Proposed wording for city Approval-Voting statute: … Approval-Voting Statute: … Voting: … In every election for electing a single-winner to a single-seat office in this city: … Each voter shall be allowed to Approve(i.e. vote for, mark) as many candidates as s/he wishes to on the ballot. Each candidate’s votes shall be summed over all the ballots, & the candidate receiving the most votes shall be declared winner & is elected to that office. … Implementation: … Count-software: … The count-software code for detecting & disallowing “over-votes” (votes for more than one candidate on a ballot) shall be deleted. … The ballot’s voting-instruction: … The ballot’s voting-instruction shall be changed from “Vote for 1 candidate” to “Vote for 1 or more candidates”. … Election-results reporting: … The following election results shall be reported by the elections department, & made available to local media, & displayed on the official county website, & made available on paper at the elections-department office: … 1. The winner … 2. The vote-total of every candidate … 3: The following information: … Where N = either 4 or 5 or 6: … For the N top vote-receiving candidates: … The percentage of the ballots that exemplify each one of the 2^N possible ways of approving & not approving those N candidates.

How does your proposed wording compare to the ordinances that Fargo ND and St. Louis MO actually have?   - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN On 1/25/2024 3:46 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > Proposed wording for city Approval-Voting statute: > > … > > Approval-Voting Statute: > > … > > Voting: > > … > > In every election for electing a single-winner to a single-seat office > in this city: > > … > > Each voter shall be allowed to Approve(i.e. vote for, mark) as many > candidates as s/he wishes to on the ballot. Each candidate’s votes > shall be summed over all the ballots, & the candidate receiving the > most votes shall be declared winner & is elected to that office. > … > Implementation: > > … > > Count-software: > > … > > The count-software code for detecting & disallowing “over-votes” > (votes for more than one candidate on a ballot) shall be deleted. > > … > > The ballot’s voting-instruction: > > … > > The ballot’s voting-instruction shall be changed from “Vote for 1 > candidate” to “Vote for 1 or more candidates”. > … > Election-results reporting: > > … > > The following election results shall be reported by the elections > department, & made available to local media, & displayed on the > official county website, & made available on paper at the > elections-department office: > > … > > 1. The winner > > … > > 2. The vote-total of every candidate > > … > > 3: The following information: > > … > > Where N = either 4 or 5 or 6: > > … > > For the N top vote-receiving candidates: > > … > > The percentage of the ballots that exemplify each one of the 2^N > possible ways of approving & not approving those N candidates. > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

I looked at the St. Louis wording, & it was much briefer. I wanted to try to spell things out. I included results-reporting because I feel that’s important. Saint Louis has a runoff. I propose it without one. A runoff loses FBC compliance, & invites some offensive-strategies. I didn’t say “no runoff”, but that’s implied when I said to elect the candidate who got the most approvals. I haven’t checked the Fargo wording yet. Has the ND legislature’s ban on Approval been overturned? On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 16:48 KenB <kdbearman@gmail.com> wrote: > How does your proposed wording compare to the ordinances that Fargo ND > and St. Louis MO actually have? > - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN > > > On 1/25/2024 3:46 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > > > Proposed wording for city Approval-Voting statute: > > > > … > > > > Approval-Voting Statute: > > > > … > > > > Voting: > > > > … > > > > In every election for electing a single-winner to a single-seat office > > in this city: > > > > … > > > > Each voter shall be allowed to Approve(i.e. vote for, mark) as many > > candidates as s/he wishes to on the ballot. Each candidate’s votes > > shall be summed over all the ballots, & the candidate receiving the > > most votes shall be declared winner & is elected to that office. > > … > > Implementation: > > > > … > > > > Count-software: > > > > … > > > > The count-software code for detecting & disallowing “over-votes” > > (votes for more than one candidate on a ballot) shall be deleted. > > > > … > > > > The ballot’s voting-instruction: > > > > … > > > > The ballot’s voting-instruction shall be changed from “Vote for 1 > > candidate” to “Vote for 1 or more candidates”. > > … > > Election-results reporting: > > > > … > > > > The following election results shall be reported by the elections > > department, & made available to local media, & displayed on the > > official county website, & made available on paper at the > > elections-department office: > > > > … > > > > 1. The winner > > > > … > > > > 2. The vote-total of every candidate > > > > … > > > > 3: The following information: > > > > … > > > > Where N = either 4 or 5 or 6: > > > > … > > > > For the N top vote-receiving candidates: > > > > … > > > > The percentage of the ballots that exemplify each one of the 2^N > > possible ways of approving & not approving those N candidates. > > > > > > ---- > > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >

 How does your proposed wording compare to the ordinances that
 Fargo ND
 and St. Louis MO actually have?
    - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN


 On 1/25/2024 3:46 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

 office

 for list info
 ----
 Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
 list info

From a quick search, it looks like Gov. Burgum vetoed the NoDak Legislature's bill banning both Approval and RCV voting last April, and the Senate failed to override his veto. https://www.inforum.com/news/north-dakota/push-to-override-veto-of-approval-voting-ban-fails-in-north-dakota-senate   -Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN On 1/25/2024 10:23 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > > I looked at the St. Louis wording, & it was much briefer. I wanted to > try to spell things out. > > I included results-reporting because I feel that’s important. > > Saint Louis has a runoff. I propose it without one. A runoff loses FBC > compliance, & invites some offensive-strategies. > > I didn’t say “no runoff”, but that’s implied when I said to elect the > candidate who got the most approvals. > > I haven’t checked the Fargo wording yet. Has the ND legislature’s ban > on Approval been overturned? > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 16:48 KenB <kdbearman@gmail.com> wrote: > > How does your proposed wording compare to the ordinances that > Fargo ND > and St. Louis MO actually have? >    - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN > > > On 1/25/2024 3:46 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > > > Proposed wording for city Approval-Voting statute: > > > > … > > > > Approval-Voting Statute: > > > > … > > > > Voting: > > > > … > > > > In every election for electing a single-winner to a single-seat > office > > in this city: > > > > … > > > > Each voter shall be allowed to Approve(i.e. vote for, mark) as many > > candidates as s/he wishes to on the ballot. Each candidate’s votes > > shall be summed over all the ballots, & the candidate receiving the > > most votes shall be declared winner & is elected to that office. > > … > > Implementation: > > > > … > > > > Count-software: > > > > … > > > > The count-software code for detecting & disallowing “over-votes” > > (votes for more than one candidate on a ballot) shall be deleted. > > > > … > > > > The ballot’s voting-instruction: > > > > … > > > > The ballot’s voting-instruction shall be changed from “Vote for 1 > > candidate” to “Vote for 1 or more candidates”. > > … > > Election-results reporting: > > > > … > > > > The following election results shall be reported by the elections > > department, & made available to local media, & displayed on the > > official county website, & made available on paper at the > > elections-department office: > > > > … > > > > 1. The winner > > > > … > > > > 2. The vote-total of every candidate > > > > … > > > > 3: The following information: > > > > … > > > > Where N = either 4 or 5 or 6: > > > > … > > > > For the N top vote-receiving candidates: > > > > … > > > > The percentage of the ballots that exemplify each one of the 2^N > > possible ways of approving & not approving those N candidates. > > > > > > ---- > > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for > list info >

👍⭐️🔥 On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 21:03 KenB <kdbearman@gmail.com> wrote: > From a quick search, it looks like Gov. Burgum vetoed the NoDak > Legislature's bill banning both Approval and RCV voting last April, and the > Senate failed to override his veto. > > > https://www.inforum.com/news/north-dakota/push-to-override-veto-of-approval-voting-ban-fails-in-north-dakota-senate > -Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN > > On 1/25/2024 10:23 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > > > I looked at the St. Louis wording, & it was much briefer. I wanted to try > to spell things out. > > I included results-reporting because I feel that’s important. > > Saint Louis has a runoff. I propose it without one. A runoff loses FBC > compliance, & invites some offensive-strategies. > > I didn’t say “no runoff”, but that’s implied when I said to elect the > candidate who got the most approvals. > > I haven’t checked the Fargo wording yet. Has the ND legislature’s ban on > Approval been overturned? > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 16:48 KenB <kdbearman@gmail.com> wrote: > >> How does your proposed wording compare to the ordinances that Fargo ND >> and St. Louis MO actually have? >> - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN >> >> >> On 1/25/2024 3:46 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >> >> > Proposed wording for city Approval-Voting statute: >> > >> > … >> > >> > Approval-Voting Statute: >> > >> > … >> > >> > Voting: >> > >> > … >> > >> > In every election for electing a single-winner to a single-seat office >> > in this city: >> > >> > … >> > >> > Each voter shall be allowed to Approve(i.e. vote for, mark) as many >> > candidates as s/he wishes to on the ballot. Each candidate’s votes >> > shall be summed over all the ballots, & the candidate receiving the >> > most votes shall be declared winner & is elected to that office. >> > … >> > Implementation: >> > >> > … >> > >> > Count-software: >> > >> > … >> > >> > The count-software code for detecting & disallowing “over-votes” >> > (votes for more than one candidate on a ballot) shall be deleted. >> > >> > … >> > >> > The ballot’s voting-instruction: >> > >> > … >> > >> > The ballot’s voting-instruction shall be changed from “Vote for 1 >> > candidate” to “Vote for 1 or more candidates”. >> > … >> > Election-results reporting: >> > >> > … >> > >> > The following election results shall be reported by the elections >> > department, & made available to local media, & displayed on the >> > official county website, & made available on paper at the >> > elections-department office: >> > >> > … >> > >> > 1. The winner >> > >> > … >> > >> > 2. The vote-total of every candidate >> > >> > … >> > >> > 3: The following information: >> > >> > … >> > >> > Where N = either 4 or 5 or 6: >> > >> > … >> > >> > For the N top vote-receiving candidates: >> > >> > … >> > >> > The percentage of the ballots that exemplify each one of the 2^N >> > possible ways of approving & not approving those N candidates. >> > >> > >> > ---- >> > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >