Left In Lowell

The Disingenuous No Vote

by Lynne at 11:48 am.

The Sun came out against Choice Voting in a Sun editorial. Here’s some holes I find in their reasoning. (It took only a couple seconds of reading it to find them.) For instance, they say:

Under choice voting, a candidate for City Council can secure one of the nine seats if he or she is selected as the number-one candidate by 10 percent of Lowell’s voters. Certainly, this will make it easier for candidates representing various segments of the population to get elected.

But is it really fairer?

Is it right that a candidate who may have the support of only 10 percent of the community is elected to represent 100 percent? Will that candidate merely cater to his or her base in order to ensure re-election? Will this system merely replace one problem with another?

What the hell do you think district-based voting would be? Let’s say you chop Lowell into five districts for five of the seats. This means only a segment - in this example, 20% - of voters will get to select those candidates in any one district, but that councilor has a full vote on the Council. Given that turnout of registered voters is lower in some areas, you easily could have only 10% of voters making a decision on a full member of the council in district voting. This is a poor reason to dislike Choice voting in favor of another system. I dub this reasoning totally lame.

Another one:

Registered voters from every neighborhood in Lowell should be turning out at the polls and fielding candidates for office. But whose fault is it that they all don’t? Every adult citizen of Lowell is not only eligible to vote, they are all encouraged to do so. Regrettably, many choose not to participate.

Given that the Lowell Sun drums up the “why don’t voters vote” mantra every year but then in their big Sunday POLITICAL column less than two weeks before the election they say absolutely nothing about the race, this seems to me to be crocodile tears to some extent. Gee, your way to get turnout sure ain’t doing anything for Lowell…

As to the rest of the article,

Lasting change typically occurs from within the system. Once an inspiring candidate from a different neighborhood, ethnic group or socio-economic status catches the electorate’s attention and secures office, it will prompt more political novices to toss their hats into the ring.

Yeah. Clap harder and maybe you can save a fairy’s life. Also, lots of inspiring candidates from other neighborhoods and ethnicities HAVE come on the scene. Mehmed being the latest example. It doesn’t matter; if you come from a low turnout area or are a member of a group less represented by registered voters, you will NOT win in a winner-take-all system. Mehmed worked his tail off, got multiple neighborhoods and ethinicities on board with his campaign, registered new voters…and came in 10th.

That is severely discouraging to the next guy, who maybe wonders just how much it’s worth it to do all that work and never get anywhere. If Mehmed couldn’t do it on his first try, as connected as he was to many different communities, who the hell else would be capable in two, or three, or more tries?

I have remarked to myself before how reluctant New Englanders are to try anything new or embrace change. I find this attitude of the Lowell Sun’s editorial staff to be no exception. Hidebound and stuck in the Museum.

[Filed under Local politics, Media, Voting] [link]

19 Responses to “The Disingenuous No Vote”

Kim Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
The only thing that could really change the vote under the current system would be a major water main break on Andover St. that continued down to Clark Rd on November 3rd. Bud, Rita, and Kaz would be smiling for the Sun reporter as they filled “a” sandbag. Kaz employees would be picking people up in tow trucks to get to the poll and they would all get their complimentary orange nail file after the ride. When the road re-opened they would have a ceremony to thank all the wonderful residents that helped out and name a square in John Cox honor! Rita would run commentary on WCAP about the whole event and how we need to Move Lowell forward after this disaster.
Eleanor Rigby Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Lynne I have to disagree on one major point here…
“What the hell do you think district-based voting would be? Let’s say you chop Lowell into five districts for five of the seats. This means only a segment - in this example, 20% - of voters will get to select those candidates in any one district, but that councilor has a full vote on the Council. Given that turnout of registered voters is lower in some areas, you easily could have only 10% of voters making a decision on a full member of the council in district voting. This is a poor reason to dislike Choice voting in favor of another system. I dub this reasoning totally lame.”

By that thinking all local reps and senators should be elected statewide. Why should a rep or senator have a full vote if they are only elected by voters in one district?

You know I oppose the OneLowell proposal for two major reasons, first every vote will not be counted so it certainly looks like the first precints to be tallied by the election commission will decide the outcome…so if they count say Ward 1 Precint 1 first and that puts three or four candidates over the top…what happens to the votes of the people in Back Central? It’s a bad system. It also eliminates the preliminary election something we all railed against because it takes one more opportunity for voters to be heard, away

I don’t like the current system but given the state of affairs in the city…some neighborhoods with CCs get more attention than others…and when some of the others do get attention it’s NEWS! Each neighborhood should have a representative on the council!

If the OneLowell proposal is defeated it will be interesting to see how it’s spun by the powers that be. Will they take it as everyone is happy or will they recognize that we still want change but just not that version?

Remember, Lowell voters in the past have approved changes to the way our CC is elected and each approval of voters was ignored…I don’t have a link to it but Dick Howe posted a review of voter changes in the past decade or two, some passed some failed but nothing changed.

I obviously agree that the Sun itself bares most of the responsiblity for lack of voter turnout by lack of coverage of the issues, and allowing themselves to become a non-player to most of the citizenry of Lowell! And WCAP? Not even in the picture any longer…WLLH?…are they even still on the air?
Lynne Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
ER: I think you missed my point…it’s not that I think we need to get rid of districts for higher office. It’s that districts are JUST as narrow in total voters as a ratio of the whole as Choice voting. In other words, the “other system” the Sun *might* back would be districts. And you get the same thing - a small portion of the total voters determining a single seat in the Council. I don’t think that’s good OR bad, but I think whining that you’re against choice voting because it means that 10% of people who strongly feel attached to a candidate can elect one is POOR reasoning considering that district do the same exact thing.

I think you’re wrong to be concerned about Choice, and I think the outcome would speak for itself. And if not this and now, when? Do you have any idea how hard it was to get this on the ballot?? You think any one group or set of groups will have the time, money and talent to do this again in another year?
Eleanor Rigby Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
My problem with the way that this has been presented is that it is the ONLY choice we are being given.

So 10 percent of the vote total, plus one and you’re on the council. Who picks which sections of the city will be counted first? Will they even bother to continue to count when the 9 people that got 10 percent are selected?

Why should my number 1 vote, first choice, be transferred to someone I did not select as my first choice…or perhaps did not select at all!

No, it’s a bad way to do things and quite frankly if this were the way it were done in a third world country or another “hot spot” I am certain the UN would be up in arms.

A bad choice for the sake of change is not a good idea, ever.

Lots of people commit time and money to causes every day, it doesn’t mean the cause is correct or should be supported. They would have been better off offering a choice of several alternatives to the current system, although as I have already pointed out according to a posting by Dick, voter approval of changes in the past have been ignored.
Lynne Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
First, I can’t answer the first question, on specifics. It could be the way you say (once the last vote X candidate needs is found, then any more found get their second choice). It could also be that ALL votes for X candidate get tallied, and then the amount over and above needed, then the second vote on ALL those ballots gets a proportional amount. Victoria could answer that.

“Why should my number 1 vote, first choice, be transferred to someone I did not select as my first choice…or perhaps did not select at all!”

If you don’t LIKE someone, DON’T put them on the ballot as ANY of your choices, first, second, third or anything. It is NOT the case that a candidate you did NOT put into your choices for those slots would EVER get a vote from you. Only the candidates you rank will. If you really hate all but one candidate, vote for one candidate.

This voting system is used all over the world, ER. The UN is not up in arms.

“A bad choice for the sake of change is not a good idea, ever.”

I don’t see an argument in your posts about how this is a bad idea. Seriously. If we had districts, 20% or less of the voters will choose a City Councilor - hell, in a competitive race in a single district, much LESS than 10% could choose the actual winner. It’s a poor poor argument, because either way (district, or choice) a SMALLER segment of the population will choose a seat on the City Council. You’re complaining about something that is, literally, true for the “preferred” way of voting so many want (district). Fact is, you still need that many people to give you a #1 vote, or you better have a lot MORE people giving you a #2 vote, or even MORE people giving you a #3 vote, etc, or you don’t get on. But someone who can get such big support from a decent sized constituency (whether it’s neighborhood, ethnic, ideology, etc) probably deserves to represent 1/9th of the city, which is essentially what a single seat has.

“They would have been better off offering a choice of several alternatives to the current system, although as I have already pointed out according to a posting by Dick, voter approval of changes in the past have been ignored.”

That would take an act of the legislature, and probably a pretty large deal to do so. Anything else would be illegal. Perhaps he was referring the ballot initiatives for state laws; I don’t know, but overturning a local ballot init, I believe, is NOT in the hands of the City Council. You can bet though if this passes, and someone doesn’t implement it, illegally, there will be an immediate lawsuit which will be easily won.
John Dukeshire Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
“District based voting” hmmm.. straw-man?

Nowhere in that editorial did they promote city districts.

Youre arguing against an option that nobody else is promoting.

But hey, it makes you sound important.
Eleanor Rigby Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
It surprises me that you are supporting a voting process that you don’t seem to understand!

According to the Cambridge website, a city with Plan E that has proportional voting as is proposed in Lowell the process works like this.

“HOW THE BALLOTS ARE COUNTED

The count begins with the sorting of ballots by the first preference shown on each valid ballot. That is the NUMBER 1 vote on each ballot. This is generally known as the “First Count”.

Any candidates who reach the necessary quota with Number 1 votes are declared elected. Any extra ballots they receive beyond the quota are redistributed to the candidates marked next in preference (the number 2 preference) on those excess ballots.

The count continues with the elimination of those candidates receiving fewer than fifty votes in the first count. Their ballots are redistributed to the other candidates according to the next preference marked.

After each distribution, the candidate now having the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his/her ballots redistributed to the next indicated preference (number 2,3,4 etc.)”

*********
ER again;
So once my #1 candidate reaches the threashold, 10% plus 1 before they get to counting my Ward…then my #1 vote goes to the person with the most #2 votes so on and so on.
If I wanted the person with my #2 or 3 or 4 vote to get my #1 vote I would have voted them #1. I don’t want “rules” deciding who I “really” wanted to vote for!

No, this is not a good system!

As far as district representation, I would be voting for a CC candidate that represented me and my neighborhood in city hall. This is obviously different from At-Large representation that we have now…and we can see how well the At-Large councilors are doing representing and looking out for ALL the city neighborhoods!

I am completely missing your point on your defense of why voters approved changes in the past were not implemented. Lowell voters have voted in the past to change the make up of the city council and it has never come to pass. I am not referring to state initiatives etc.

Time to do some research girl!
Eleanor Rigby Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
One more point…as I read the rules for Cambridge. It appears that if a candidates gets less than 50 #1 votes…but got several thousand #2 votes (more than the quota needed for election) that candidates would still be eliminated!
Lynne Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I didn’t know the answer to one question and suddenly I’m not qualified to talk about it and/or vote? Good lord, your threshold is so high, I wonder that any candidate or issue is ever something you’ll accept.

Again, if you really don’t want your vote to go to XYZ candidate, why would you put them in your ranking? It’s not hard. Just don’t do it. If you like three candidates, say John the best, but you also like Jill and Frank, rank them accordingly. It’s not like you hate Jill and Frank and hope they don’t get on, or else you wouldn’t have put them in your rank.
Robby Says:
October 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Im not voting in support of it mainly because I dont feel I should have to “rank” my choices. I want all of the people I vote for to win, not just one of them. Who would I choose to vote #1? I would honestly have a real tough time deciding when I believe strongly in support of multiple candidates. I dont feel I should have to choose just one candidate to help them win by sacrificing others. The process to me just seems like going from nine equal votes to one important vote; along with eight votes that wont in reality count. Im not about to vote in support of an idea that takes away in a sense 8 out my 9 votes.

My entire household, and well frankly, everybody I personally know, will be voting against this idea.
Victoria Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Eleanor,
The Choice Voting system on the ballot for Lowell DOES NOT tabulate votes the way that Cambridge does. Why don’t you look at the FairVoteLowell.org website if you want to see what WE are proposing. Eleanor, I have offered, several times on this website, to explain this to you. Either you want to understand what Choice voting is about or you are so stuck on districts that nothing about Choice voting really matters. Why don’t you learn more about the proposal in Lowell that is on the ballot Nov. 3rd.

Second, it is impossible for a citizen’s petition to put out “options.” Only the city council could do that, so you are complaining about the wrong group. And good luck getting the council to put those options out to you. Also, as I mentioned to you previously, there is nothing stopping you from doing a citizen’s petition yourself.

Third, if we had districts, candidates would absolutely be elected with less than 10% of the vote unless only a single candidate was running - and even then, maybe (big maybe) only Belvidere would elect a candidate with up to 10% of the vote - it will depend how many candidates run in the district because the vote will be divided up by the number of candidates. Think about it. The 10% threshold for Choice Voting is actually pretty high. Even now, only Rita gets over 50% of the vote, and that is with voters having 9 equal votes. Under Choice Voting, Councilors can still get way over 10% of the first choice votes, and if they did, that information would be given to voters. But in fact, they don’t, because a single councilor isn’t the “first choice” of that many voters. Choice voting actually shows not only the quantity of votes, but the strenght of the vote. You don’t think it would be good for Lowell to see, actually, which councilors are someone’s first choice rather than a last choice? You can’t do that under the current system - you can only see the total number of votes. As far as we voters know, maybe ALL of CC Millinazzo’s votes are first choice and all of Rita’s are last choice. WE JUST DON’T KNOW.

Finally, Robby, with Choice Voting you have the power to help elect more than one candidate. Our proposal doesn’t count votes the way Cambridge does, where that is true. If your first choice is elected, then your vote for the second candidate you’ve selected on your ballot will be counted, but not at the same weight as the first…and so on. If your first choice gets eliminated because they have so few votes, your second choice candidate on your ballot gets the same weight as a first choice, because your ballot has not yet been used to elect anyone. The main difference with the current system is that currently your nine votes are all equal, and that is what allows a majority of voters to elect more than their share of seats.

One more thing - a person doesn’t have to understand all the mechanics of vote tabulation in order to vote YES on Question 1 or to support it. You don’t know how a cell phone works, but you still use it because of the benefits. Choice Voting has been challenged in court several times in several states (usually by incumbents who don’t get re-elected) but there has NEVER been a single lawsuit that prevailed. Choice voting is THE FAIREST voting system for multi-seat elections at the local level. What we currently have is the least fair, and districts is in between.

So, vote YES on Question 1 for a more fair system, or do something yourself if you are not happy with what we have. BE the change you want to see in the world.
Gerry Nutter Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Victoria,

I applaud the work that FairVoteLowell.org has put into this effort but I beleive it is far to complex for the average voter to understand (yes I know that may sound like I’m saying people are dumb but I’m not)

The question will be defeated by a 70/30 vote.

I’m basing this on the fact that Lowell will have only 25%-29% of the people registered to vote actually showing up to vote.

I’m not convinced that people are coming out in any higher numbers than they have the last 2 elections. I don’t beleive the challengers have done a good enough job calling out the sitting councilors to great this wave of change or that your organization has prsented a strong enough case for change that will have voters come out to vote for this.

In 1993 when the City had 5 sitting councilors and 2 School Committee members defeated in their bid for re-election and 4 ballot questions (3 were pased but never acted oon). The top vote getter received over 11,000 votes . Rita had just over 7,100 in 2007 and slightly over 8,000 in 2005 and that appears will be repeated on Tuesday.
joe from Lowell Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Will this system merely replace one problem with another?

There’s a actually a legitimate point buried in there. Switching to Choice Voting would indeed allow a committed minority to gain a seat and a have a voice on the Council. Its conceivable that a city with such a system could end up with most of its council consisting of such minority voice, resulting in a fractious council that is unable to work together, and which doesn’t provide enough of a voice for the mainstream majority of the public.

At the other extreme is a system in which there is no diversity on a city council, and it lacks new ideas and different perspectives. Such a council would also cater overly-much towards an entrenched majority or plurality of the public, and not take minority viewpoints and concerns into account at all.

Looking at the Lowell City Council and politics in this city, I think it’s pretty clear which danger we have to worry about more at this particular moment in history.
Lynne Says:
October 29th, 2009 at 10:50 am
FYI to “John Dukeshire”: sigh. I am talking about the other alternative that EVERYONE talks about, which is district based voting. It’s not the Sun editorial because that is NOT what is before the voters. But district based voting is what a lot of the anti-Choice Vote people say they’d rather have, and the Sun at the end of the editorial says “not this particular system at this time” which is to say, maybe some other system some other time. That would likely be a district based system based on what many people have said in this debate over the years.

But keep up the personal attacks, it makes you look really manly.
Gerry Nutter Says:
October 29th, 2009 at 11:02 am
John Dukeshire & Lynne,

District voting was brough forth most recently in 1993 as one of 4 ballot questions. It was defeated.

*Question 3 - Do you support a charter change that would provide for district councilors instead of elections at large? Yes-6,841. No-9,213.

It’s funny how many people complain about the way voting is done yet few want to change. Me included…I’m 100% behind the 1 person 1 vote model we have. If I want to choose 6 of 9 people with my vote it’s none of your business. Nor is it anyone’s business who I like most or least and for that matter why should it matter to anyone else but me if I like Rodney more than Rita?

I think people try to change things for the most part with the Best of Intentions but to date haven’t shown to me a better method than what we have.

*Courtesy of R.Howes’ great Blog
Lynne Says:
October 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Gerry…to a large extent, I think, New Englanders just don’t like change. They tend towards the status quo by default.

Witness the last set of statewide ballot initiatives…even the fairly innocent one, wine in grocery stores! I would have thought that most people would have wanted to vote for that if only for the convenience of it.
Maggie Says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Lynne - I also hate to disappoint you on this one - but I am voting no on question 1. I often bullet my vote and if I am the 1201 voter for a candidate and they only need 1200 - then my vote literally gets thrown out. I also object to ranking my candidates if I have more than one. If I like someone - I like them equally with my other choices and I simply do not think it fair to give a vote for someone to someone else. This is based on an untried system that is under legal questioning in Minneapolis. More places have dumped this type of voting than have kept it. And I strongly object to getting three phone calls in one day. One from out of town, One from OneLowell, and one from the someone who could not answer a question. And I don’t believe it will get any more people to vote than before and is more liable to drive away those who do not understand the system.
Lynne Says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“if I am the 1201 voter for a candidate and they only need 1200 - then my vote literally gets thrown out.”

Maggie that is actually literally not true at all.
Nancy T Says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
So why don’t people from all neighborhoods get out to vote. Not any one’s fault but lazy
people not doing what they should…… Why should we always cater to the unmotivated, lazy
people……If they want representation on the council they should work hard to get the candidate they support elected. No way should we change our voting system to enable the lazy
residents of this city…… It is the responsibility of the registered voters to get out and vote……. NO ON QUESTION 1

October 27, 2009

The Disingenuous No Vote

19 Responses to “The Disingenuous No Vote”

Leave a Reply

Find us on Facebook

LeftinLowell Tweets LIVE

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

Other:

Email us!

LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Media in Lowell

Media in MA

Other Daily Reads

Politics Online

Progressive Local Orgs

Snark and politics

The Arts in Lowell

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Sep				Nov »
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31