A couple days ago I sent the (excerpt from a) message at the bottom. It
has since occurred to me to do the analysis another way. In particular,
I have taken the vote totals of **every** finalist in the City Council
elections, and ranked them by number of votes received:
Ward Votes Percent Council Member
7 6,363 82.22 LISA R. GOODMAN
13 5,778 54.89 BARRET W.S. LANE
9 5,704 81.84 GARY SCHIFF
11 5,278 58.49 SCOTT BENSON
12 4,832 54.28 SANDY COLVIN ROY
13 4,724 44.88 GREG ABBOTT
1 4,123 61.76 PAUL OSTROW
12 4,055 45.55 WADE RUSSELL
4 4,002 73.31 BARB JOHNSON
11 3,704 41.05 JOHN BERNARD CASSERLY
10 3,688 53.81 DAN NIZIOLEK
8 3,514 62.52 ROBERT LILLIGREN
10 3,025 44.13 DOUG KRESS
----------------------
3 2,770 63.16 JOE BIERNAT
2 2,597 50.77 PAUL ZERBY
1 2,522 37.78 DAVE RAMSTAD
2 2,489 48.66 CAM GORDON
5 2,405 50.47 NATALIE JOHNSON LEE
5 2,333 48.96 JACKIE CHERRYHOMES
8 2,075 36.92 VICKIE ANN BROCK
6 1,853 52.07 DEAN (Z) ZIMMERMANN
6 1,672 46.98 DEAN KALLENBACH
3 1,571 35.82 SHANE M. PRICE
4 1,417 25.96 GEORGE BELMORE
7 1,345 17.38 SEAN FLYNN
9 1,229 17.63 LUCKY ROSENBLOOM
The line indicates the cutoff point of 13. The list shows that losers
in high turnout wards sometimes have more demonstrated support than
winners in low turnout wards.
I am a supporter of proportional representation, but this analysis does
raise some concerns (e.g., no representation for Wards 5 and 6?). I
would note however that for PR:
1. voters wouldn't be constrained by our current "single-member
district" ward boundaries, so depending on new ward geometry Greens in
current ward 7 and 13 might be able to support a Green who actually
lived in current ward 2 or 6.
2. PR does require "multi-member" districts, that is, districts where
more than one candidate is to be elected. Having a single city-wide
district would probably not be appropriate. Instead maybe there could
be clumping of wards, such as new districts:
Dist 1: 2 to be elected from current wards 1 2
Dist 2: 3 from current w 3 4 5
Dist 3: 2 from current 7 10
Dist 4: 3 from 6 8 9
Dist 5: 3 from 11 12 13
This is an impromptu, mapless guesstimate; in any case new boundaries
would be drawn that make sense for new, consolidated districts.
The benefit is that 34% of the voters in District 1 could get a
representative, even if they were not a majority in the District. (The
majority could get the other representative.) And--this is the great
part--the voters would decide how to coalition and coalese; it would not
be prodded by the gerrymandering map-makers. Or at least not as much as
it is today. There is less room for mischief when dividing the city
into 5 district, than when dividing it into 13.
Of course each voter would get to "spend" their vote for one candidate
(even if three where to be elected from the district). But the voter
would get to use a ranked ballot (1 by 1st choice, 2 by 2nd choice,
etc.) to cast their vote. This would eliminate wasted vote syndrome,
make for less adversarial campaigning (candidates seeking second choices
from opponents' supporters), greater diversity in winners' ranks
(minorities' represented), and voters able to send clearer messages
about their preferences.
Prepared and paid for by ;-)
Alan Shilepsky
(gerrymandered) Downtown
with apologies to Dean, Natalie, and some other great
newly elected Council Members, and to all who worked their
tails off in 2001 to give Minneapolis voters choices.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 10:57:49 -0600
> From: Alan Shilepsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Mpls] Re: Mpls digest, Vol 1 #615 - 15 msgs
>
> ....
> Finally, on a related topic, here are the number of votes that each of
> the winning CM's got in their elections to represent the citizens of
> their wards:
>
> Ward Votes Percent Council Member
> 1 4,123 61.76 PAUL OSTROW
> 2 2,597 50.77 PAUL ZERBY
> 3 2,770 63.16 JOE BIERNAT
> 4 4,002 73.31 BARB JOHNSON
> 5 2,405 50.47 NATALIE JOHNSON LEE
> 6 1,853 52.07 DEAN (Z) ZIMMERMANN
> 7 6,363 82.22 LISA R. GOODMAN
> 8 3,514 62.52 ROBERT LILLIGREN
> 9 5,704 81.84 GARY SCHIFF
> 10 3,688 53.81 DAN NIZIOLEK
> 11 5,278 58.49 SCOTT BENSON
> 12 4,832 54.28 SANDY COLVIN ROY
> 13 5,778 54.89 BARRET W.S. LANE
>
> Sorted by number of voters who choose the member to represent them:
>
> Ward Votes Percent Council Member
> 7 6,363 82.22 LISA R. GOODMAN
> 13 5,778 54.89 BARRET W.S. LANE
> 9 5,704 81.84 GARY SCHIFF
> 11 5,278 58.49 SCOTT BENSON
> 12 4,832 54.28 SANDY COLVIN ROY
> 1 4,123 61.76 PAUL OSTROW
> 4 4,002 73.31 BARB JOHNSON
> 10 3,688 53.81 DAN NIZIOLEK
> 8 3,514 62.52 ROBERT LILLIGREN
> 3 2,770 63.16 JOE BIERNAT
> 2 2,597 50.77 PAUL ZERBY
> 5 2,405 50.47 NATALIE JOHNSON LEE
> 6 1,853 52.07 DEAN (Z) ZIMMERMANN
>
> Sorted by percent won by:
>
> Ward Votes Percent Council Member
> 7 6,363 82.22 LISA R. GOODMAN
> 9 5,704 81.84 GARY SCHIFF
> 4 4,002 73.31 BARB JOHNSON
> 3 2,770 63.16 JOE BIERNAT
> 8 3,514 62.52 ROBERT LILLIGREN
> 1 4,123 61.76 PAUL OSTROW
> 11 5,278 58.49 SCOTT BENSON
> 13 5,778 54.89 BARRET W.S. LANE
> 12 4,832 54.28 SANDY COLVIN ROY
> 10 3,688 53.81 DAN NIZIOLEK
> 6 1,853 52.07 DEAN (Z) ZIMMERMANN
> 2 2,597 50.77 PAUL ZERBY
> 5 2,405 50.47 NATALIE JOHNSON LEE
>
> Some members were lucky in their opponents :-) but still it suggests
> that some top vote-getters didn't win comparable respect and support
> from their fellow Council Members when it came time to organize the
> Council. You might say that 6,363 Ward 7 voters and 5,778 Ward 13
> voters were disrespected by the Council.
>
> Alan Shilepsky
> Downtown -- a Ward 7 voter!
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
