The Fifth Congressional District Green Party (5 CD Greens) conducted a straw poll on Sunday, August 13. It was an exciting and interesting election because IRV voting was used, along with the names of actual candidates in November's election.
(In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a member of the 5 CD Greens and, in fact, I wrote about a part of the meeting I found somewhat more exciting than the straw poll, click here)
One noteworthy result of the mock election was Al Flowers winning over Mayor Rybak. It should be noted the 5 CD Greens are very upset over some situation with a proposed garbage incinerator, and (from my point of view) Al Flowers is something of a "protest candidate." However, more than a few Greens genuinely and enthusiastically support Al Flowers, including Farheen Hakeem. At the end of the day, Flowers doesn't stand a snowball-in-hell's chance of winning...something that was pointed out at the meeting by a Green Party member, shortly after Flowers won the straw poll.
This I will make a point of saying. Al Flowers is not known to be a member of the Green Party and is, in fact, running under a DFL label. While enthusiastically holding membership in the 5 CD Greens, I am perfectly free to point out Al Flowers is a loud, scary lunatic and not particularly bright, click here for an example of THAT.
But, in any case, here are the numbers, such as they are...
Raw numbers are in square brackets after the name. There were 12 voters.
MAYOR
1. 58% Al Flowers [7+1=8+1=9]
2. 17% Papa John Kolstad [2+0=2]
2. 17% R.T. Rybak [2+0=2]
4. 08% James R. Everett [1]
(Of the 58% for Al Flowers, second choices were 33% Kolstad, 17% NOTA, and 8% Bob Carney Jr.)
WARD 1
1. 38% None of the Above (43% 2nd round, 100% 3rd round) [3+0=3+1=4]]
2. 25% Larry Ranallo [2+0=2]
2. 25% Kevin Reich [2+0=2]
4. 12% Thomas Alessi [1]
WARD 2
1. 75% Cam Gordon [6+0=6+2=8] (Third-round votes are shown here.)
2. 12% Allen A. Aigbogun [1]
2. 12% None of the Above [1]
(Of the 75% for Cam Gordon, second choices were 38% NOTA, 25% Aigbogun, and 12% blank.)
WARD 3
1. 54% Melissa Hill [6+0=6]
2. 27% Allen Kathir [3+1=4]
3. 18% Diane Hofstede [2]
(Of the 54% for Melissa Hill, second choices were 54% Kathir.)
WARD 4
1. 90% Marcus Harcus [9]
2. 10% Barb Johnson [1]
(Of the 90% for Marcus Harcus, second choices were 30% Troy Parker, 30% Grant Cermak, 20% blank, and 10% NOTA.
Of the 60% second choices for Cermak and Parker, third choices were 20% NOTA, 20% blank, 10% Parker, and 10% Cermak.)
WARD 5
1. 64% Natalie Johnson Lee [7]
2. 27% Kenya McKnight [3]
3. 09% Don Samuels [1]
(Of the 64% for Natalie Johnson Lee, second choices were 45% McKnight, 9% NOTA, and 9% blank.)
WARD 6
1. 91% Andy Exley [10]
2. 09% None of the Above [1]
(Of the 91% for Andy Exley, second choices were 73% M. Cali, 9% Bruce A. Lundeen, 9% Michael Tupper. Of the 73% second choices for Cali, third choices were 27% Lundeen, 18% NOTA, 9% Laura Jean, 9% Tupper, 9% blank.)
WARD 7
1. 64% Michael Katch [7]
2. 27% Ken Lawrence [3]
3. 09% None of the Above [1]
(Of the 64% for Michael Katch, second choices were 36% Lawrence, 9% Jeffrey Alan Wagner, 9% NOTA, and 9% blank.)
WARD 8
1. 100% Jeanine Estime' [11]
(Of the 100% for Jeanine Estime', second choices were 73% Michael Cavlan, 9% Elizabeth Glidden, 9% NOTA, and 9% blank.
Of the 73% second choices for Cavlan, third choices were 27% Gregory McDonald, 27% NOTA, 9% David Regan, and 9% blank.)
WARD 9
1. 82% Dave Bicking [9]
2. 09% Gary Schiff [1]
2. 09% None of the Above [1]
(Of the 82% for Dave Bicking, second choices were 36% Todd J. Eberhardy, 18% blank, 9% Khalif Jama, 9% Schiff, and 9% NOTA.)
WARD 10
1. 40% Dan Alvin (56% second round) [4+1=5]
2. 40% None of the Above (44% second round) [4+0=4]
3. 10% Meg Tuthill [1]
3. 10% Kim Vlaisavljevich [1]
WARD 11
1. 62% None of the Above [5+1=6]
2. 25% John Quincy [2+0=2]
3. 12% Gregg A. Iverson [1]
WARD 12
1. 60% Charlie Underwood [6+1=7]
2. 20% Brent Perry [2]
2. 20% None of the Above [2]
(Of the 60% for Charlie Underwood, second choices were 20% Perry, 20% NOTA, 10% Sandy Colvin Roy, 10% blank.)
WARD 13
1. 70% Kris Broberg [7+1=8]
2. 20% None of the Above [2]
3. 10% Joseph Henry [1]
(Of the 70% for Kris Broberg, second choices were 40% Joseph Henry, 20% blank, and 10% Betsy Hodges.)
BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND TAXATION
1. 58% Carol Jean Becker [7]
2. 33% DeWayne Townsend [4]
3. 08% Phil Willkie [1]
PARK BOARD AT LARGE
1. 67% Annie Young [6]
2. 22% None of the Above [2]
3. 11% Nancy Bernard [1]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 1
1. 57% Liz Wielinski [4]
2. 29% None of the Above [2]
3. 14% Bernie Kunza [1]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 2
1. 62% Jon Olson [5]
2. 25% None of the Above [2]
3. 12% Michael Guest [1]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 3
1. 38% None of the Above (57% second round) [3+1=4]
2. 38% Scott Vreeland (43% second round) [3+0=3]
3. 25% Mike Wendorf [2]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 4
1. 56% Anita Tabb [5]
2. 44% None of the Above [4]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 5
1. 43% None of the Above (50% second round) [3+0=3]
1. 29% Jason Stone (50% second round) [2+1=3]
3. 14% Steve Barland [1]
3. 14% Carol Kummer [1]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 6
1. 57% None of the Above [4+2=6]
2. 14% Meg Fourney [1]
2. 14% Brad Bourn [1]
2. 14% Geneva Hanvik [1]
RULES
Ballots will be counted using IRV. The candidate with the least number of first-choice votes will be eliminated and will come in last. The next candidate to be eliminated will come in next-to-last, and so on. Ties will remain as ties. The elimination process will continue regardless of whether a candidate has reached 50 percent, until all candidates have an order of placement.
*None of the above* will be an option in each race. It will be treated the same as any other candidate for purposes of this straw poll.
(In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a member of the 5 CD Greens and, in fact, I wrote about a part of the meeting I found somewhat more exciting than the straw poll, click here)
One noteworthy result of the mock election was Al Flowers winning over Mayor Rybak. It should be noted the 5 CD Greens are very upset over some situation with a proposed garbage incinerator, and (from my point of view) Al Flowers is something of a "protest candidate." However, more than a few Greens genuinely and enthusiastically support Al Flowers, including Farheen Hakeem. At the end of the day, Flowers doesn't stand a snowball-in-hell's chance of winning...something that was pointed out at the meeting by a Green Party member, shortly after Flowers won the straw poll.
This I will make a point of saying. Al Flowers is not known to be a member of the Green Party and is, in fact, running under a DFL label. While enthusiastically holding membership in the 5 CD Greens, I am perfectly free to point out Al Flowers is a loud, scary lunatic and not particularly bright, click here for an example of THAT.
But, in any case, here are the numbers, such as they are...
Raw numbers are in square brackets after the name. There were 12 voters.
MAYOR
1. 58% Al Flowers [7+1=8+1=9]
2. 17% Papa John Kolstad [2+0=2]
2. 17% R.T. Rybak [2+0=2]
4. 08% James R. Everett [1]
(Of the 58% for Al Flowers, second choices were 33% Kolstad, 17% NOTA, and 8% Bob Carney Jr.)
WARD 1
1. 38% None of the Above (43% 2nd round, 100% 3rd round) [3+0=3+1=4]]
2. 25% Larry Ranallo [2+0=2]
2. 25% Kevin Reich [2+0=2]
4. 12% Thomas Alessi [1]
WARD 2
1. 75% Cam Gordon [6+0=6+2=8] (Third-round votes are shown here.)
2. 12% Allen A. Aigbogun [1]
2. 12% None of the Above [1]
(Of the 75% for Cam Gordon, second choices were 38% NOTA, 25% Aigbogun, and 12% blank.)
WARD 3
1. 54% Melissa Hill [6+0=6]
2. 27% Allen Kathir [3+1=4]
3. 18% Diane Hofstede [2]
(Of the 54% for Melissa Hill, second choices were 54% Kathir.)
WARD 4
1. 90% Marcus Harcus [9]
2. 10% Barb Johnson [1]
(Of the 90% for Marcus Harcus, second choices were 30% Troy Parker, 30% Grant Cermak, 20% blank, and 10% NOTA.
Of the 60% second choices for Cermak and Parker, third choices were 20% NOTA, 20% blank, 10% Parker, and 10% Cermak.)
WARD 5
1. 64% Natalie Johnson Lee [7]
2. 27% Kenya McKnight [3]
3. 09% Don Samuels [1]
(Of the 64% for Natalie Johnson Lee, second choices were 45% McKnight, 9% NOTA, and 9% blank.)
WARD 6
1. 91% Andy Exley [10]
2. 09% None of the Above [1]
(Of the 91% for Andy Exley, second choices were 73% M. Cali, 9% Bruce A. Lundeen, 9% Michael Tupper. Of the 73% second choices for Cali, third choices were 27% Lundeen, 18% NOTA, 9% Laura Jean, 9% Tupper, 9% blank.)
WARD 7
1. 64% Michael Katch [7]
2. 27% Ken Lawrence [3]
3. 09% None of the Above [1]
(Of the 64% for Michael Katch, second choices were 36% Lawrence, 9% Jeffrey Alan Wagner, 9% NOTA, and 9% blank.)
WARD 8
1. 100% Jeanine Estime' [11]
(Of the 100% for Jeanine Estime', second choices were 73% Michael Cavlan, 9% Elizabeth Glidden, 9% NOTA, and 9% blank.
Of the 73% second choices for Cavlan, third choices were 27% Gregory McDonald, 27% NOTA, 9% David Regan, and 9% blank.)
WARD 9
1. 82% Dave Bicking [9]
2. 09% Gary Schiff [1]
2. 09% None of the Above [1]
(Of the 82% for Dave Bicking, second choices were 36% Todd J. Eberhardy, 18% blank, 9% Khalif Jama, 9% Schiff, and 9% NOTA.)
WARD 10
1. 40% Dan Alvin (56% second round) [4+1=5]
2. 40% None of the Above (44% second round) [4+0=4]
3. 10% Meg Tuthill [1]
3. 10% Kim Vlaisavljevich [1]
WARD 11
1. 62% None of the Above [5+1=6]
2. 25% John Quincy [2+0=2]
3. 12% Gregg A. Iverson [1]
WARD 12
1. 60% Charlie Underwood [6+1=7]
2. 20% Brent Perry [2]
2. 20% None of the Above [2]
(Of the 60% for Charlie Underwood, second choices were 20% Perry, 20% NOTA, 10% Sandy Colvin Roy, 10% blank.)
WARD 13
1. 70% Kris Broberg [7+1=8]
2. 20% None of the Above [2]
3. 10% Joseph Henry [1]
(Of the 70% for Kris Broberg, second choices were 40% Joseph Henry, 20% blank, and 10% Betsy Hodges.)
BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND TAXATION
1. 58% Carol Jean Becker [7]
2. 33% DeWayne Townsend [4]
3. 08% Phil Willkie [1]
PARK BOARD AT LARGE
1. 67% Annie Young [6]
2. 22% None of the Above [2]
3. 11% Nancy Bernard [1]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 1
1. 57% Liz Wielinski [4]
2. 29% None of the Above [2]
3. 14% Bernie Kunza [1]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 2
1. 62% Jon Olson [5]
2. 25% None of the Above [2]
3. 12% Michael Guest [1]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 3
1. 38% None of the Above (57% second round) [3+1=4]
2. 38% Scott Vreeland (43% second round) [3+0=3]
3. 25% Mike Wendorf [2]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 4
1. 56% Anita Tabb [5]
2. 44% None of the Above [4]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 5
1. 43% None of the Above (50% second round) [3+0=3]
1. 29% Jason Stone (50% second round) [2+1=3]
3. 14% Steve Barland [1]
3. 14% Carol Kummer [1]
PARK BOARD DISTRICT 6
1. 57% None of the Above [4+2=6]
2. 14% Meg Fourney [1]
2. 14% Brad Bourn [1]
2. 14% Geneva Hanvik [1]
RULES
Ballots will be counted using IRV. The candidate with the least number of first-choice votes will be eliminated and will come in last. The next candidate to be eliminated will come in next-to-last, and so on. Ties will remain as ties. The elimination process will continue regardless of whether a candidate has reached 50 percent, until all candidates have an order of placement.
*None of the above* will be an option in each race. It will be treated the same as any other candidate for purposes of this straw poll.
4 comments:
I GOT BINGO!!!
(what do I win, again?)
What does Al Flowers "do", like, for a living?
Anything?
@Anon 548p
yes, he does 'do' something for a living.
He sues the city of minneapolis, it's elected officials and it's law enforcement agencies and individuals.
That's how he makes his "living".
The straw poll results and some related matters were referenced in an e-democracy discussion, which I am reproducing below:
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Darrell Gerber darrellgerber@earthlink.net
To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:52:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Mpls] 2009 5CDGP IRV Straw Poll Results
Since Tom Cleland hasn't responded I tell what I have heard. I wasn't there so anything I can pass on is second hand.
There were twelve voters in the straw poll which is probably a statistically insignificant even among Green party members in the 5th Congressional District. It certainly is an insignificant indication of the position of likely Green Party voters. Also, all voters voted on every race in the upcoming Minneapolis election regardless of if they will be able to vote on that race in the actual election. At best I would guess there were probably only 3 or 4 people voting in a district who lived there.
The voting was also not done to match the actual rules to be used in the upcoming election. I have no idea why this was done. For instance, None of the Above was listed just as any candidate. The municipal elections will not have none of the above listed.
The attendance at the meeting, and thus who voted, was influenced by other items on the agenda. Farheen Hakeem attempted to remove another member from Green Party membership at the meeting. The attempt failed but I understand she did some last minute recruiting of people to attend in order for a vote to occur (quorum would not have been met). This recruitment from Hakeem followers is going to also further skew the results of the poll.
All in all, the poll was probably at best an interesting exercise and not worth putting any stock into.
Darrell Gerber
Kingfield Neighborhood
-----Original Message-----
From: tom@organicconsumers.org [mailto:tom@organicconsumers.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:22 AM
To: tomcleland@comcast.net
Cc: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls] 2009 5CDGP IRV Straw Poll Results
To get a better understanind of the 5CDGP IRV Straw Poll I have a couple of questions.
How many people participate in this straw poll?
Were votes cast for each council candidate only from the ward that the candidate is running in?
thanks,
Tom Taylor
Montevideo, MN via lovely lower NE MPLS
Post a Comment