The Portland mayor’s race has been finalized, but results of Portland’s 12 city council races are still being tabulated. So far, just two seats have been called: Olivia Clark in District 4 (W/Sellwood) and Steve Novick in District 3 (SE). And while there are still ballots to process, it seems like all 12 seats will remain the same from the initial results.
While we wait, I thought it’d be fun to share animations created using data provided by Multnomah County. This ranked choice voting system is so much more interesting because we can see in real time how the rankings impact each race. With each round of tabulations, the votes of the candidate that was eliminated are transferred to other candidates still in the race. This has had a big impact on some of the contests.
Thanks to a friend I talked to a Bike Happy Hour (thanks JR!), I found a website that allows you to take the County data files and do fun things with them. Check out animations of each race below…
Mayor
In the mayor’s race, we’ve already shared how voters who supported Liv Osthus were so opposed to Rene Gonzalez, that he didn’t get nearly as many of her 16,000 votes (so far) as Carmen Rubio, which effectively doomed his chances. You can see that play out in the animation below. Use the bar at the top to go round-by-round or to pause. Or you can play the animation all the way through (although I find that to be too fast).
District 1
In this race, the four candidates who battled just out of the top three were split between two folks who are on the left of the Portland political spectrum (Steph Routh and Timur Ender) and two candidates on the center-right (Noah Ernst and Terrence Hayes). As they are eliminated, watch who in the top three benefits most from their votes. Avalos was the clear winner and she staked out the progressive left in the race. Loretta Smith is definitely center-right (she’s very supportive of more police for instance) and Jamie Dunphy is center-left. Dunphy benefits great from votes from Ender and Routh, while Hayes’ votes went mostly to Smith and Ernst. Ernst voters were clearly more aligned with Smith than Dunphy. Check out the animation below and see for yourself.
District 2
Dan Ryan and Elana Pirtle-Guiney seem to have the top two spots locked up in early rounds. Sameer Kanal was relatively far behind, but his vote total increased in later rounds thanks to being ranked high by voters who supported other left-leaning candidates like Jonathan Tasini, Marnie Glickman, Michelle DePass, and Nat West. If a more centrist candidate like Maria Hudson would have finished higher, Tiffani Penson might have benefitted from her vote redistribution enough to edge out Kanal.
District 3
This race has the least amount of drama of all four districts. The top three of Steve Novick, Angelita Morillo and Tiffany Koyama Lane were never threatened. It’s still interesting to see how political alignments play out among the left, center, and right-leaning candidates who finished below them. For example, almost all of Harrison Kass’s votes went to fellow “public safety candidate” and Rene Gonzalez network member Kezia Wanner, but there were simply too many progressive voters in southeast for her to break into the top three.
District 4
This race had one clear winner in Oliva Clark. And there was some nail-biting among three candidate below her. Watch how the voters who supported Bob Weinstein, Chad Lykins, and Sarah Silkie impact the top four. Eli Arnold is very close to winning that third seat, but the redistribution from more left-leaning candidates Lykins and Silkie sealed his fate
There are so many lessons and insights to glean from how this election shook out! Remember, if the animation is too quick, you can pause by clicking in the round window. Or just go round-by-round by hitting the arrows. If for some reason these don’t embed well in your browser, the direct link to each one is below:
If this intrigues you, I highly recommend checking out RCVis.com. Get a free login and find the Portland election and poke around the other voter data tools and tables they provide.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Because we all know electing our leadership and legislatures is just a game.
In District #1, “none of the above” (inactive ballots) actually had the most votes, and nearly the most in the other districts.
“none of the above” is incorrect. Inactive ballots includes excess votes from the winners. When electing three positions, there are guaranteed – in all systems – to be at least a quarter of the votes in excess. Imagine if the top three candidates split the vote evenly – 33.33%. You only need 25% to win. So that means 25% of the entire voting population voted “none of the above”, using your spin. Even though there were only three options! You could even say they were all wasted votes!
Furthermore, if there are more candidates than positions, no matter the voting system there are going to be other voters who only voted for candidates who didn’t win. That’s just losing. That’s not “none of the above”, that’s “the candidate I wanted didn’t win”.
Heaven forbid people actually enjoy the process of electing someone to represent them, amirite?
That reflects a complete misunderstanding of how this system works, as others have pointed out.
The only thing that’s a bummer about District 1 is that one of the three winners never passed the 25% threshold, not quite, which could only happen because too many people were just ranking one person, or not using many of their rankings, or only ranking more marginal candidates. I remember that question coming up, and supporters of single-transferable vote said it would be very unlikely to happen, but it did. Probably would not have changed the outcome, of course, but it doesn’t look good to have more exhausted ballots in District 1 than the other three Districts.
But again, that is always a possibility when there are more than two candidates. I don’t remember all of Wheeler’s elections, but in the previous one he won without getting 50%. We could address it by continuing to do runoffs until someone gets >50%, but if people don’t care that would just mean lower turnout, and STV/RCV/whatever addresses that by doing many runoffs. STAR theoretically (but probably not in practice) solves that by allowing you to rank everyone. But I don’t think the problem here was not being able to rank enough candidates. I think there were people who had a few candidates they liked, ranked them, and those just weren’t in the top 3.
Over the last few days I’ve realized how much my brain struggles to process RCV results! I think it’s really interesting that, despite most candidates requiring plenty of vote redistribution to the 25 percent threshold, all the candidates who ultimately came out on top got the most votes from the beginning. I don’t know if this is the expected outcome from RCV experts or if it typically works out differently and maybe the high number of candidates in each district meant a few rose to the top from the start. But these graphics are very interesting and help understand the voting pools in each district.
Agreed, this visualization is really helpful in understanding how this worked and what the trends were. Thanks for posting JM!
With the newest results actually Sameer Kanal does not have the most at the beginning, but is actually at the top and first to come across the line in D2. It really illustrates the importance of strong coalitions within each district – and how much support Kanal had from other candidates who encouraged their supporters to rank him 2nd or 3rd.
That less popular opinions/candidates are getting a boost in votes due to this new system doesn’t seem like a benefit to me.
In fact the proponents seem to even admit, if you read between the lines, that they like it because it gives an opportunity for their preferred candidates to be elected where before there was never a chance they would be.
To me that is just as bad right wing gerrymandering or attempts at voter suppression. It’s gross.
No one is given an unfair boost. Ideas are given a voice in proportion to the number of voters who hold them.
This plays out really clearly in D4, where the majority of voters believe it is inhumane to let mentally ill and addicted people suffer in the streets. Those voters ranked Clark, Zimmerman and Arnold as their first choice. Those candidates favor a policy of moving street campers to a Temporary Alternative Shelter Site or other facility, with the possibility of arrest as an incentivizing backstop. (That is the city’s current policy, and there have been very few arrests.)
Green, Lykins and Freeman were most vocal about allowing campers to stay on the street if they preferred to, and were against the possibility of arrest as a compelling motivator. That is a significant minority opinion in D4, and it was given representation on council through Green’s win.
The majority of voters may say they don’t want mentally ill and addicted people to suffer. What they actually want is to not have to see poor people existing in public places. There are not and never will be enough shelters for the current unhoused population. The pearl-clutching from candidates on this issue is political theater, that’s all.
The most powerful words I heard from any candidate, at any event this cycle came from Eli Arnold. He said, “I know the names of many people who have died on the streets.” That was right after he talked about taking a machete from a machete man in Couch Park.
Good thing he lost. I want more from my elected officials than shallow emotional appeals. For instance, an actual plan to provide enough housing for everyone.
Well, Eric Zimmerman developed the Temporary Alternative Shelter Sites while working at the city, and Olivia Clark started a non-profit which has built thousands of units of housing. D4 is gonna be OK.
Steven,
I’m honestly bummed Arnold didn’t make it through. Portland had a chance to elect someone who actually gets the reality on the ground. If all it took to fix housing was a shiny, idealistic plan, we’d be out of this mess by now! Housing First for the homeless clearly hasn’t worked here, and if anything, it’s highlighted just how much addiction, mental health, and accountability are being ignored.
And let’s be real—handing off the problem to so-called ‘homeless advocates’ like Mitch Green, Candace Avalos, and Angelita Morillo isn’t going to fix things either. Eli might not have been everyone’s ideal candidate, but at least he knows safety and livability go hand in hand. We don’t need more feel-good promises; we need people who can face the hard truths and get things done for all of Portland, not just the folks making noise.
I too think Eli Arnold would have been an excellent council member. But I think Zimmerman will be good in other ways. I have a hunch Arnold will run again.
Wow, I have to admit that is not a comment I would have expected from you Jonathan…supporting a cop? I’m pleasantly surprised. Steel yourself for some “boot licker” troll comments. :).
Ah yes, we know Housing First will never work, so we fail to implement Housing First, which proves Housing First never worked. Flawless logic.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “housing”. If it’s autonomous apartment living, it should be pretty obvious that’s not going to work — some people are simply too far gone to responsibly manage an apartment, pay bills, and be good neighbors.
If it’s a place of shelter where things are taken care of for residents, and where that can get access to support services, then we are trying it, with projects like Clinton TASS.
The third option, handing out tents, probably does not qualify, and, unfortunately, we have elected a government that is likely to continue the current status quo.
Giving tents to unhoused people in inclement weather does not prevent us from also building permanent supportive housing, which the data shows is working to reduce homelessness.
Getting people under a roof in inclement weather would be even better than giving people a tent and letting them fend for themselves on the street.
I like this magical shelter where the very same people who are incapable of respecting their neighbors suddenly become able to peacefully coexist in a building with hundreds of others. Unfortunately the real world doesn’t quite work that way.
They’re getting good results at the Clinton TASS. You should check it out.
Temporary Alternative Shelter Sites were promised to be a stepping stone to permanent housing. Results have been mixed, with only 42% of clients finding permanent housing since 2022. But if all you care about is not having to see poor people, then the results have been great I guess.
I can tell by your comment that you’ve never actually talked with any of the residents of the TASS. I have. Without exception, everyone I’ve spoken with has said the program is great, even those who’ve been on the streets for a decade or more.
They deal with the hardest cases, so a 42% success is pretty good. And the others still have a roof over their heads.
And since they’re right in my neighborhood, and folks can come and go as they please, I see “poor people” all the time, and my neighbors and I think the program is pretty great too.
I think you just don’t like the program because Wheeler implemented it and it’s working a whole lot better than “tents first”.
There is no “tents first” policy. That’s a mindless reaction to the most visible sign of an unhoused population. You might want to actually read the county’s Homelessness Response Action Plan. The strategies include: increasing the number of “shelters and shelter alternatives”; increasing access to “behavioral health supports”; establishing “interventions aimed at preventing unsheltered
homelessness”; and increasing the “supply of affordable housing”. Nothing about handing out tents.
“Nothing about handing out tents.”
And yet, this is what they do. Look at their actions, not their words.
OK, I will: According to data from JOHS, nearly 5,000 unhoused people moved into housing in FY 2024, and nearly 7,900 entered a shelter. This is a 28% increase in people moving into housing and a 35% increase in shelter use over FY 2023.
Am I saying they’re doing a perfect job? Of course not. But to pretend the county or JOHS is doing nothing to shelter unhoused people is just conspiratorial fantasy.
This is not “what they do”. This is one thing they do. They also, I don’t know, drive around to do their job. This is not a “driving around to do their job first policy” just because it’s one tiny part of what they do.
Also, I hope you have a plan to transport literally thousands of people (and their belongings) to and from shelters every night. A fleet of autonomous robo-vans perhaps? Should only cost about a billion dollars or so.
“Housing First” as the county implements it is a complete failure. The whole thought that temporary housing was something to be avoided at all costs doomed it to failure.
Hopefully the new set of politicians will see the need to first get people simple shelter and a meal. Then working with social services decide what the next thing for them to be.
It could be help finding a job, vouchers to help pay rent, dental or medical needs, addiction services, or any combination.
But the county thought they could build over priced housing, hand someone keys and be done. In the real world that doesn’t work.
There’s a flaw in your claim that Housing First is a failure, namely, that neither Portland nor Multnomah county have a Housing First program. What you’re describing does not exist.
How Housing First Exists in Multnomah County:
Alright, let’s set the record straight: Housing First is very much a thing in Multnomah County. Portland and the county both hang their hats on this model. The Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS), a partnership between the city and county, has taken Housing First to heart, starting with the basics—get people into stable housing without preconditions like sobriety, employment, or whether they floss every night.
They’ve thrown money into programs like the “Supportive Housing Services” initiative, funded by a new regional tax. The plan is to provide housing alongside supportive services for mental health and addiction, so folks can get back on their feet. Then there’s rapid rehousing and other low-barrier options meant to get people off the streets and under a roof, pronto. In theory, this is Housing First at its finest—give people a place to live, and the rest will follow.
How Housing First Hasn’t Helped:
But here’s the rub: even with Housing First in full swing, the results have been… underwhelming, to say the least.
Visible Homelessness Still Sky-High: Drive through downtown Portland, and it’s hard to miss the tent cities and RV clusters. They’re as much a fixture as the coffee shops. Turns out, just because you’ve got Housing First programs doesn’t mean everyone’s clamoring to use them—or that there’s enough housing to go around. The demand outstrips the supply, so we’re left with sprawling encampments and a sense that Housing First might be more “housing… eventually.”
Service Gaps: Now, Housing First doesn’t come cheap. You need not only housing but also mental health and addiction services to make it work. Problem is, Multnomah County can’t seem to keep up with the need for all that. Many people end up back on the streets or just skip engaging with the programs because, for some, the support they need isn’t there or the hoops they have to jump through are still a turn-off.
Trouble with Complex Cases: Housing First is solid on paper, but in reality? It’s not a cure-all. Some people have severe mental health or addiction issues that make housing a tough fit. Even with no-strings-attached housing options, a chunk of people would rather live in tents or RVs. So, while Housing First may work for some, others slip through the cracks—or, more accurately, just stay put on the pavement.
Bottom line: Multnomah County has invested in Housing First, no question. But between resource shortfalls, implementation headaches, and a few too many complex cases to handle, the results have been, well, not exactly what the brochure promised.
In other words, we know Housing first will never work, so we don’t adequately fund Housing First, which proves Housing First never worked. “Break it, then blame it”. I see no evidence that a Housing First model is now or has ever been “in full swing”.
Weird how the failure to completely eradicate visible homelessness is never blamed on traditional homeless shelters, which have been around for decades and have also failed to eradicate visible homelessness.
Housing First works when it’s properly implemented with a wide range of support from just helping folks have a roof over their head to triage them to determine their needs from job placement to addiction services.
What we have in Multnomah County/Portland/Metro is not that, and thus has been a failure.
There are small successes, but they are too small and the powers in control aren’t willing to make them more widespread.
Afterall, if homeless was solved, how many of those non-profits would be out of business? Yes, the Homeless Industrial Complex is a real thing.
Funny how the people running temporary shelters like Urban Alchemy and their pals in City Hall aren’t considered part of the “homeless industrial complex”. Seems like that term only gets bandied about when people start talking about actually ending homelessness.
If you have a solution that works great but can’t scale, it doesn’t really work great. Or really, at all.
I should clarify that I, at least, have no problem with “housing first”. None at all.
What I have a problem with is “tents first”, which has been the county’s actual strategy, as implemented.
I see. You want to take away the first line of protection against wind, rain, and sun from some of the most vulnerable people. All for their own good, I’m sure. Do you also oppose handing out face masks during an infectious disease outbreak?
I want people indoors, not in a tent. I’ve said that about 10 times. Not sure why you can’t understand that.
You’re inventing a false choice between giving people tents and providing more stable shelter. It’s not either/or. Do you have any evidence that tent/tarp distribution is significantly harming the city/county’s ability to provide shelter to unhoused people?
The tents are a visible symbol of the county’s deprioritization of getting people indoors.
If tents-first lets the county feel they are adequately serving people in need, then it is a harmful policy.
So you have no evidence. Got it.
Pot, meet kettle.
Well which is it? These are contradictory claims: people don’t want it, and there isn’t enough of it.
I agree, the demand outstrips the supply. In other words, we haven’t done it, actually.
or maybe women and elderly dont want to read stories and worry about being sucker punched. and the rest of us would rather not have the anxiety that comes from being screamed at randomly on the street.
Gee, it’s almost like local news media deliberately spreads fear-mongering anti-homeless propaganda to drive up ratings. I’ve been screamed at by irate drivers more times than by homeless people.
Its real. I’ve been jumped twice, both after 2015 when Hales allowed camping on the trails, by what appeared to be homeless men–but I lived in Lents and walked on our MUPs–like we’re encouraging people to do on this blog.
I’ve been assaulted too, but not by homeless men. Crime is an unfortunate reality of modern society, but it won’t be ended by criminalizing homelessness. You’ll forgive me if I don’t see two alleged incidents in almost a decade as evidence of a major crisis.
This is a bizarre, incorrect, and misinformed spin on how rcv works. It’s pure disinformation.
Less popular candidates are not getting a boost, at all. Rather, the more popular candidates are getting a boost because they pick up votes from people that support fringe candidates who get eliminated in the early rounds.
I’m not exactly shocked to see it. BikePortland ceased being about cycling a long time ago, it’s almost entirely an outlet for promoting Portland’s progressive political machine.
Just today on the OMTM list there was some lamentation about how cyclists are perceived in the rural areas of our region. We’re assumed to be progressive loonies from the city intruding in other people’s communities. And now we’re told to expect violence from these folks, and need to band together for safety and security.
I wonder if any of y’all ever think about the division broadcasted here, and the constant attempts to make cycling a monocultural, monotheistic worship service for only the most far flung end of the political spectrum.
If anyone assumes us to be moneyed elites from academia ready to upend their way of life, I honestly don’t blame them. We shout it from the rooftops all the damned time.
Wow this is just such a strange takeaway. I strongly disagree with this comment. Bikeportland gives voice to a wide range of perspectives both in the issues and people that are subjects of stories and in the discussion of them here in the comments. You’re just wrong.
Jonathan,I reckon Jeff’s got a nugget of truth here. Sometimes the Portland cycling scene does come off a bit exclusive or elitist in a left leaning type of way, like you need to flash a progressive passport just to be taken seriously. It’s as if every bike ride has to be a political statement, when some of us are just here to enjoy a good pedal and maybe not look like a rolling social justice class.
And look, not everyone outside Portland’s city limits is exactly thrilled by a bunch of lycra-clad college educated Bernie Sanders supporters zipping through their town. They’ve probably heard all sorts of tales that cyclists from the Portland are out to “urbanize” the countryside, and fair enough, I can see where that perception’s coming from. Doesn’t help if we come in looking and sounding like we’re on a cultural crusade.
So maybe we give rural folks a bit of space, hey? Show them we’re just blokes (and sheilas) on bikes — not envoys from a Portland think tank or some racial justice nonprofit. I reckon the more down-to-earth we can make cycling look, the more they’ll warm up to the idea that we’re just enjoying a good ride, not trying to annex their backyard or spread Portland politics ( and its dysfunction).
And what does that look like exactly? Because to me, that’s what people do. It’s not like bike rides go around the country side with protest signs or ride door to door doing political canvassing in the middle of eastern Oregon.
If by “give rural folks a bit of space” you mean don’t go there, then no. If you mean compromise morals, also no.
I think he means don’t be so goddamn judgey. You know, live and let live.
Yeah but what does that mean, in practical terms? When you’re out on a group ride (or just solo), is there some body language people are putting off that just says “I’m judging you”? Is it a particular choice of cycling brands? Color or material of jersey?
Do you really need a guide on how not to be an a-hole when riding on the streets? Seems like following the golden rule should apply always, no matter where you are.
If you don’t know the “golden rule” then heaven help us.
The counter to this is that previously voters had to calculate the chance each candidate had of winning. If a candidate they really liked was thought to be unlikely to win, they would feel pressure to vote for someone they didn’t really like but who had the best chance of beating the person they really didn’t like. I think this factored into the mayoral election and many people voted for Wilson instead of Rubio because they felt safe.
The more interesting question now is how this will shape future elections? Will the classical binary appeals give way to more solution/ policy oriented platforms?
Clarke told an anecdote at an event, – apologies if I garbleit – about an amazing candidate decades ago, a woman, who everyone loved for their past work. Asking a (male) mentor about running for office, that person made a comment that while the person had great goals, due to political realities they would NEVER win an election in a binary D/R system. So she didn’t run.
RCV would have allowed someone like her with ‘no chance to beat Mr. X’ to run, and pick up voters who disliked Mr X but previously voted for him brcause they simply disliked Mr. Y more.
Would Wilson have won in an old-style election? Maybe; Rene is the Eric Adams of Portland, and Rubio drove over her own feet several times (and never left a note), so perhaps this was inevitable. But in an election where there were two ‘serious’ candidates and a bunch of ‘go ahead, throw away your vote’ types, many would have felt compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils. RCV enabled someone who offered an alternative to “gotta vote for one of em” to win.
It isn’t perfect, but what is?
I never felt that pressure and folks can still feel that pressure under RCV. I only voted for 2 or 3 candidates as they were the ones I liked, not because they were the “best” according to polls. Others may have only voted for those most likely to win as you say RCV supposedly is solving for. I’m no fan of RCV. It’s a convoluted solution in search of a non-existent problem.
To help me not be swayed by polls I make it a policy to avoid as much news as possible, not just for political reasons, but just for my own sanity in general.
I hope that all those folks who voted down the statewide measure will also vote out RCV if it comes to a vote in Portland again.
Well, you sound like a very uncommon person then, or very aloof and don’t really care about consequences. Or I just don’t believe you.
Most people who bother to take the time to vote think about making the most impact they can with their vote. They think about things like not spoiling the chances of a good candidate and letting a candidate with minority support win.
You literally are responding to people talking about the “non-existent problem”. For being non-existent, it sure does wreak a lot of havoc!
I’m with you. RCV can’t go away soon enough.
Yeah, our votes are no longer ours. I voted for 3 candidates in my district, and though 2 did end up winning the 3rds votes were “transferred” to other candidates that I did NOT vote for. What a convoluted system that is totally unnecessary.
All that the election had to be was choose 3 candidates for your district, the ballots run through the machines, and low and behold the top 3 vote getters from all the ballots win. It could have been so simple and easy but no, not in Portland,
REPEAL RCV NOW!
SolarEclipse, you’ve constructed a world for yourself which allows no light.
But I appreciate your comment anyway, because it let’s me, once again, link to Portland musician and director Mont Chris Hubbard’s so satisfying video explaining the significance of our new, proportional voting system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOdZvZkrrSI
If you didn’t rank them, 0 of your votes supported someone you didn’t vote for. Period. Your rankings only help the candidates you rank and nobody else. If someone you voted for wins, but got more than 25%, *and* you ranked someone else below them, some fraction of your vote will go to help the other person you voted for. That is if you ranked them! There is no downside to that for you.
The only case where a vote can help someone you didn’t want is vote splitting which is still possible – less so but not none. But that’s not what you’re talking about. What you’re talking about didn’t happen and I feel like it has been explained so many times that this doesn’t happen, you must be deliberately twisting the truth.
How can you *possibly* be upset that you got a 2 out of 3 agreement with your vote? You voted for 3 and got 2 of them! That’s a good outcome!
That’s not what is happening and it’s not what people like.
What I believe, and I think is the argument others make, is that in first past the post, voters are not voting for who they actually want. They are playing defensively in order to avoid having a disliked candidate win. And we believe enough people do that, that it actually gets us a sub-par outcome. People want A, but vote for B, because they don’t want to get C, and enough people do this that if they voted how they actually want, A would have won.
The whole thought that my vote could be “transferred” to someone I definitely didn’t want to get my vote sure sounds like vote stealing.
At first blush the thought to apply some sort of social justice to the voting process might seem like a good thing, but RCV has really turned out to be the wrong way to do it.
That didn’t happen.
My husband just pointed out to me that I missed a teaching opportunity. You don’t get three votes, you get one. Your 1 vote counted toward one of the two winners you picked. Once your vote has been assigned, your ballot is out of play.
(Unless that winner had surplus votes above 25%, then a fraction of your vote goes to your next standing choice. At no point does your vote count toward someone you didn’t rank.)
You clearly don’t understand how RCV works. Please educate yourself instead of claiming RCV is bad and should be repealed. If you are such a fan of the old voting method, remember that RCV was PASSED under that process…
Fresh results (this is just for D2)! Love these animations: https://www.rcvis.com/v/city_of_portland__councilor__district_2_2024_11_07_17_45_27
Have you seen what reporter Shane Kavanaugh tweeted about the lack of voting in Portland with RCV? POC, blue color and low income disenfranchisement is what I see….
“Portland’s ranked-choice debut causes voter engagement to crater.
1 in 5 who cast ballots chose no one for City Council
In east Portland, the city’s poorest & most racially diverse quadrant, it was 29%.
11% of residents who voted sat out mayor’s race”
https://x.com/shanedkavanaugh/status/1856147054579593287
Yes, it disenfranchises working class people and immigrants with lower reading comprehension because they have less ability to process all the information and canidates bios and arguably less time to research and fill out the ballot.
But as we have seen with this years election in many ways, progressives, who designed this system in order to win, are not connecting with people who have low education.
And i own this, lest i am accused as I have been on this blog of being paternalistic or whatever, I am stating something that has years of evidence behind it. People with less education and ESL people do not read as well.
My other critique is that multi-member districts allow for equal votes for the candidate that got the most (or highest) votes and 2 less popular candidtates. The candidate with the most support from the public should have the most power. Not equal to the candidates with less support.
Do you think it’s RCV or bad timing of RCV with so many candidates and new city council system? Or both I guess. But I think it would have still been overwhelming to vote for city council and mayor without RCV this year. When I first opened the ballot, I saw the huge list and just set it aside for days.
I think it’s the number of candidates (there’s a reason why primary turnout is always lower), and also the need to rank them (different and also hard).
Others probably set their ballots aside for the same reason you did, but not all of them came back to it.
With no RCV, there would have been many fewer candidates to contend with — most would have been weeded out in the primaries, and the voters guide would not have resembled a small city phonebook.