Talk:Question P

Untitled

Question: how were the candidates election when there were three-member districts?

Tabletop 06:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does the change achieve its aim?

It is not clear that the change to the voting system achieves its stated aim of helping less-established candidates run and win.

"Less-established" is taken to mean "minor party" or "not one of the two major parties (R) or (D)".

If the previous system elected 3 members in 6 electorates using some kind of proportional representation such as Choice Voting, STV or Cummulative Voting, then that implies a hurdle of about 25% to get elected.

Proposition P, introduces 1 member electorates with a hurdle of 51%, which is twice as difficult for less-established members.

If the previous system was some kind of at-large voting within each 3 member electorate and each voter having 3 votes, then that system is liable to elect lopsided results, 3x(R) or 3x(D), and only occasionally mixed results such as 1x(R)+2x(D) or 2x(R)+1x(D).

In that case having 14 x 1 member electorates is more likely to have a mixture of (R) and (D), depending on how the electorate borders are gerrymandered.

The 14 x 1 member system only really helps less-established candidates if their supporters are concentrated in particular electorates.

The 14 x 1 member system is of little help for less-established candidates whose support is spread evenly over the whole city.

Under the previous system, each district had three representatives, and each voter cast up to three equally weighted votes. The new system improves accountability at the district level, as every constituent has a single representative. It also gives "outsider" candidates a somewhat better chance because the district they have to canvas is smaller and thus less costly to cover. It is true that, for example, keeping the three-member districts and moving to a single-transferrable vote system might have opened things up for more proportionality.

Baltimore is an overwhelmingly Democratic city. Before and after the change, the city council was and is entirely Democratic. The real electoral action is in the Democratic primary; however, because of a one-time quirk in Baltimore electoral law, the primary election for the first post-Question P council was in September 2003 and the general election November *2004*. This meant that less-established candidates didn't really have a chance to get an organization going in time for the primary election; this combined with the fact that the new districts were gerrymanded to favor the incumbent council members to return most incumbants to office. The general election did see some Republican and Green candidates get closer to the Democratic victors than usual, but no race was really competitive. The next council election may be more competitive, at least at the primary level. --Jfruh 21:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In the previous system, could a voter cast all three votes for the same candidate, or had the votes to be cast for three different candidates? Illinois once had a voting system that allowed voters to cast their three votes to one, two or three candidates, and this system did result in some D victors in R strongholds and visa versa. This system was abolished when other changes were done around 1960. The members of the state congrss apparently did not notice this little clause being snuck in in the bill.

Voters could not cast multiple times for the same person. Voting went strictly along bloc voting lines. --Jfruh (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Question P. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070731213722/http://www.baltimoregreens.org/issues.php to http://www.baltimoregreens.org/issues.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)