It's rank, all right – Part 5


If I've got some blood on me, it's because I've been deep in the weeds on how the votes will be counted in the crazy Portland City Council elections that are about to begin. There are a lot of thorns in that part of the garden.

I've gotten some of my questions answered, and so now I think I can walk through my hypothetical election in a council district a bit further, and run out numbers through several steps in the process. I'm still not sure I have everything 100 percent right, but I think I'm close enough to "show my work," as my first algebra teacher, Charles Rooney, used to say.

Here's my latest try:

Let's say in a race for three seats, there are seven candidates. (In the real races there are three or four times that many contenders, but I think I can figure everything out with only seven.) The first-choice votes are counted, and they are as follows:

First choice tally.

Because there were 1,000 first-choice votes cast, the number needed to win a seat is 251 – 25 percent plus one vote. That target never changes throughout the painful process we are about to undertake: 251 votes is needed to win a seat. That number is chosen because no more than three people can get to 251. This is quite different from how a winner is chosen in the mayor's race, which I've explained here.

And as you can see, CA got more than that, and wins one of the three seats, right off the bat. But the other two seats are still in play.

The next thing that happens is that because CA had "surplus" votes – more than the 251 it took to win – the second-choice votes of CA fans (that is, the 260 voters who chose CA first) are now going to count in favor of CB, CC, CD, CE, CF, and CG. But each of those second-choice transfers is going to be scaled back by applying a fraction that shows how much greater than the 251-vote threshold CA's first-choice total was.

The magic fraction that is going to tell us how much strength CA fans' second-choice votes should be given at this point is 9/260. That's because CA's first-choice vote total was only 9 votes greater than the 251 threshold, and CA got 260 votes altogether.

And so now we're going to take each CA fan's second-choice vote, multiply it by 9/260, and hand that fraction of a vote over to whoever that CA fan ranked in second place. If when that addition is done, any of the remaining six "active" candidates gets to 251, they win a seat.

But it turns out, on our hypothetical second-choice ranking, none of candidates CB through CG make it to victory. Here's the tally after the CA "surplus" business is taken into account:


Result after allocation of CA surplus.

At this point, I believe the official terminology is that Round 1 is over. You might note that not all the CA fans ranked a second choice. Only 235 out of 260 did. That's to be expected.

Okay then, now it's on to the next step, which is to eliminate the lowest vote-getter, CG. Sorry, CG fans, you lose. But you still count. We are now going to take out the ballots of all of the people who chose CG first (the CG fans), and see what their second choice was. If that was CA, we'll go on to their third choice. And once we have identified these next choices of the CG fans, we will add them to the totals of CB, CC, CD, CE, and CF.

But we're not done yet with this round. The other thing we have to do is get out the ballots of the 17 CA fans whose second choice was CG. We are going to identify the next choice (if any) on each of those ballots and add them, too, to the totals of CB, CC, CD, CE, and CF – but as before, only at their surplus fraction, which on these facts is small because CA came in only slightly above the threshold.

After we do this, we ask whether any of CB, CC, CD, CE, or CF have reached 251. If so, they win the second of the three council seats (or the second and third). But on our facts, it turns out that the votes coming out of the CG elimination don't push anyone over the top. CB and CC are still close to, but not actually, elected:

Result after elimination of CG and transfer of CG's votes.

I think the official jargon is that that's the end of Round 2. Notice, all the candidates got to keep the votes they picked up in the CA surplus. They will get to keep them through all the rounds until the candidate is either elected or eliminated. And the same goes for the votes they just picked up from the CG fans.

Let's take a breather. That's a lot to digest, and we still have only one winner. In the real elections, all this will be done by a computer in the Multnomah County elections office on inner Southeast Morrison Street, down by the strip club. I remember a Friday night in 1990...

But I digress. Let's get on to the next step, which is to eliminate CF. Sorry, CF fans, your favorite candidate, CF, will have to stay at their day job, or in their tent on the sidewalk, as the case may be. We are now going to take out the ballots of all of the people who chose CF first (the CF fans), and see what their second choice was. If that was CA or CG, we'll go on to their next choice. And once we have identified these next choices (if any) of the CF fans, we will add them to the totals of CB, CC, CD, and CE.

And we're not done yet with this round. The other thing we have to do is get out the ballots of the 8 CA fans whose second choice was CF. We are going to identify the next choice (if any) on each of those ballots and add them, too, to the totals of CB, CC, CD, and CE – but as before, only at their surplus fraction, which again, is small because CA got only slightly above the threshold.

No CG fans' votes were transferred to CF in the last round, and so we don't need to worry about that at this stage.

Okay, let's say we've done everything just described, and we get this (click on the image for a bigger version):

Result after elimination of CF and transfer of CF's votes.

Nobody's reached 251, and so we've got to do another round. I believe what we just did gets us to the end of Round 3. 

Now, in this next round, things are going to get serious. CE got 90 first-choice votes – there were 90 CE fans. We're probably going to be transferring a lot more votes this next time around than we have so far. So let's get going on that.

Sorry, CE fans, your favorite candidate, CE, is toast. But we are now going to take out the ballots of all of the CE fans, and see what their second choice was. If that was CA, CF, or CG, we'll go on to their next choice. And once we have identified these next choices (if any) of the CE fans, we will add them to the totals of CB, CC, and CD. We're down to just the three of them now, for the two remaining positions on the council. If any of them hits 251, they win a seat.

Similarly to what we did in previous rounds, we must also get out the ballots of the 5 CA fans whose second choice was CE. We are going to identify the next choice (if any) on each of those ballots for CB, CC, or CD, and add them, too, to the totals of CB, CC, and CD, but as before, only at their wimpy surplus fraction, 9/260. 

That's as far as I've gotten, and I hope it's right. But now I have questions. What about that 1 CG fan's vote that got transferred to CE in Round 2? And what about that 1 CF fan's vote that got transferred to CE in Round 3? Do we take those two ballots out and look for each of those voters' next choice among CB, CC, and CD? I suspect yes, but I'm not sure about that. Time to stop and chase that one down.

But as you can see, the fans of CE, the fifth place finisher in the first round and ultimately a failed candidate, could now push one of the three remaining contestants over the top. That would leave two candidates jostling for the last seat, and the outcome there could depend on the surplus vote of the candidate that the CE fans get across the finish line.

Notice, too, that none of the CB fans, CC fans, or CD fans have had their second or later choices counted, or even looked at, yet.

I'll progress further when I've got my latest question answered. But the big picture is that this is a terrible morass, convoluted and undemocratic, and it should never have been adopted. I'm determined to play along knowledgably while we suffer under it, but we all need to work to get it changed, and soon.

UPDATE, Oct. 14: I've gotten my quesstions answered, and completed the counting, here.

Comments

  1. Only a tax law expert would have the wherewithal to do this analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jack...you have more expertise right now than 99.9% of Portland voters. Even the Charter Commission couldn't explain it ("Just trust us"). You should take a sabbatical from L & C and pimp yourself out as an election lawyer. You'll cash in big time on the hundreds of "we wuz robbed" lawsuits that are going to proliferate starting Nov 6, 2024.

    Needless to say, there is no way in hell a functioning City Council is going to be seated on Jan 1, 2025. I wouldn't even bet on one on June 1, 2025. Maybe by Christmas 2025...if we all get "lucky".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Define "functioning" and if that has ever actually been the case

      Delete
    2. "Define "functioning" and if that has ever actually been the case"

      Making Zoom work well enough so that most of them can be in the same virtual place at the same time. God forbid any of them come to the office...

      Delete
  3. It does sound like this system needs to be challenged in court. Is it constitutional? Sounds like there’s a chance it’s not

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope it’s not. But, I don’t see a challenge coming from a Portland based attorney.

      Delete
  4. Your explanation is as clear as one could hope for, but my non-math-inclined brain is lost at the fractionalizing. If there are three seats at play, shouldn't each voter get three whole votes? It's not their fault that a candidate of their choice has gone over some magic number to win a round. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's what should happen, and what does happen. And they are not the same. In this scenario, spoiler alert, when we get to the end, the fans of the candidate who loses in the final round will have had only their first choices counted. They got only one vote, not three. And they lost. At least, if I'm understanding this correctly...

      Delete
    2. It seems very unlikely (and maybe mathematically impossible) that fans of the final loser would have voted enough for the other losers to have put them over the top. Most likely the 3 who won included their second and/or third choices; meanwhile they did at least get to give their all for their first choice.

      Delete
    3. Three seats, one vote? It's totally bogus. I'll lay my entire critique out after I've got all the details explained. But this is nonsense.

      Delete
  5. No one on the Charter Commission could possibly have designed this morass. Think Candace Avalos could do the computations, or Amari Streeter, or the nice lady who runs the Gay Pride parades? Yet they all voted for it. Where did it come from originally? Who actually sat down and wrote the three-page definition in the Charter?
    Ask Julia Meier (the commish's executive director and shot-caller who now runs the transition) that question and her PR satrap will tell you to read the Minutes and watch the videos of the Covid-era ZOOM meetings. I have--and I'm no closer to knowing where this came from or how it was explained to the doofuses on the commish.
    It came, I guess, from God.
    Who has a New York address.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the campaign to approve/reject this nonsense was in full swing, I remember seeing the Charter Commission chair (whose name I forget) on TV. She was asked about how the average voter was going to comprehend this scheme. Her response was something to the effect "Well, I don't really understand it either. The experts say it's more equitable blah blah blah. Just trust us. The rest of the reforms won't work without this."

      Delete
  6. This should qualify as the dictionary definition of a cluster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Years ago I googled “Motel Charlie Foxtrot” (AKA Mongolian Cluster F) and achieved my one and only Google “Bingo” (only one result).

      Delete
  7. This probably says more about math teachers (which I am) than about what seems acceptable to most people, but I actually really like this system and think it makes perfect sense (truly!). The City Council positions are admittedly quite hard to vote for this year, but that’s because it’s year 1 so we don’t have incumbents or people with much of a history. And for Mayor, I’m pleased its ranked choice because I want to vote for Keith Wilson but in a regular election I’d be worried that by doing so, I’d end up with my least favorite candidate coming in first (or at least in a runoff with one of my other non-preferred candidates). This way, maybe Wilson could squeak by with second choice votes and we could avoid Gonzalez and Rubio.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The results in a particular election should not be the point. This "system" gives weight to some people's second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth choices, while other people (the more mainstream people) never get any attention past their first choice. That's undemocratic. Again, I'll lay out my complete critique after I figure out the tabulation details, which are quite daunting.

      Delete

    2. https://www.sightline.org/2023/06/16/what-can-portland-learn-from-americas-oldest-proportional-election-system/

      Delete
  8. Shut up white people, you don't know better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes a delusional condition is permanent..

      Delete
  9. I'm curious about Clackamas and Washington County city of Portland voters. In a normal election, those counties would just provide the vote totals which would be added in to the total in Multnomah County. But in this election, what data are they supposed to provide? A tabulation of each candidate's different rankings, I suppose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bingo! In these forms of voting, the winner is based on winning (for mayor) 50-percent of the TOTAL VOTE. And that total will have to come from three different counties.
      Any computation from the county HQ will be provisional and subject to, possibly, big changes as the machine chews through later votes and the total vote grows.
      As for recounts...Multnomah countyy managed to hand-count 5,000 ballots...in a week.
      Sleep tight!

      Delete
    2. The winner in the mayor's race just has to have more than 50 percent of the votes counted in the FINAL ROUND. They don't need more than 50 percent of the total number of ballots cast.

      As for Washington and Clackamas Counties, they are reportedly going to hand-deliver their paper Portland ballots (of which there won't be many) to the Multnomah County elections folks, who will then do the scanning and add the results to the various tallies. There's an intergovernmental agreement among the three counties setting that up.

      If there's a hand recount, it will take forever and be extraordinarily expensive.

      The early results won't be able to pronounce anyone the winner of anything. It will probably even be difficult to predict a winner unofficially. Little will be known on Election Night.

      Delete
  10. Yikes! This is insanely complicated.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

The platform used for this blog is awfully wonky when it comes to comments. It may work for you, it may not. It's a Google thing, and beyond my control. Apologies if you can't get through. You can email me a comment at jackbogsblog@comcast.net, and if it's appropriate, I can post it here for you.