It looks like the "higher ups" didn't go for all the "majority" hype on the ballot language proposed by FAVOR. Cheers to Doug Zier from the Oregon Attorney General's Office for referring to the IRV "majority" as an "artificial majority." That's a pretty accurate and succinct description. Most of the rank and file FAVOR members are happy with this result, but note the concerns of Mr. Rhyne, their leader. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:15:21 -0700 From: Fillard Rhyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairVoteOR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [FairVoteOR] Certified ballot title for #35 Petition #35 now has a certified ballot title: ================================================== ESTABLISHES INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING PROCEDURE DETERMINING WINNER BASED ON VOTERS' RANKED PREFERENCE AMONG MULTIPLE CANDIDATES RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote establishes an instant runoff voting procedure at primary and general elections that determines winner based on the voters' ranked preference among multiple candidates. RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains current voting procedure determining election result based on highest number of votes, even when no candidate received majority of total votes cast. SUMMARY: Currently, candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast at election are nominated or elected. This measure creates an instant runoff voting procedure to determine winner based on voters' ranked preference among multiple candidates. If no candidate for partisan office (including write-in candidates) receives a majority of total votes cast after the initial vote count, the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes are transferred to the voter's next-ranked preferred choice. Elimination of individual candidates continues until one candidate receives a majority of the total votes. In elections for nonpartisan office, similar procedure establishes majority winner or determines two nominees for the general election ballot. Measure requires public report of election results, including disposition of transferred votes. Other provisions. ================================================== The May 17 letter from the attorney general's office explaining the rationale behind the certified title is at <http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2002/035cbt.pdf> (pages 3 to 6). My May 9 comments on the draft ballot title are at <http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2002/035cmts.pdf>. If we decide to appeal the ballot title, the deadline is June 1 (and of course we would want to move quickly anyway). The certified ballot title never actually uses the word "majority" in describing instant runoff. This omission could in theory be a matter of priorities - that is, Doug Zier (the person in the attorney general's office who signed the letter) could have felt that it was more important to clarify various other matters, such as the fact that instant runoff would apply both to nominations and to elections. I actually _don't_ think it was a matter of priorities, largely because Zier used the phrase "artificial majority" within the letter while discussing instant runoff. This suggests that Zier probably made a concrete decision to never use the word "majority" in describing instant runoff, a decision we might easily see again at the supreme court level. Note that while the certified ballot title doesn't credit instant runoff with a majority, it does explicitly state that the current system can't be credited with a majority either. It does that in the "no" result. So that's good. Of course it would have been better if this explicit statement were appended to _both_ places where the current system is credited with "highest number of votes wins", or alluded to in the caption (the first 15 words) like in the title for petition #26. Our three biggest options at this point are: o Move forward with petition #35. o Move forward with petition #26. o Challenge the title for petition #35. I'll get back to you with my thoughts on which option is best. Two relevant questions are: o What specific improvements do we realistically think the supreme court would accept? o How much time would it take the supreme court to process our challenge? What resources would we expend? Would the potential improvements be worth it? Fillard To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/