Portland’s Proposed Ranked Choice Voting Reform Isn’t The Solution To Portland’s Dysfunction

Portland’s current government is a mess, for a lot of reasons.

In November, Portland voters will have an opportunity to vote on one proposed solution, presented as the following question: “Should City Administrator, supervised by Mayor, manage Portland with twelve Councilors representing four districts making laws and voters ranking candidates?”

Portland’s City Council now consists of a mayor and four commissioners, all of them elected at-large, with all of Portland’s voters eligible to vote in the race for each seat.

The proposal from Portland’s Charter Commission would remove the mayor from the council and expand the council to 12 members, three each from four geographic districts of equal population, each of which would be elected using ranked choice voting. An independent commission would determine the four district boundaries after the vote on the ballot question. 

With only 8% of Portland voters saying the city is headed in the right direction and 82% of Multnomah County residents being either somewhat or very worried about the future of their part of the state. there may be an inclination to support a radical change out of sheer frustration. But the commission’s solution isn’t the answer.

Expanding the City Council to 12 members is likely to make it more unwieldy, not less. Though, thankfully, the Charter Commission was somewhat restrained, not choosing an even bigger expansion, such as the 51-member City Council with which New York City is blessed.

The particular weakness of the commission’s proposal, though, is its reliance on a needlessly complex new system of ranked choice voting (RCV). In setting on this proposal, the Charter Commission shows itself to have been populated by naive zealots advocating change for change’s sake.

There are lot of ways to organize and count votes. Most of us are used to the simple proposition that the person with the most votes wins. 

“This system is the norm from grade school elections for class president to congressional elections, “Jeff Gill and Jason wrote in a Statistical Science article about voting. “However, not only is this merely one of many possible “democratic” procedures. it is also not the only system currently used in political life in the United States and around the world.”

RCV is one of those voting options.

In RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If there are a lot of candidates, as there might be under the Charter Commission’s proposal, voters need to have a high level of information about all of them in order to choose preferences. You can’t just vote for the person and ideas you like. You must also educate yourself about all the other candidates in order to elevate, or dismiss, the ones you don’t.

Voters in RCV can identify their first choice, the next best and so on as they work their way down the list. If one of the candidates gets more than 50% of the first-choice votes in the first count, that candidate wins. If nobody gets a majority, there’s an “instant runoff” where the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and voters who had chosen that candidate as their first choice have their second choice counted instead. This process continues until one of the candidates gets more than half of the vote. 

Yep, it’s complicated. Too complicated. And prone to undesireable results.

For example, don’t assume RCV will always select a majority winner. In cases of what’s called “ballot exhaustion,” a voter’s preferences are eliminated so none of them are carried forward. In other words, the candidate who ends up with a majority of votes is elected with only the remaining ballots, rather than all the original ballots, meaning a winner can have fewer than half the votes of the original ballots.

The Center for Election Science says RCV’s weakness is particularly noticeable in competitive elections where more than two candidates have significant support. 

The center cited a Louisiana election in which there were three candidates. The vote mainly split between the three candidates, but it led to the elimination of the more moderate candidate who would have won in a two-candidate race against either of the other two. That sent the two more controversial candidates to the second round. 

“…with competitive elections there’s a tendency to squeeze out the center candidate,” the Center said, “which would favor more extreme candidates …”

There are even situations with RCV where ranking a candidate higher can hurt that candidate and ranking a candidate lower can help that candidate. This occurrence, happened in a 2009 election in Burlington, VT.

There, conservatives ranked their favorite candidate first and it got them their least favorite candidate as the winner. Had these conservative voters instead tactically placed their favorite candidate as second, then they would have gotten a much better outcome.

Bear with me as I explain. 

In the 2009 Burlington mayoral race, there were five candidates. The counts resulted in the following:

1st Round2nd Round3rd Round (Final)
Kiss (Progressive)2585 (29%)29814313
Wright (Republican)2951 (33%)32944061
Montroll (Democrat)2063 (23%)2554
Smith (Independent)1306 (15%)
Simpson (Green)35 (0.4%)
Write-Ins36 (0.4%)
Votes in Burlington, VT Mayoral election

According to the preferences stated by the voters on their ballots, however, if Democrat Montroll had gone head-to-head with either Progressive Kiss or Republican Wright (or anybody else) in a two-man race, he would be mayor. 

Montroll would have been favored over Wright 56% to 44% (a 930-vote margin) and over Kiss 54% to 46% (590-vote margin), majorities in both cases. 

In other words, in voting terminology, Montroll was a “beats-all winner” and a fairly convincing one. However, in this RCV election, Montroll came in third! And Kiss beat Wright in the final RCV round with 51.5% (252-vote official margin).

Confusing, yes, but real.

Another troublesome and risky situation can arise if a voter’s preferred candidate is neither a clear loser nor a clear winner. In such a case, ranking your favorite as first risks getting a bad candidate elected. And that bad candidate gets elected by RCV eliminating a superior compromise candidate too early.

Voters in this in-between state can either rank their favorite first and risk a bad candidate winning or not rank their favorite first, depriving that candidate of  much-needed support. Both of these outcomes are bad.

RCV can also founder when voters, because they are unfamiliar with all the candidates or simply by choice, vote only for their preferred candidate, ignoring the opportunity to rank the rest. 

The fact is, the more people a voter ranks the longer a ballot works for the voter. If there are five people on a ballot, you vote for only one and that one is eliminated in the instant runoff, your ballot is exhausted and has no impact on the race. It simply won’t factor into the final outcome.

On the other hand, pressure to rank all the candidates can lead to support for somebody the voter despises. In RCV, your vote for a candidate you hate can help that candidate move up. 

The fact is RCV is a solution in search of a problem. It’s simply too complex and unwieldy for voters to be asked to vote it up or down as part of a wide-ranging rearrangement of Portland’s city government.

Vote “No” on the Charter Commission’s proposal on the November 8, 2022 ballot..

3 thoughts on “Portland’s Proposed Ranked Choice Voting Reform Isn’t The Solution To Portland’s Dysfunction

  1. Actually, the proposed voting and vote counting is even more complicated than you noted! That may be hard to believe, but true! Read on!

    What is ranked choice voting? And what is single transferable voting that the Charter Commission actually proposes for Portland?

    There are several types of ranked choice voting (RCV). The main one is instant runoff, which requires 50%+1 of the vote. The Charter Commission proposed instant runoff RCV for the mayor and auditor in Portland. It is used in council races in cities like New York, San Francisco, and others- in single member districts. The commission has frequently referenced those cities when discussing ranked choice, without disclosing that they use this RCV. In the United States, it is used in about 50, or .0025, of the total 19,500 jurisdictions.

    And it appears to be what was described in your article.

    Another version is single transferable vote (STV). That is what the Commission proposes in Protland to elect council members. However, they rarely mention that the first step in counting votes is transferring votes from winners to other candidates, perhaps because they know that many voters would think it is unfair to do so. The Commission also does not like to use the term “single transferable vote,” and usually says “ranked choice voting’- perhaps in an effort to have voters think they are proposing the RCV version used elsewhere in the United States.

    STV uses a formula to establish the “winning” percentage for an election. It is:

    Threshold= number of votes/(number of seats +1) +1.

    As you will see, in a 3 member district such as that proposed by the Charter Commission, the percentage needed to win is established by the formula, and will always be the same- 25%+1. Why? Because the number of seats (3) +1 will always be a divisor of 4 (25%), and add 1 to get to 25%+1.

    It is the number of votes needed- the actual “quota”- that will vary depending upon turnout. For example, if 5,000 ballots are cast, a winner needs 1,251. If 12,000 ballots, 3001. If 175,300 ballots, 43,826. Always 25%+1.

    In sum, “winning percentage” is a constant. The actual “quota” varies, depending upon the actual vote count.

    https://www.opavote.com/methods/single-transferable-vote

    This article shows how the formula for the winning threshold or “quota” of is calculated (25%+1 for a 3 member district), and then how counting proceeds.

    1. Count the first place votes.
    2. Transfer votes from one candidate to other candidates:
    o If a candidate has surplus votes (votes in excess of the winning threshold), then transfer surplus votes to their next choices.
    o Otherwise, eliminate the last place candidate and transfer those votes to their next choices.
    3. If not all seats have been filled, then go to step 2 (i.e. eliminate the next last place candidate)

    Yes, you got that right! This STV system actually TRANSFERS VOTES that the Charter Commission considers to be “surplus” from a winning candidate to people who got less than 25% +1 of the vote!

    This means, in a race with 5,000 voters, and the threshold is 1,251, let’s say that Sam Smith gets 2,500 because he’s a popular guy. Because he has over 25% +1 of the vote, he is a winner. STV will take all the “surplus” 1,249 votes above 1,251, and give them to other candidates.

    In sum, no candidate is allowed to end up with more than 25%+1 of the votes- no matter how many votes they really got.

    Do you think this is complicated? Are you confused? Is transferring votes to other candidates fair?

    There is one more thing that the Charter Commission does not like to mention: In a district with 3 members, you might be “allowed” to rank as many candidates as you want, but at most only 1 vote will count for just 1 of the 3 candidates; you won’t have 1 vote each counted for the 3 candidates.

    In a single member district, something favored by many Portlanders making public comments, each voter would have 1 vote counted for the 1 candidate. And in a 3 member district where seats were designated, so that voters ranked candidates in each of the 3 races, you could also have 3 votes actually tallied- 1 for each race.

    The bottom line is that the STV system proposed by the Charter Commission is complicated, confusing, and unfair to voters.

    p.s. It will also cost $43,800,000 in the first 3 years for transition and ongoing operating costs for a council tripling in size, more staff, and more office space. Money that could be better spent on issues Portlanders care about- like crime and public safety and homelessness.

    Full disclosure: I am a member of the Partnership for Common Sense Government. We believe that the Charter package as currently proposed is confusing, lacks accountability and is far too costly. It’s a“take it or leave it” deal, with no choice for the voters. We urge a “NO” vote on the ballot measure as currently proposed because we are convinced that it is possible to draft a proposal that is more democratic, fiscally responsible and transparent. The first step in drafting a better proposal is to defeat the measure that will be placed before the voters in November 2022. As soon as it is defeated, City Council can begin to draft a better measure to send to the voters at the next available election.

    website: https://www.commonsensegovpdx.com/
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CommonSenseGovPDX
    twitter: https://twitter.com/SensibleGovPDX

    • Bob,
      Your expansive comment is fascinating, laying out a much more complex so-called “reform” proposal than I had understood. I’m a former Business/Politics reporter at The Oregonian, corporate PR guy and Congressional staff member. Retired now, but with a continuing interest in public policy. I’m just blown away by your comments. I’m going to study them more in an effort to understand the proposal better and may write more in my blog. They are one reason why, although I support public involvement in politics, I am sometimes leery of citizen initiatives that bypass legislative review because too often they try to boil down complex issues into slogans.

      • I have a lot of information. If you send me an email (presumably you have mine), I can share what you might want to see. No need to post this if you choose not not to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s