Archived Ants
« Issue #37 ------More Ant Bytes | Main | ** New Posting Policy for THE RED ANT ** »
Wednesday
Oct142009

IRV -- Aspen Reconsiders on November 3 (Don't Forget to Vote)

 

DON’T FORGET THAT 61 CENTS POSTAGE IS REQUIRED ON YOUR RETURN BALLOT

Aspen voters will tell City Hall how they feel about continuing to use the IRV method for municipal elected office, which was used for the first time in May.

Whether or not you liked the outcome, you probably have views on the methodology. Did you understand it? Do you know whether yours was one of the 17% of the ballots not counted in the Council race runoff?

This site will be used to collect information and opinions regarding IRV and the upcoming advisory vote in November’s mail in ballot election. DON’T FORGET THAT 61 CENTS POSTAGE IS REQUIRED ON YOUR RETURN BALLOT. (that information is not on the ballot.)

October 14th Aspen Times has two columns expressing views on IRV. Please share your opinions.  We encourage you to identify yourself and avoid screen names which can lead to irresponsible on line comments, which will be deleted. We’re happy for  spirited, even controversial discussions. But we will insist that the comments remain on topic and avoid personal attacks.

Andy Stone: A Stone's Throw

My uncle Irv messed up Aspen's elections

Andy Stone

Wednesday, October 14, 2009  Aspen Times

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20091014/COLUMN/910139980/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1061

 Feel free to post comments, as I've posted mine below.

The Red Ant information below has all the data on the litigation Andy references:

http://theredant.squarespace.com/red-ant-blog/2009/10/10/co-court-asked-to-order-release-of-election-records.html

Su Lum: Slumming

Time for November election endorsements

The Aspen Times
Aspen, CO Colorado

 

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20091014/COLUMN/910139979/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1061

Feel free to post your comments (with your name please) below as I've posted mine.

You Tube IRV! 

Don't feel that you know enough about IRV? See some of these just produced videos, which are actually totally fun to watch.See entry on IRV YouTube below.

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (5)

Su says "I thought we should have some kind of “weeding” process early on and then have the “real” election as the finale.

We're being asked if we want to continue IRV voting, but are being given no choices as to what would replace it. In the absence of alternatives, I'm going to vote to continue Instant Runoff Voting. It worked, no one has challenged the results, and I am sick to death of the fear-mongering tactics and legal challenges to a system that actually worked. Like, duh! Not a single candidate is disputing the outcome, so what's the problem? "

Marilyn says: I agree that a "weeding process" is needed to focus the race on issues when there are a managable number of finalists. While not perfect, the traditional run off system seemed to accomplish that. We lacked any chance to get to know the candidates or their stance on issues with IRV.

Just because no one is challenging the election surely does not mean that "it worked," as Su claims. Most of the candidates didn't have the technology or mathemathical expertise avialable to know whether they even merited a recount.

Few people have enough understanding of IRV to know how the tabulation was done. The promises that we could all test for ourselves didn't come true. That does not fit my definition of "working." The tabulations still have not been audited. Apparently, "it worked" means to some that there was no paper jam in the black box that created a delay in achieving the results. Maybe "it worked" merely means that Mick won.
Vote NO to return to some understandable form of voting.

October 14 | Registered CommenterElizabeth

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>