is this the thread to discuss LaRose's anti-democratic voter purge? Sorry, we have so many threads for these fascists it's hard to keep track of where things go. Very Stable Genius
November 1, 20231 yr Yes, this would be the thread for that. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
January 2, 20241 yr Conservative Groups Want to Keep Ranked Choice Voting Out of Ohio A Senate committee heard from supporters last month of a measure effectively banning ranked choice voting in the state. The measure is bipartisan — proposed by Sens. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, and Bill DeMora, D-Columbus. But its public backers so far are mostly conservative and right-wing groups. Only three organizations showed up in person — Opportunity Solutions Project, The Heartland Institute and The Honest Elections Project. But the Trump-aligned administration in-waiting, America First Policy Institute, submitted written testimony as did the Heritage Foundation. Notably, no local governments in the state currently use ranked choice for their elections. Although a handful of Ohio cities used it briefly in the early 1900s, there’s no groundswell of local elected leaders calling for its return. Under the Senate proposal, any municipality that did so would lose its share of the local government fund — a vital source of revenue. More below: https://columbusunderground.com/conservative-groups-want-to-keep-ranked-choice-voting-out-of-ohio-ocj1/ "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
January 2, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, ColDayMan said: Conservative Groups Want to Keep Ranked Choice Voting Out of Ohio A Senate committee heard from supporters last month of a measure effectively banning ranked choice voting in the state. The measure is bipartisan — proposed by Sens. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, and Bill DeMora, D-Columbus. But its public backers so far are mostly conservative and right-wing groups. Only three organizations showed up in person — Opportunity Solutions Project, The Heartland Institute and The Honest Elections Project. But the Trump-aligned administration in-waiting, America First Policy Institute, submitted written testimony as did the Heritage Foundation. Notably, no local governments in the state currently use ranked choice for their elections. Although a handful of Ohio cities used it briefly in the early 1900s, there’s no groundswell of local elected leaders calling for its return. Under the Senate proposal, any municipality that did so would lose its share of the local government fund — a vital source of revenue. More below: https://columbusunderground.com/conservative-groups-want-to-keep-ranked-choice-voting-out-of-ohio-ocj1/ I believe that Ranked Choice Voting for ALL elections (other than Pres, which would effectively require a US Constitutional amendment) should be our next Ohio Constitutional amendment push after w get the Independent Redistricting Commission passed this Fall. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
January 2, 20241 yr 33 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: I believe that Ranked Choice Voting for ALL elections (other than Pres, which would effectively require a US Constitutional amendment) should be our next Ohio Constitutional amendment push after w get the Independent Redistricting Commission passed this Fall. I don't think Ohio would approve of ranked choice voting, but I personally like it. We would get more moderate candidates and third party victories. But I just don't see people voting to approve it in Ohio. At least not any time soon.
January 2, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: I don't think Ohio would approve of ranked choice voting, but I personally like it. We would get more moderate candidates and third party victories. But I just don't see people voting to approve it in Ohio. At least not any time soon. Generally speaking I agree with this assessment. That said, I think it would be tremendously helpful in addressing our most serious challenges and that it is absolutely worth fighting for. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
January 2, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said: I believe that Ranked Choice Voting for ALL elections (other than Pres, which would effectively require a US Constitutional amendment) should be our next Ohio Constitutional amendment push after w get the Independent Redistricting Commission passed this Fall. I don't think any constitutional amendment is required. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. ... The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." The states have wide latitude in how they operate elections, other than time. I don't see how ranked choice voting would violate that. Besides Maine and Alaska already are. "Alaska stands to join Maine, which for the first time this year used ranked choice voting in a general election for president and began using it for congressional races in 2018." https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-alaska-legislature-state-elections-general-elections-387ba5f6b3ab79bb841bc5c29c8bceee
January 2, 20241 yr 12 minutes ago, Ethan said: I don't think any constitutional amendment is required. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. ... The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." The states have wide latitude in how they operate elections, other than time. I don't see how ranked choice voting would violate that. Besides Maine and Alaska already are. "Alaska stands to join Maine, which for the first time this year used ranked choice voting in a general election for president and began using it for congressional races in 2018." https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-alaska-legislature-state-elections-general-elections-387ba5f6b3ab79bb841bc5c29c8bceee The reason I said “effectively require” is because is because I’m envisioning RCV as a way to get rid of party primaries. Using RCV to get rid of the Presidential primary in Ohio wouldn’t work because we wouldn’t want the major party’s Prez candidates to not be on the general election ballot in Ohio. That said, one could continue having party primaries in Ohio for Prez while eliminating them for all other offices with RCV; and then use RCV in the general for the Prez across all party’s “official” nominations and any Independents that meet the other Constitutional and Ohio qualifications (e.g. not having led an insurrection against the US government, 35 years old, number of voter signatures, etc). You could even use RCV within the party primary for the Prez election; but I’m only ok with that for Prez, and only because I see no real path to changing the US Constitution on this issue in the foreseeable future. I have no interest in an RCV system that doesn’t get rid of party primaries for all other offices. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
January 2, 20241 yr I think a lot of citizens who are less politically engaged don't trust instant runoff a.k.a. ranked choice voting because they either don't understand how the various rounds of candidate elimination and vote redistribution work, or they don't trust the government to actually carry it out fairly/accurately. (The people who don't trust voting machines in our current system definitely aren't going to trust a more complex system like ranked choice.) However a lot of states and cities have moved to other systems where there are nonpartisan primary and general elections. In some of these systems, If any candidate gets 50%+1 in the primary, they automatically win and the general is not held. Otherwise, the top x candidates (often top two or top four) advance to the general election. The main advantage of ranked choice is that there is no need to have all of the voters come back for the second election, as they simply indicate on their original ballot who would get their second vote if their first candidate were eliminated. (Also, you could potentially have a different result due to the multiple rounds of candidate elimination that happen with ranked choice vs. the simultaneous multi-candidate elimination that happens in the other systems). That's why I think it's silly to have a statewide ban on ranked choice, as these other nonpartisan voting systems aren't technically ranked choice but mostly work the same way. So is the state going to ban those too? If so, Cincinnati will need to rework its mayoral election system (which has a nonpartisan primary where the top two candidates advance to the general—we don't have the "50%+1 in the primary automatically wins" rule). (The strangest variation is the new system approved by Alaska for federal and state elections, which combines a nonpartisan primary and a ranked-choice general election. It seems like a reasonable system but I wonder they chose this over a single ranked choice election.)
January 3, 20241 yr 21 hours ago, taestell said: I think a lot of citizens who are less politically engaged don't trust instant runoff a.k.a. ranked choice voting because they either don't understand how the various rounds of candidate elimination and vote redistribution work, or they don't trust the government to actually carry it out fairly/accurately. (The people who don't trust voting machines in our current system definitely aren't going to trust a more complex system like ranked choice.) I think there is some truth in this although it can be a mixed bag due to people who are acting in bad faith. Sometimes their criticisms are useful, but a lot of times it's just because they got lucky, not because they understand how it actually works, or doesn't. RCV is not precinct summable, so they have to wait to get all the ballots in before they can run the full election. The partial data can still be gamed out but like you said, that creates more opportunity for distrust. The wait time to collect all the ballots before officially running the election is part of that as well. With proper design, the ballot can be very easy to understand, but the results not so much. Preference flow charts can help visualize how the election played out, but I don't know how effective that is in increasing confidence for the typical voter. Proponents make it worse for themselves as they overpromise what it can do. It does not fully eliminate the spoiler effect, nor does it require a candidate to win 50% of the vote. No electoral system can do those things, so when the electoral system breaks down during a perfect storm situation, the bad faith actors can use that to get it repealed. RCV for single-winner elections isn't bad, and is definitely an improvement over FPTP, but that's a pretty low bar. Really it's just an iterative version of our current voting method so it brings in a lot of the problems it has. There are other electoral methods that are more effective, and easier to implement, but the just don't have the momentum that RCV does. 21 hours ago, taestell said: (The strangest variation is the new system approved by Alaska for federal and state elections, which combines a nonpartisan primary and a ranked-choice general election. It seems like a reasonable system but I wonder they chose this over a single ranked choice election.) IIRC a rich out-of-state philanthropist prefers the top-four setup and saw Alaska as an opportunity to implement it due to Alaskans strongly identifying as independent. ------ In any case, it's going to be interesting to see what happens in Ohio this year. Privately, board members and staff at the leading Approval Voting organization, the Center for Election Science, have stated that they have an upcoming campaign to get it on the ballot in the state for 2024. I'm assuming that is for Federal and statewide elections but I haven't seen any details yet. FairVote, the leading RCV org, effectively sabotaged that group's efforts last year in Seattle. The org was originally founded in Cincinnati, as that is where the President and CEO, Robert Richie, is from, so I expect them to get involved if a campaign for Approval Voting does end up happening.
January 3, 20241 yr How effective is RCV when it comes to getting third-party/independent candidates elected? The part of Ohio I grew up in (Clermont County) is definitely full of "don't trust the machines" types, but convincing them RCV would greatly increase the chances of "outsiders" getting elected would probably go a long way towards gaining acceptance. A lot of people I grew up with are the leave-me-alone/anti-government type Libertarians who don't like politicians from any party, but vote Republican so a "big-government" Democrat doesn't win. They'd probably welcome the opportunity to vote their conscience without feeling like they are throwing their vote away. Really, it would be nice to be able to vote for the candidate I actually want to win, instead of having to strategically vote against the candidate I don't want to win. It might even bring some positivity to the political process in Ohio.
January 3, 20241 yr 4 hours ago, Dev said: ...Proponents make it worse for themselves as they overpromise what it can do. It does not fully eliminate the spoiler effect, nor does it require a candidate to win 50% of the vote. No electoral system can do those things, so when the electoral system breaks down during a perfect storm situation, the bad faith actors can use that to get it repealed. RCV for single-winner elections isn't bad, and is definitely an improvement over FPTP, but that's a pretty low bar. Really it's just an iterative version of our current voting method so it brings in a lot of the problems it has. There are other electoral methods that are more effective, and easier to implement, but the just don't have the momentum that RCV does. The STAR voting you posted looks really interesting. I will continue to learn more about it: https://www.starvoting.org/ Here's the STAR voting coalition's take on how STAR compares to RSV, which is a compelling case: https://www.starvoting.org/rcv_v_star In a nutshell: "In STAR, other wise known as Score Then Automatic Runoff, there are always two rounds of tabulation. A scoring round, and a runoff. The two highest-scoring candidates are finalists, and the finalist preferred by the majority wins. In the STAR Voting runoff, if a ballot gave both finalists 5 stars, that is counted as a "vote of no preference" between those two candidates, but it's important to note that this is not a wasted vote. It's a vote which was counted, and the scores given made a difference helping those candidates beat out the competition. This is not the same as a spoiled or exhausted ballot, which is not counted but which may have actually made a difference if it had been considered in the deciding round of the election. STAR voting is counted using addition. In the scoring round the stars are totaled. In the runoff round the votes for each finalist are totaled. All ballot data is counted and all data is used. This means that STAR Voting doesn't require new voting machines in most cases, and counting can begin even if all the ballots aren't in yet. " **** I don't like that approval voting concept at all! Yuck. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
January 3, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, mrCharlie said: How effective is RCV when it comes to getting third-party/independent candidates elected? Not great. It usually eliminates them first, preventing any momentum, as voters continue to rally around the traditional candidates. But it's not likely that any voting method is going to be able to tip the balance on this by itself. We're going to need bigger districts in the General Assembly, the end of gerrymandering, and potentially a switch to some type of proportional representation method, before 3rd parties get any real momentum. Just now, Boomerang_Brian said: The STAR voting you posted looks really interesting. STAR is the nerd's reform for sure lol It certainly seems more simplified than RCV, but I worry that it's still too much for the typical voter. It's not in use anywhere yet but it is going to be on the ballot in Eugene, Oregon in May, so we'll see! 9 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: I don't like that approval voting concept at all! Yuck. Approval Voting is an oversimplified version of Score voting and is essentially the effective altruism option. I prefer it for its simplicity and ease of adoption but I can see how others would want to be able to express more nuance when voting. ---- In general, I like scoring methods over ranking ones, as I can score someone I don't like as a zero, which lowers there chance of getting elected, but leaving them off my ranking doesn't impact them. Of the ranked options, I do like Ranked Robin, although there are no active campaigns for it.
January 8, 20241 yr Voting Rights Advocates Hit Another Stumbling Block in Ohio While most Ohioans were getting ready to ring in the new year, a coalition of voting rights advocates got some bad news. The attorney general rejected their proposal that would’ve enshrined several voting protections in the state constitution. It’s a setback for an effort that began in 2020. In the first go around, coalition members challenged the Ohio ballot board’s decision to split the proposal into four separate amendments. The state supreme court ordered Secretary of State Frank LaRose to reconvene the ballot board and certify the amendment as a single question. However, the court did not grant the coalition additional time to gather signatures. That June, the organization suspended its campaign, and highlighted the impact of COVID-19 on signature gathering efforts. “The bottom line is that the COVID-19 pandemic hit right at the beginning of Ohio’s precious signature gathering months, making it impossible to gather the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot,” Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections campaign manager Toni Webb explained at the time. The current version is substantially the same as the previous amendment but includes a handful of new provisions including protections related to absentee voting. The coalition indicated they plan to resubmit their ballot summary by the end of the month. More below: https://columbusunderground.com/voting-rights-advocates-hit-another-stumbling-block-in-ohio-ocj1/ "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
January 11, 20241 yr I'm late to this party, but STAR voting is absolutely the best, I'll take any improvement over the current system but the difference between instant runoff voting (RCV) and STAR in terms of accurately reflecting voter preference is huge. I agree it may be too much for the typical voter, at least for now, but that's really a shame. @Boomerang_BrianThis video does a fantastic job of showing the differences between certain voting methods. Worth a watch. https://youtu.be/-4FXLQoLDBA
January 15, 20241 yr On a related note, both Rank the Vote Ohio and STAR Voting Ohio have events coming up. I think they are both pretty small chapters but every little bit helps.
January 15, 20241 yr The only issue I have with the STAR method is that by ranking multiple candidates high, you might accidentally help someone you don't like as much as your favorite candidate, so some people are going to be incentivized to only vote one candidate with 5 points, and give 0 points to all of the others, even thought they still have preference between the others. I think Ranked Choice gives you the freedom to truly put every candidate in order, and so even if your two least favorite candidates make it to the final two and no one has gotten 50%, your vote still matters and it can steer the vote away from the most partisan or crazy candidate. There's too much internal strategy in a STAR ballot. I think I would hate that. Obviously it's vastly superior to FPTP, but I think I would prefer Ranked Choice more. It's easier to explain as well IMO. Just rank them in order of preference, and don't put more than one candidate in each spot.
January 15, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, ryanlammi said: The only issue I have with the STAR method is that by ranking multiple candidates high, you might accidentally help someone you don't like as much as your favorite candidate, so some people are going to be incentivized to only vote one candidate with 5 points, and give 0 points to all of the others, even thought they still have preference between the others. I think Ranked Choice gives you the freedom to truly put every candidate in order, and so even if your two least favorite candidates make it to the final two and no one has gotten 50%, your vote still matters and it can steer the vote away from the most partisan or crazy candidate. There's too much internal strategy in a STAR ballot. I think I would hate that. Obviously it's vastly superior to FPTP, but I think I would prefer Ranked Choice more. It's easier to explain as well IMO. Just rank them in order of preference, and don't put more than one candidate in each spot. I can understand your perspective but I disagree. Ranking inherently forces a structure on voter's preferences that may not exist. Let's imagine a hypothetical election with six candidates, let's say three R's and three D's for the sake of simplicity. Now let's imagine some hypothetical voters. A - "vote blue no matter who" this candidate's allegiance is purely to the party, she doesn't much care which democrat wins, as long as one does, in STAR Voting she gives all Dems 5's and Repubs 0's. In Ranked choice voting she has to invent a preference ranking she doesn't have. B - This voter has a preferred democratic candidate, but can't decide between the other two Dems (or doesn't care). He doesn't really like any of the Republicans, but he sees one as tolerable. In star voting he gives his favorite a 5 and depending on his degree of preference a 4 or 3 to the other Dems and a 1 or 2 to the tolerable Republican. Again depending on preference. Edit: voter B seems closest to your concern. If he is concerned about over ranking his second choice and tolerable candidate, he can simple choose to lower their scores. Maybe only giving them 2 and 1 respectively. However if his preferred candidate isn't popular enough he risks not sufficiently supporting his second choices and tolerable options enough. In most cases voters best option is simply to reflect their preferences accurately. On the whole scoring is generally better than ranking in disincentiving gaming the system. C - This voter has a clear ranking in her head and assigns points 0-5 in order. Star voting collapses into rankings when voters preferences are actually ranked. IE. No ties. Scoring is also simply better than ranking. Imagine a hypothetical candidate that is everyone's second choice. In STAR voting this candidate will almost certainly make it to the final two candidates and possibly win. In Ranked Choice voting this candidate is eliminated first. Put simply ranking allows some funny things to happen.
January 15, 20241 yr Thanks for the feedback! I'll push back just a little bit more. 6 minutes ago, Ethan said: Let's imagine a hypothetical election with six candidates, let's say three R's and three D's for the sake of simplicity. Now let's imagine some hypothetical voters. A - "vote blue no matter who" this candidate's allegiance is purely to the party, she doesn't much care which democrat wins, as long as one does, in STAR Voting she gives all Dems 5's and Repubs 0's. In Ranked choice voting she has to invent a preference ranking she doesn't have. If she really doesn't have a preference, I don't think she would care too much if she simply had to pick one Dem over the other. As long as she ranks the three Dems, she did her part. I doubt many Dems would be in this position, though. Most could at least find something to differentiate these three Dem candidates, but even if she doesn't have any way to differentiate, does she really care that she has to rank them? Not sure that this is an actual issue for someone in this position. In effect, this person could have ranked 1,2,3 in RCV, or given 5 points to all three Dems. The end result is the same for this person's ballot even though they did have to sort their top 3. 6 minutes ago, Ethan said: B - This voter has a preferred democratic candidate, but can't decide between the other two Dems (or doesn't care). He doesn't really like any of the Republicans, but he sees one as tolerable. In star voting he gives his favorite a 5 and depending on his degree of preference a 4 or 3 to the other Dems and a 1 or 2 to the tolerable Republican. Again depending on preference. In Ranked Choice Voting this voter would have an easier time putting these people in order without worrying about helping their 4th favorite (Republican) candidate over their three Democratic candidates. The only thing they would have to decide (similar to voter A) is which order to place the Dems in. So he would put D1, D2, D3, R4, and then stop because he doesn't like the other two Republicans at all. Under the STAR system, he might end up giving the R4 0 points because giving them any could compromise one of his favorite candidates. This is quite a quandary for someone who doesn't like R4, but would prefer them over the other two Republicans if it came down to it. Giving them any points could sabotage your favorite candidates. 6 minutes ago, Ethan said: C - This voter has a clear ranking in her head and assigns points 0-5 in order. No Notes. It worked well for Voter C. 17 minutes ago, Ethan said: Star voting collapses into rankings when voters preferences are actually ranked. IE. No ties. Scoring is also simply better than ranking. Imagine a hypothetical candidate that is everyone's second choice. In STAR voting this candidate will almost certainly make it to the final two candidates and possibly win. In Ranked Choice voting this candidate is eliminated first. Put simply ranking allows some funny things to happen. IMO, picking a favorite between two candidates you like equally is not that big of a problem. But giving any credit at the start of counting ballots to any candidate you dislike, but don't hate, is an issue. The parties are probably going to campaign hard that you should give all of their candidates the full 5, and give all of the opposing candidates 0 to avoid poisoning the well, so to speak.
January 15, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: In Ranked Choice Voting this voter would have an easier time putting these people in order without worrying about helping their 4th favorite (Republican) candidate over their three Democratic candidates. The only thing they would have to decide (similar to voter A) is which order to place the Dems in. So he would put D1, D2, D3, R4, and then stop because he doesn't like the other two Republicans at all. It isn't quite the same though due to how RCV (IRV) is tabulated. It actually adds a lot of noise to the system. Depending on the order she places the candidates can matter in which round the votes get tossed. This randomness inherent to IRV can result in some wacky outcomes that don't represent the will of electorate. (See the video I linked above for a graphical representation of this). The crucial difference is scoring is done all at once. Your second choice vote doesn't get any credit in IRV if she's eliminated in the first round. This candidate does get credit with scoring though. 12 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: Under the STAR system, he might end up giving the R4 0 points because giving them any could compromise one of his favorite candidates. This is quite a quandary for someone who doesn't like R4, but would prefer them over the other two Republicans if it came down to it. Giving them any points could sabotage your favorite candidates. Sure, fair point. I'd say it's a matter of risk management. Some people will want to hedge their bets, others won't. That's their right and their preference. On the whole though this effect should have a moderating effect on elections and help to elect candidates closer to the center (closer to the median voter). I think that's a feature. 15 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: IMO, picking a favorite between two candidates you like equally is not that big of a problem. But giving any credit at the start of counting ballots to any candidate you dislike, but don't hate, is an issue. Disagree for the reasons I listed above. This will help move elections to the center, and elect candidates that better represent the median voter. As a bonus this should make it easier to work across the aisle. 16 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: The parties are probably going to campaign hard that you should give all of their candidates the full 5, and give all of the opposing candidates 0 to avoid poisoning the well, so to speak. Agreed. And with RCV they will push to leave the other party off your list entirely. In either case you're back to plurality voting, so it's not worse than what we have now. But voters and smart candidates will push back against this. (In either RCV or STAR). Candidates that campaign across the aisle can now get some reward. I think that's good. (As right now they effectively get none). In this case the reward is there in either instance (RCV or STAR), the difference is that scoring eliminates the noise that arises from multiple voting rounds and as a result better reflects public opinion.
January 15, 20241 yr 6 minutes ago, Ethan said: Apologies for the double post, but I thought of an even better way to show how this isn't the same. Imagine a scenario where there's an unequal number of candidates from each party, say 3 Dems, 2 Rep. If the Dem voters are randomly ranking between the two the Rep will win more of time, for purely numerical reasons entirely detached from voter preference. Let's imagine you have a scenario where there is a single Republican running, three Democrats, and one independent who leans conservative. 44% of the electorate are Republicans, and they uniformly want the one Republican, but would be happy with the independent. 48% are Democrats who aren't super unified between the three candidates, but would generally prefer the independent candidate over the Republican. The other 8% are independent, but aren't necessarily strongly supportive of this independent candidate over the Republican or Democratic candidates, and split their vote fairly evenly. You might see many of the 48% of Dems distribute points among their Democratic candidates in a ranked choice style (5, 4, and 3 points), and then the Independent candidate 4th with 2 points. They leave 0 points for the Republican because they don't like him. The three Democratic candidates average about 4 points each. The Republicans almost uniformly give the Republican 5 points, and then give the Independent candidate 4 points. Because of this, all of the Democrats have split their points among their candidates and lowered their preferred choice, and in doing so, also gave 1.5 points to the independent on average (some abstained). The republicans gave 5 points to their candidate, and ended up with an average of 4.8 points among their voters, which is equal to average of 2.112 (4.8*0.44) points in the total, and 3.5 points for the independent, which amounts to an average of 1.54 (3.5*0.44) points among all of the voters. Even though the Democrats outweigh the Republicans in this district, they only average 4.1 points to their preferred candidate, which means their top candidate gets about 1.968 (4.1*0.48) points on average. They also gave 1.5 points per ballot to the independent, which means they got an additional 0.72 points. Now the Republican has an average of 2.112 among all voters, the top Democrat gets 1.968 points, and the independent gets 2.26 points. The Independents slightly gave more votes to the Republican and Independent over the best performing Democrat since there were three of them. The last two candidates for the runoff are the Republican and the independent, and because enough Democrats opted out of the independent vote altogether, you end up with a majority of the remaining ballots supporting the Republican over the independent. This is because perhaps 25% of Democrats didn't rank either of the two non-Democrats. There just seem to be too many moving parts in STAR voting to have an indication on how I should vote in a particular race. Having too many likeminded candidates on one side can certainly hurt the majority party in STAR in a way that it wouldn't hurt them in RCV. Perhaps my assumptions are wrong, but I think it has more opportunity to backfire than RCV does. It doesn't help that there aren't any real life examples of STAR voting, so I don't know that models can accurately predict how people will weigh their votes.
January 15, 20241 yr 20 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: Let's imagine you have a scenario where there is a single Republican running, three Democrats, and one independent who leans conservative. 44% of the electorate are Republicans, and they uniformly want the one Republican, but would be happy with the independent. 48% are Democrats who aren't super unified between the three candidates, but would generally prefer the independent candidate over the Republican. The other 8% are independent, but aren't necessarily strongly supportive of this independent candidate over the Republican or Democratic candidates, and split their vote fairly evenly. You might see many of the 48% of Dems distribute points among their Democratic candidates in a ranked choice style (5, 4, and 3 points), and then the Independent candidate 4th with 2 points. They leave 0 points for the Republican because they don't like him. The three Democratic candidates average about 4 points each. The Republicans almost uniformly give the Republican 5 points, and then give the Independent candidate 4 points. Because of this, all of the Democrats have split their points among their candidates and lowered their preferred choice, and in doing so, also gave 1.5 points to the independent on average (some abstained). The republicans gave 5 points to their candidate, and ended up with an average of 4.8 points among their voters, which is equal to average of 2.112 (4.8*0.44) points in the total, and 3.5 points for the independent, which amounts to an average of 1.54 (3.5*0.44) points among all of the voters. Even though the Democrats outweigh the Republicans in this district, they only average 4.1 points to their preferred candidate, which means their top candidate gets about 1.968 (4.1*0.48) points on average. They also gave 1.5 points per ballot to the independent, which means they got an additional 0.72 points. Now the Republican has an average of 2.112 among all voters, the top Democrat gets 1.968 points, and the independent gets 2.26 points. The Independents slightly gave more votes to the Republican and Independent over the best performing Democrat since there were three of them. The last two candidates for the runoff are the Republican and the independent, and because enough Democrats opted out of the independent vote altogether, you end up with a majority of the remaining ballots supporting the Republican over the independent. This is because perhaps 25% of Democrats didn't rank either of the two non-Democrats. There just seem to be too many moving parts in STAR voting to have an indication on how I should vote in a particular race. Having too many likeminded candidates on one side can certainly hurt the majority party in STAR in a way that it wouldn't hurt them in RCV. Perhaps my assumptions are wrong, but I think it has more opportunity to backfire than RCV does. It doesn't help that there aren't any real life examples of STAR voting, so I don't know that models can accurately predict how people will weigh their votes. Yeah, I'll retract that comment. After thinking about it more thoroughly I don't think my comment made sense. So I deleted it. I agree STAR voting is more complicated. Possibly too much so. The main reason it's favored by most experts in this field is that it most strongly incentives voters to vote there preference, and is the least susceptible to strategic voting. Which seems to be your main concern. (Not to say that it isn't at all, just less so than other methods). It is also just a better way to count the votes in that it doesn't encounter the noise from multiple election rounds. (If you haven't already watch the video I shared). I'm at the point where I'm starting to butcher the arguments, so I'll leave it to the experts at this point. (Look up condorcet paradox). It's a theoretical argument at this point anyway. Any improvement over plurality voting would be welcome by me.
January 15, 20241 yr 17 minutes ago, Ethan said: Yeah, I'll retract that comment. After thinking about it more thoroughly I don't think my comment made sense. So I deleted it. I agree STAR voting is more complicated. Possibly too much so. The main reason it's favored by most experts in this field is that it most strongly incentives voters to vote there preference, and is the least susceptible to strategic voting. Which seems to be your main concern. (Not to say that it isn't at all, just less so than other methods). It is also just a better way to count the votes in that it doesn't encounter the noise from multiple election rounds. (If you haven't already watch the video I shared). I'm at the point where I'm starting to butcher the arguments, so I'll leave it to the experts at this point. (Look up condorcet paradox). It's a theoretical argument at this point anyway. Any improvement over plurality voting would be welcome by me. I did look at the video you posted. I like it, but it was a little too wonky and theoretical IMO. The graphs they displayed moved too quickly to really understand how changes were impacting the results, too. I'm also not a statistician, so mathematically the STAR system might work better, but I'm worried about how it would be utilized in a real world scenario.
