Dismal Turnout in Austin Runoff- Last Day to Vote Early

Good, accurate post (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for dialing it back a bit. It's clear both sides have gone negative - I'm amazed at the number of people who expect me to believe that only Galindo's side has (although his recent attacks were less artful than hers).  

---

by: m1ek @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 17:07:32 PM UTC

No motivation to vote... (0.00 / 0)

As a die-hard political junkie that has voted in all elections for years, this is one election where I'm just fed up. At this point, I don't like either candidate. It's only the knowledge that no vote = no voice that will get me to the polls on Saturday. To bad we can't start over...

---

by: GlennM @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 17:56:19 PM UTC

We're all getting a bit tired (0.00 / 0)

I know that many people are tired of politics and voting and the campaigns and everything that goes with it (good and bad). I think that this is a case in point for instant runoff balloting. The campaigns would have saved money, they wouldn't have gone negative, and Cravey might of had a chance.

All in all, I can't see why such a progressive city is stuck with some antiquated campaigns and regulations and "agreements". IVR would allow for more competition for seats. We might actually elect more minorities without having to "save" a spot for them. IVR would save both the candidates and public money by only having one election. Their are a host of positives for IVR. Austin needs several reforms in their city council/mayoral elections and this would be a good first step.

---

by: matthew_lt @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 19:36:42 PM UTC

Or just "top X" voting (0.00 / 0)

if there's 3 places open, one big election; top 3 candidates get the seats. Then you don't end up with 2 candidates you like knocking each other out of the race while weaker candidates win the other seats.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 20:05:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Central Austin Voters (0.00 / 0)

Then Central Austin voters could be in control of every council seat in just one election rather than two. Much more efficent. White voters could just pick minority council members outright with even less concern for what the minority community needs or wants.

---

by: ssuits @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 20:37:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure (0.00 / 0)

I don't think IRV would result in a power-shift; the same voters still get to cast the same votes - it's just that the general election voters get to do the runoff right away. The current state of affairs ensures that a smaller bloc of voters controls things every time there's a runoff.

But I'd think that choosing 3 out of the whole list (for 3 open spaces) would result in better representation overall - you could also go with the system where you get 3 votes to cast, and could toss all 3 of them to one candidate if you wanted.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 20:45:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]