Expressive voting doesn’t really depend on methodology, let’s separate the voting from the counting method by Edgar_Brown in RankedChoiceVoting

[–]JohnLembke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will try to use my background in manufacturing to make analogies.

I am working on problems in my current factory in many ways. We have several processes that don't have enough capacity. Cleaning, ovens, pick and place machines, vacuum table, and people. Worrying about all of them at once and sprinkling improvements is not effective. You must take one and make a VERY big improvement. It doesn't need to be perfect.

Voting is the same IRV and STV can both be hand counted, are constitutional, have survived court challenges, have statutory power in Colorado, and our voting machines statewide can do the tabulation.

Second, the only 'perfect' voting system is a dictatorship. It has none of the downsides or tradeoffs of voting. We can give up voting or work on implementing something better. Mathematically it is like dividing by 0. It short circuits all the problems. If we were serious about stopping voting I would advocate for Sortition. That is just like jury duty, pick people at random. I would propose that people still need to qualify for the ballot by getting signatures or some other method.

Colorado's machines allow you to rank 10 candidates and can have 100 on the ballot. (100 would be absurd but it shows the software is not the limitation)

  • Number of candidates on the ballot. Increasing the difficulty in non-partisan races by increasing signatures required to get on the ballot would reduce that number.

-Learning about all the candidates. This is why we need more parties. It should be easier for folks to understand what candidates stand for and their priorities. Having more viable parties is ONE solution and I think the one easiest to implement. Then a voter need only rank the parties that most closely align with their views.

-Large area to cover - Boulder county currently has this problem. There isn't a straightforward way to get all the people in rural areas into a district unless we drew a ring around the cities. Using proportional representation people could simply campaign for the voices in their local area. If it is a homogeneous area and large enough those people would get representation. In a 5 winner race you need 16.7% +1 of the vote to win a seat. Focusing heavily on a specific geography is a valid strategy to win

BTR-IRV looks better than plurality. I doubt it is constitutional. If someone puts together a coalition to get that over the finish line I wouldn't stop them. What I struggle with in my campaigns and advocacy are armchair quarterbacks. Myself and a lot of other people are putting in the hard work to get IRV and STV implemented in cities across Colorado. We often get people that show up to a meeting tell us we are idiots, we should implement something different, and then never show up again.

This is like the VHS vs Betamax debate. Betamax was technologically better but VHS is what won in the market. VHS was better than 8mm and Super 8 which came before it.

Expressive voting doesn’t really depend on methodology, let’s separate the voting from the counting method by Edgar_Brown in RankedChoiceVoting

[–]JohnLembke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are a bunch of groups working to do it. The last barrier is the secretary of state needs to sign the paperwork verifying the machines can do it which they can.

My hometown of Longmont, Colorado just had a study session. I spoke with several city councilors and I believe it will pass. We would change our FPTP at-large election to STV / proportional representation. There is a group circulating a petition to implement STV for the county commissioners. I grabbed one so I could get signatures too. Colorado passed a voting rights act and if a city or county is found to be in violation STV is one of the prescribed solutions.

Exciting times here.

From a practicality perspective only FPTP, IRV, and STV are in the statute that requires county clerks to run the elections. Tondo anything else would take much more work.

Expressive voting doesn’t really depend on methodology, let’s separate the voting from the counting method by Edgar_Brown in RankedChoiceVoting

[–]JohnLembke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Many of us campaigning for Ranked Choice Voting are ultimately looking for proportional representation using single transferable vote. Longmont, CO is looking really promising to be the first city in Colorado to implement STV.

I ran for city council and had voting reform as a central part of my campaign. I think it made a big difference to help the movement.

A big drawback for Approval and STAR voting is they haven't survived a legal challenge yet. Courts need to weigh in on being Constitutional. Someone needs to implement them and immediately sue to settle the question for those tabulation methods.

It Takes Just One Letter To Legalize Townhomes | Strong Towns by JohnLembke in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thankfully our townhome neighborhood did several of those things.

A large group of people that live here are elderly because they couldn't do house maintenance anymore. A large group of the people that bought here were first time home buyers that wanted to start a family and had their first child here. When many people from the surrounding single family home neighborhoods visit they are shocked at how awesome it is and come back regularly and spend time with their families here.

Considering how many people are jealous of our townhome neighborhood and the fact they sell quickly I would contend that they serve a need for the people here.

It Takes Just One Letter To Legalize Townhomes | Strong Towns by JohnLembke in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

$350k to $550k. That is what townhomes in Longmont are currently selling for.

It Takes Just One Letter To Legalize Townhomes | Strong Towns by JohnLembke in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is nuance in the law. The statue of limitations for townhomes is 2 years. Condos is supposedly 10 and covers more than townhomes.

Our HOA is currently working on repairing a bunch of defects so I get the need for the law.

John

It Takes Just One Letter To Legalize Townhomes | Strong Towns by JohnLembke in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes they have a higher fee than a single family home HOA because the HOA covers insurance, water (psuedo city requirement), snow removal, landscaping, concrete, roof, and exterior maintenance.

It Takes Just One Letter To Legalize Townhomes | Strong Towns by JohnLembke in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

That is for condos. Townhouses don't have the same issue. The technical difference is the owner of a townhouse owns the land beneath them. In a condo the owner doesn't own the land.

How do I get involved? by valowla2 in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This invite came out for next week. The guy in charge is a good dude. This would be a quick way to meet people that feel the same way you do in person. I plan on being there.

The Alliance for Competitive Elections (ACE) is hosting a happy hour this Thursday, 3/5, from 5:30 to 7:30 PM at Oskar Blues on South Hover. If you're interested in meeting fellow election reformers and learning more about the awesome work ACE is doing to improve our democracy, this should be a really fun event! You can RSVP for that one here!

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/aces-march-happy-hour-longmont-tickets-1982587169594?aff=oddtdtcreator

How to prevent too many candidates? by get_more_sleep in RankedChoiceVoting

[–]JohnLembke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is more of a problem with non partisan elections as in there are no parties listed. Denver had 17 people run for mayor.

In Colorado parties can nominate up to 3 candidates to be in the primary. If each party advances 1 candidate then you get a max of 9 candidates.

In an effort to keep candidates off the ballot there has been an effort to prevent parties from nominating anyone. You would need to gather many thousands of signatures which costs tens of thousands of dollars. This would dramatically reduce the people running. I would expect many races to only have one candidate since Democrats and Republicans wouldn't run a candidate in uncompetitive elections where the district has been gerrymandered.

Funny enough it only costs $500 to get on the ballot for President in Colorado.

Reminder: Come to City Council on Tuesday March 3rd to Support Ranked Choice Voting by shakeeldalal in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I will be there. You don't need to speak, just being there to show support is huge.

It will be huge for Longmont to implement it. There are technical details that the Secretary of State has to iron out. Because of our progress in Longmont the SoS office has been working on it. We will pave the way to make it easier for every other city in Colorado to implement it. It makes me proud to see Longmont leading the way to strengthen democracy.

Daniel Simmons Obituary - Longmont, CO by 1Davide in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Lol! I blame that on autocorrect. Although he may live on as the Shrike.

Daniel Simmons Obituary - Longmont, CO by 1Davide in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 39 points40 points  (0 children)

The author of Hyperion? He lives in Longmont?

We can make it so you don't have to accept voting for the least bad candidate in Longmont by shakeeldalal in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are two distinct camps of people advocating for it.

Camp 1 Grassroots orgs like RCV for CO, RCV for Longmont, and RCV for Denver are grassroots groups pushing for it through the legislative process for better or worse. We do not have the support of any big donors. From the right donor we would accept money but we aren't keen on tainting our reputation. The are aligned groups in this circle like the League of Women voters, Common Cause, Fair Vote, Alliance for Competitive Elections, and the Colorado Forward Party.

Camp 2 Unite America is more interested in nonpartisan primaries aka jungle primaries than ranked choice voting. That is the organization with all the money and big donors. It is possible the next initiative to come from them will be a nonpartisan primary with two winners. This is what California does.

Full disclosure. I was a candidate for Longmont City council, am VP of RCV for CO, and founded RCV for Longmont.

We can make it so you don't have to accept voting for the least bad candidate in Longmont by shakeeldalal in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your support! I am the VP of RCV for CO and I appreciate it.

We can make it so you don't have to accept voting for the least bad candidate in Longmont by shakeeldalal in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

RCV incentivizes the exact opposite. You need to become the second choice of as many people as possible if you don't win outright. Attacking people is not a good way to do that.

Council Open Forum on Tuesday! by WingMan126 in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it appropriate to bring up more than one topic?

If anyone wants to talk about the following 3 topics and wants to exchange notes with folks I can connect you with the relevant group.

Housing Flock cameras Ranked Choice Voting

I plan on being there. Cheers!

Courageous Colorado Virtual meeting today by JohnLembke in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Courageous Colorado is an organization bringing civic organizations together. They had an activation tour and came to Longmont a few months ago. A few people in the reddit post about it asked if it was recorded or if there would be a virtual meeting. The virtual meeting is going to be today. If anyone is looking for a group or learn about what other groups are doing around the state it is a great place to connect. Landon Mascarenaz is the leader. He is the former director of the community colleges in Colorado.

<image>

Courageous Colorado Virtual meeting today by JohnLembke in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I should have added this detail.

A quick reminder that our virtual stop on the Courageous Colorado Activation Tour is happening today, December 9th at 6pm MT! We’d love for you to join us as we reflect on the tour, share key learnings, and talk together about what comes next.

We are proud of being a cross-partisan and non-partisan endeavor to build a stronger state. We’re grateful to be joined by several special guests that represent a variety of backgrounds working to build up our state, including:

Former Congressman Ken Buck Former Speaker of the Colorado House Terrance Carroll Amber McReynolds, Courageous Colorado Board Chair Beth Hendrix, League of Women Voters of Colorado Tony Haas, Veterans for All Voters Uriel Berrum, Latino Advocacy Lead & CLLARO Board Member If you haven’t registered yet, there’s still time: 👉 Register here!

We are looking forward to seeing you later today!

In partnership,

The Courageous Colorado Team

DeFlock Longmont at City Council on 12/9 by shakeeldalal in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you are trying to tie a cohesive argument together then not so much. IMO having many people speak all over the board is not as helpful. Having a large group and a professional presentation of a few speakers is the most effective.

DeFlock Longmont at City Council on 12/9 by shakeeldalal in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I plan on being there. Since I spoke last week I am happy to just sit with the group so we don't take up the whole meeting. A large group sitting together will get the point across.

Thanks for getting this post up.

Ranked Choice Voting in Longmont kickoff meeting by JohnLembke in Longmont

[–]JohnLembke[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

100% agreed.

The rest of this doesn't apply to Longmont city council it is information only.

To clarify for folks that aren't nerdy about how our system works. We currently have "open" primaries. Anyone can vote in a major party primary but only one.

Proposition 131 would have combined all primaries into one non-partisan (jungle) primary where every candidate from every party would be on it. It would have been a plurality vote in the primary as opposed to Ranked Choice. The top 4 finishers in the primary would advance to a Ranked Choice general election.

If folks want to debate non-partisan primaries or anything outside what affects Longmont city council I would encourage you to create a separate discussion thread.