REPEAL IRV- KEEP VOTING SIMPLE: The Process by which a Citizen Initiative becomes Law

March 9, 2010

The Process by which a Citizen Initiative becomes Law

Contact:

Gregory Sanford

Vermont State Archives and Records Administration

(802) 828-2369

THE LAW: 17 V.S.A. §2645

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=17&Chapter=055&Section=02645

Here is what municipality will certify, 10 days following the election:

The petition with the proposed charter change (plus certification that it was signed by the required number of voters)
Warnings to the two public hearings to discuss the proposal (often held in conjunction with regular municipal board meeting)
Copies of minutes from those public hearings if there is discussion on proposed change (or certified that no discussion occurred)
Ballot with results certified

DEADLINE Thursday, March 11, 2010

.Gregory Sanford receives the material and reviews it for completeness. Even if he requests more material from the municipality, he will forward the proposed charter change to the designated parties [AG Office, Sec of State, Clerk of House] as well as to the Legislative Council in case they have not already received a copy from which to draft a bill.

.Then it goes through the normal process for a bill. The House Government Ops Committee will schedule hearings on the bill.

The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System H.773

No comments:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Burlington elected the wrong candidate.

Article in the Christian Science Monitor:

Why do you say that IRV nevertheless elected the “wrong” candidate?

In a head-to-head race, the votes suggest that the Democrat would have beaten the Progressive by a margin of 46% to 39%. Subject to the same caveat that voter and candidate behavior might have been different, the votes thus suggest that voters preferred the Democrat to both the Progressive and the Republican. Yet the Democrat finished third in the IRV results.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2010/0921/Want-a-better-way-to-elect-candidates-Look-to-Burlington-Vt

Computer Voting Machines VS Hand Count

The questions of whether hand count should rely on re-tabulation by machine, and whether computer security is adequate for voting (good enough for banking, why not voting?) have been discussed in Burlington lately.

Recount of primary democrat gubernatorial election allowed machine retab, apparently because time was of essence and Racine was looking for big clerical errors and overlooked ballots, not scattered ballots misread by the machines. However, hand recount is a superior system for many reasons, and if you can't hand count with original ballots, you can't recount reliably.

This leads to the issue of voting online. We transact personal business online with more and more confidence, and some think if we can bank online securely, we should be able to vote online as well. Actually the principle is the same, with opposite import: banks control transactions, cities/towns control voting.

Banks can track transaction to source, then confirm, and reverse transaction if necessary; ballots are anonymous. Tallies at polls prevent ballot bag stuffing in City Hall after hours, which is a major reason why IRV created distrust and was finally abandoned. Ballot bags from one city ward were opened several times, after hours, in city hall with no panel of observers present.

Computer Voting Machines VS Hand Count

Another City skeptical of IRV

Independent IRV Fact-Check Website

Like most of the hype around IRV, FairVote's so-called FACTS are promotional advertising. IRV's fast food run-off vote and it's reconstituted majority might as well be called "The McVote."

If you wanted the facts about the nutritional value of fast food, would go to the corporate website, or to an independent research lab?

FairVote's paid mission is to promote IRV. In contrast, the IRV Fact Check Fact Check Blog is an un-funded effort by election transparency expert Joyce McCloy and other researchers who for many years have cataloged reports, studies and news articles about instant runoff voting and its unintended consequences at http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/

Nothing is more critical to democracy than a free, honest and verifiable voting system.

NEVIS: North End Voters InSpired

April 17, 10am, Miller Center.

Ward 4 and 7: Voters, Ward Clerks, election officials, candidates, ward caucus party leadership, and NPA steering committee members gather to discuss ways to inSpire voter turnout in the North End.

In spite of praise from the mayor (ahem!) for our strong voter turnout, for us it was low and there were many voter information and polling location problems that could have suppressed the vote. People at the polls in Ward 7 reported cars turning away when they saw the confusion and congestion at the narrow entrance to the Miller Center. Councilor Dober did a survey of Ward 7 voters, and 85% of respondents rejected the Miller Ctr as a polling place. In Ward 4, lack of signage and false report of moving the polling place similarly could have suppressed the vote in that ward.

Interested parties gather to review the snags, and plan ways to welcome and inspire voters in future elections. A task force will work on this between now and the next election.

Notes posted here.

IRV debunked

As shown in [the 2009 Burlington mayoral] election, IRV does not "solve the spoiler problem," does not "allow voters to vote their true preference without fear of inadvertently electing a candidate they cannot stand," and it does not elect candidates "actually preferred by a majority."

These and other pathologies are not rare. IRV in this election did not serve as a "bulwark of democracy" – rather the opposite.

We shall show by considering Burlingon's 2009 mayoral election that all the claims by Bouricius and FairVote are false.

http://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html

2005/2010 Voter disapproval of IRV increased in every ward in the city.

Ward 1
2005: 180 votes NO IRV
2010: 264 votes for REPEAL
% increase = 47%

Ward 2
2005: 150 NO
2010: 185 REPEAL
% increase = 24%

Ward 3
2005: 210 NO
2010: 292 REPEAL
% increase = 39%

Ward 4
2005: 721 NO
2010: 1203 REPEAL
% increase = 67%

Ward 5
2005: 395 NO
2010: 545 REPEAL
% increase = 38%

Ward 6
2005: 329 NO
2010: 477 REPEAL
% increase = 45%

Ward 7
2005: 630 NO
2010: 1006 REPEAL
% increase = 60%

Here's the turnout by ward for 2005:

http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/ct/elections/docs/march2005results.pdf

And 2010:

http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/ct/elections/results/20100302/

More people voted in 2010, same voter distribution across the wards!
2005 -- 7,550, 42% of the total vote was in Wards 4&7, 58% in other wards.
2010 -- 7.695, exactly the same distribution, 42% in wards 4&7.

Legislators Sponsor H.773 to Repeal IRV

Wright, Kurt

Aswad, William

Atkins, Kenneth

Bissonnette, Clement

Donovan, Johannah

Larson, Mark

Lorber, Jason

Ram, Kesha

Weston, Rachel

Wizowaty, Susan

Zuckerman, David

2006 Exit Poll -- Perverse Outcomes and Elitism

Exit Poll data and analysis identifies perverse outcome and elitism. For those who are intrigued by, or concerned about, these issues, here is the data and the report. Ideologues will dismiss it, but for people who want to make up their own mind, here's the link:

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/IRV.pdf

Note: In the 2009 election, voter participation dropped another 10% (from 37% to 27%).

Ask yourself, why is IRV more popular with politicians than with voters? Perhaps because it sidelines minor candidates, lets people vote for them in a meaningless way, and then major candidates capture 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc place votes to create a false IRV majority that they can call a mandate.

Burlington Voter #'s decline after IRV experiment begins