COTTAGE GROVE SENTINEL • OCTOBER 17, 2018 • 7A
NEW: Digital X-Rays (use less radiation)
Implants •Teeth Whitening • Extractions
Lumineers (no prep veneers as seen on TV)
Cottage Grove Dental
Dr. Brent Bitner, DDS
350 Washington, Cottage Grove (behind Better Bodies)
541.942.7934
Paid Political Advertisement
Stoc
k up
befo
r
they e
’re
gone
!
Clean Burn Wood Pellets
WE
DELIVER
!
LANDSCAPE AND
BUILDING MATERIALS
Open 7 days a week!
79149 N. River Road
541-942-4664
Cottage Grove
200 Gateway Blvd.
Cottage Grove, OR 97424
(541) 942-5400
Mon. - Sat. 8am - 9pm
Sun. 9am - 8pm
Ed & Kori Sowa
Independent Owner-Operators
facebook.com/CottageGroveGroceryOutlet
SAVE 40-70%
ON GROCERIES.
BEAUTIFUL, HUH?
STAR
from A1
to save candidates money while
campaigning, greatly reduce
voters and candidates gaming
the political system and, even-
tually, doing away with the need
for partisan politics all together.
It’s a tall order, particular-
ly when looking back at the
diffi culties that have faced the
American electorate in the pre-
ceding decades that have cre-
ated labels like “spoiler candi-
dates” and “strategic voting."
But is STAR really the right
choice to fi x these electoral ills?
Is it a fool proof system, or are
there lingering issues about the
process that still need to be re-
solved? To fi nd that answer, it’s
best to look at what the STAR
system is and how it relates to
the electoral problems of the
past.
The System:
Th e current method of vot-
ing used in Lane County, along
with most of the U.S., is what is
called plurality voting. Th at is,
a person is given a list of can-
didates and the voter picks one.
STAR voting on the other
hand, is an alternative, two-step
voting process that involves
voters scoring candidates.
Th e initiative Roberts is ad-
vocating for is broken into two
parts, the fi rst of which is to do
away with May primaries for
the non-partisan Lane County
races for commissioners, sher-
iff s, assessor and district attor-
neys.
Instead, the votes would take
place during the main Novem-
ber election.
Currently, these races are
mostly decided in May. If a
candidate wins the race with a
plurality of votes, that person
becomes the winner.
In the example of the May
West Lane County Commis-
sioner race between Jay Boziev-
ich, Nora Kent and Beverly
Hills, Bozievich received 55.75
percent of the vote, compared
to Kent’s 38.61 percent and
Hills’ 5.39 percent. Bozievich
received over 50 percent, so he
will move along to the Novem-
ber general election ballot as
the only choice, clinching the
win.
But having the vote in May
presents issues including lower
voter turnout than in general
elections, so a smaller portion
of the population could poten-
tially choose the commissioner
race winners.
And that population is gener-
ally partisan. Since it’s a prima-
ry, most voters are concerned
with voting for their candidates
in the general election. Inde-
pendent voters, or those disin-
terested in who wins a party’s
nomination, may not get their
voice heard.
In addition, a winner isn’t
always declared in May. Th is
is what happened in the East
Lane County Commission-
er race. Out of six candidates,
none received 50 percent. Th e
two highest candidates received
31.25 percent and 30.69 per-
cent. Per Lane County rules,
those top two vote getters will
spill into a runoff in the No-
vember election.
Even though one will even-
tually win a plurality of votes in
November, the candidates got
to that opportunity through a
minority of partisan electors in
May, not a defi nitive majority.
Th e fi rst step of STAR is the
initial vote made by the public.
Instead of choosing just one
candidate, the voter gets to rate
each candidate between 0-5,
with 5 being a score in favor,
and 0 being a score of no-con-
fi dence. It’s akin to rating a
business on Yelp or giving a star
rating for a movie.
“Th e main advantage is you
get the opportunity to vote hon-
estly for whichever candidates
you like,” Roberts said. “You can
give whichever candidate you
want a fi ve, and then give your
second favorite candidate a four
or a three. Or you can give your
least favorite candidate a zero,
and you give the one that’s just
slightly better than that a one.
So, every step along the way,
you show your preference.”
Th e theory goes, if a person is
faced with two candidates that
they like, they’re not forced to
vote one over the other. Doing
that can have detrimental ef-
fects on elections. An example
of this would be the 2000 elec-
tion with Ralph Nader and Al
Gore.
With STAR, a person can
show approval for both candi-
dates without compromising
their vote. Aft er the initial vote
is completed, the top two candi-
dates are put into an automatic
runoff . It’s there that votes will
be reexamined, where the can-
didate who scored higher most
oft en is given the win.
“It’s about voting honestly
and non-strategically,” Roberts
said about the runoff .
She stated that without the
runoff , it’s possible that people
would just rate who they like
with fi ves, and who they don’t
like zeros. Th is is known as
“bullet voting.”
“Th ey’ll just try to ‘bullet vote’
all candidates they want to ad-
vance, and zero for candidates
they don’t want to advance,” she
said. “So, the automatic runoff
is a step that incentivizes hon-
est voting. If you know there is
going to be a runoff , and if you
give one candidate higher than
another, and that one person
gets your vote, that will inspire
people to vote more honestly.”
An example of how this
works can be seen in the recent
Whiteaker Community Coun-
cil election in Eugene, where
the system was given its fi rst
(and so far, only) live test.
Data to Choose Represen-
tatives:
Th e Whiteaker Community
Council used the STAR meth-
od for its non-partisan, at-large
seats. Th ere were 11 positions
open, with 14 people running
for the seats.
Did the voting process create
any major shift s in how the vote
ended up?
“It’s possible for there to have
been some changes in the last
seat or two, but the fi rst nine or
so all had very solid support,”
Brad Foster of the Whiteaker
council said. “If I had to bet, I’d
say it ended up pretty much as it
would have.”
Foster does see promise in
the system and believes it’s
ready for a larger trial in Lane
County.
“I also think STAR voting
might help bring more diver-
sity into local politics,” he said.
“Races with multiple candidates
from the same party are some-
what rare and appear to be ac-
tively discouraged by party ac-
tivists. Under the STAR format,
it wouldn’t matter if several
people with similar, but slightly
diff erent, platforms ran in those
races since voters could fi ne-
tune their votes.
“Overall, it was great. Th is
was a big improvement on our
prior system of casting votes
for up to 11 candidates. Th e old
system felt like we were voting
someone off the island by not
including them in the 11, but
STAR allowed us to grade the
candidates in a more refi ned
way.”
Foster also found some unex-
pected results in the data.
“Th e soft ware gave us a bit
of interesting data,” he said. “It
ranked the candidates by their
total points. It also looked at
the election as though each seat
was independent and compared
the top two point-getters in the
pool head-to-head. Th ose two
methods of ranking have a cou-
ple of diff erences. So, Candidate
A might get more points than
Candidate B in the score por-
tion, but Candidate B might
win the automatic run-off . I
think it worked that way for two
of the eleven.”
What happened in the White-
aker race was that for two can-
didates, the initial voting score
was higher than their adjusted
runoff score.
To explain, we’ll call “Candi-
date A” dogs, and “Candidate B”
cats.
Dogs were very polarizing
to the voters in the initial vot-
ing stage. Out of six votes, two
voters really loved them, giving
them a score of fi ve.
Two voters were rather luke-
warm on the animals, giving
them a three. Two more voters
absolutely hated dogs, giving
them a big zero. On the whole,
dogs gained 16 points.
Cat support was a little
broader. Two people gave them
a four, two people gave them a
three, one person gave them a
one and only a single voter gave
felines a zero. Th e total vote for
cats was 15.
In plurality voting, dogs
would have come up the winner
of the race, 16-15.
But was that vote actually
indicative of how voters were
feeling about the choices of
household pets? Yes, some peo-
ple really loved dogs, but just as
many people hated them. For
man’s best friend, they were
pretty polarizing.
Cats, on the other hand, ac-
tually had broader support of
the public. Sure, people weren’t
as passionate about cats, but
people also didn’t hate them
as much. Felines appealed to a
broader population of voters.
Th is is where the importance
of STAR’s runoff comes in. It
takes the top two winners of the
initial election, then counts how
many times each voter scored
one animal over the other.
In two instances, dogs scored
HELP
PREVENT
CHILD
ABUSE
higher over cats. In one in-
stance, dogs scored lower. But
in three instances, cats actually
scored higher.
“We believe that STAR voting
will help us elect representatives
with a broader base of support,”
Roberts said. “You’re going to
see candidates winning that
have lots of threes and fours,
those candidates that everyone
can say, ‘Wow, I think they’re
good candidates,’ rather than
the polar extremes.”
Is it possible that candidates
who receive a majority of initial
votes will lose an election? Yes,
as was shown in Whiteaker.
Nonpartisan
organization
FairVote, which champions
electoral reforms, stated that
because of this possibility, STAR
runs the risk of violating funda-
mental democratic principles.
STAR proponents believe that
without the rating and runoff of
STAR, the intricacies that go
into a person’s reasoning when
it comes to voting is lost in the
numbers. Even though the ini-
tial tally may equal a majority
vote, that doesn’t necessarily
mean the major-ity wholeheart-
edly agrees with the choice.
“Using data to choose your
representative leads to the more
scientifi cally or mathematical-
ly based result,” Roberts said.
“Th e data shows what you pre-
fer compared to the other can-
didates, and that information is
used to elect the representatives
to support the people that they
want the most.”
It should be noted that while
FairVote had multiple concerns
regarding STAR, it remained
neutral on the system, neither
condemning or endorsing it.
“We don’t see STAR Voting
as politically viable nor likely to
work like its advocates believe,”
FairVote wrote in December
2017. Instead of continuing to
look at STAR, the organization
stated they would continue to
look at Rank Choice Voting, an-
other form of alternative voting.
No matter what type of alter-
native voting solution someone
supports, the point is that, in
many cases, existing plurality
voting can inhibit people from
electing representatives that
voters like the most. Th is can
be caused by political parties,
candidates, or sometimes the
voters themselves.
Spoilers:
One of the driving forces of
STAR voting is to eliminate the
“spoiler” candidate, someone
who cannot possibly win an
election, but gain enough sup-
port to throw an election for
a similar candidate. Th e most
common example given is the
2000 presidential race, where
Green Party candidate Ralph
Nader was considered a spoiler.
Th e last, major battleground
for that election was in Florida,
where only 537 votes separated
Al Gore and George Bush, who
would go on to win the election.
Th at contentious election saw
arguments on multiple fronts
regarding how votes were tab-
ulated, how people were regis-
tered and the readability of the
voting cards. But some of the
blame was placed solely on Na-
der being in the race.
See SPOILERS 8A
Rotary
Club of
Cottage
Grove
Look for the Duck Race logo at participating businesses.
Recipient Agencies:
Family Relief Nursery - Cottage Grove • Bridgeway House
Direction Service • Center for Community Counseling
and Parenting Now
B
UY
YOUR
R AFFLE
TICKETS
NOW
Celebration
Virtual Race
Thursday, November 8, 2018,
and winners
6:20PM on KEZI 9 News
announcement (Drawing at noon at KEZI-TV on Chad Drive)
Prize and ticket purchase info: greatrotaryraffl e.com