Chris Bortz on PR and Issue 8

Guest article by Chris Bortz.

I noticed you blog posting on the robo call I recorded in opposition to Issue 8.  I think it is important first to note that the Charter Board vote in support of PR was a very close one, a margin of about 4 or 5 votes out of over 30. 

As you may already know, during the last Electoral Reform Commission, I fought hard for Proportional Representation.  Since that time, I have written articles and blogs touting the benefits of PR.  However, in the last few months, I have spoken up at Charter Board meetings and to constituents in opposition to PR at this time for very specific reasons.

First and foremost, there has been no process to be inclusive and educate people on this new system.  Charter amendments should never be taken lightly, nor should ballot initiatives.  A change of this kind should be discussed, debated, and deliberated over in a public forum.

· Is single transferable vote the best form of PR for our city?

· What would it do to other electoral reforms that have been debated over the years?

· How long will it take to develop the software?

· How much will it cost?

· What impact might it have on voter turnout ?

These are just a few questions, for some of which conflicting answers have been offered.

For example, the Director of the Board of Elections (a professional source) testified in front of Council that it would likely cost millions, may be physically impossible to develop software in a timely manner, and manual counting could potentially be prohibited, per the Secretary of State, due to the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

And, under the single transferable vote PR system, there truly is the statistical probability that some votes would not be counted, depending on the order in which they are counted.  It will be difficult to develop a software system that could assign, and reassign, the votes without great risk of susceptibility to programming “flaws”.

The voting instructions for Issue 8 are very different than the “directions to voters” for PR.  While voters don’t read Ohio’s statute on the Electoral College as they go to vote for president, I would sincerely hope that if we were changing the way that the Electoral College worked, that voters would read the entire petition.

Again, people will be voting on Issue 8, and the description of the amendment is lengthy and complicated.  The PR Charter amendment ordinance (attached - yes, over four pages) would result in placement of the petition language in its entirety on the November 2008 ballot.  While Ohio Revised Code does allow for a summary to be placed on the ballot, a copy of the petition text in its entirety would be required to be posted in each polling station under state law.  While some voters may choose not to read the entire 4 pages, that does not negate the fact that there are 4 pages of very complicated instructions, which Council was required to approve on September 4.

Finally, I believe it would be irresponsible at this time to be a proponent of a system in which the average voter, and even some of the more informed voters, have a difficult time explaining.

==

Editor’s Note: The attached document contains four pages for the proposed charter amendment, but the actual directions for voters is just under one page long.