Opponents mix up STAR Voting and Ranked Choice
Oakridge residents may have seen a mailer that went out on Oct 22nd in opposition to Measure 20-364 which they incorrectly describe as a "ranked choice voting scheme". STAR Voting is not the same as Ranked Choice Voting.
The Oakridge Charter Reform Committee looked at Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) as an option and rejected it for the reasons listed in the mailer. STAR Voting was specifically invented to deliver on the failed promises of Ranked Choice Voting movement while addressing the many valid concerns and criticisms about the 150 year old RCV method. While they are both preference voting methods, they are completely different in the tabulation and details.
The mailer as written would be largely accurate if it were directed at Measure 117 but the concerns raised do not also apply to STAR Voting.
The Oakridge Charter Reform Committee looked at Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) as an option and rejected it for the reasons listed in the mailer. STAR Voting was specifically invented to deliver on the failed promises of Ranked Choice Voting movement while addressing the many valid concerns and criticisms about the 150 year old RCV method. While they are both preference voting methods, they are completely different in the tabulation and details.
The mailer as written would be largely accurate if it were directed at Measure 117 but the concerns raised do not also apply to STAR Voting.
Claim: "1. Voter Confusion: Rank Voting confuses voters when tried."
Response: This argument is valid against RCV, but doesn't apply to STAR Voting.
STAR Voting does not use a ranked ballot, which can be confusing and more difficult for voters. STAR Voting uses a 5 star ballot where voters score candidates independently from 5 (best) to 0 (worst). Scoring is significantly easier for voters, especially if there are larger numbers of options on the ballot. It's also virtually impossible to accidentally void your STAR ballot as equal preferences and skipped preferences are both allowed. Voters are free to fill out their ballots as they choose. 5 star ratings have been used by billions of people for measuring public opinion and they are the gold standard for surveys for a reason.
Claim: "2. Lower Turnout: Rank voting confusion contributes to 3-5% lower turnout."
Response: This will be STAR Voting's first trial for municipal elections, so we don't have data on its effect on voter-turnout. Studies on turnout under RCV show mixed findings.
Using this statistic clearly demonstrates that the author had the two systems confused. In some cases, RCV is used in the general election, which eliminates the need for the lower turnout primary, which boosts turnout by default. That said, some voters are turned off from RCV over the issues you raised.
Claim: "3. Extremely Expensive." It's more expensive than traditional voting. (One city spent an incredible $15 million more just to implement it.)"
Response: This argument is valid against RCV, but doesn't apply to STAR Voting.
The STAR Voting for Oakridge measure specifies that there will be NO cost to the city and requests outside funding for the voter education and implementation budget before the measure can go into effect. STAR Voting is tallied with basic addition and is fully compatible with our existing elections hardware and protocols. It just requires a software upgrade and recertification.
Ranked Choice on the other hand is not tallied with addition and does not count all the rankings on voters' ballots, so it can't comply with existing election integrity protocols and best practices. This makes it incredibly expensive to implement and also error prone, as we've seen in real world elections around the country.
Ranked Choice on the other hand is not tallied with addition and does not count all the rankings on voters' ballots, so it can't comply with existing election integrity protocols and best practices. This makes it incredibly expensive to implement and also error prone, as we've seen in real world elections around the country.
Claim: "4. Delays election results. It often delays election results by weeks."
Response: This argument is valid against RCV, but doesn't apply to STAR Voting.
STAR Voting is tallied with basic addition and so ballots would be tallied as they come in and results would be available on election night just as they are now.
Claim: "5. Massive vote-trashing machine.
People make mistakes or don't fully use the rankings, causing their ballot to be exhausted/eliminated in multiple round tabulations (NY eliminated 140,000 votes in 2022, Alaska 15,000 in 2022, Maine 8,000 in 2018.)"
Response: This argument is valid against RCV, but doesn't apply to STAR Voting.
STAR Voting does not have exhausted/eliminated ballots. All ballot data is counted in STAR Voting and every ballot counts in both rounds of the STAR Voting process.Claim: "6. Controversial Loophole. Skeptics point to a potential flaw where people adjust their number of ranks in order to make their vote (proportion) count more in early results."
Response: This strategy in STAR Voting isn't advised or effective. It's also not effective in RCV.
Ranking less candidates in RCV wouldn't make your vote more powerful and could do the opposite. The current system is by far the most gameable. STAR Voting topped the charts in studies comparing voting methods resilience to strategic voting and tactics.
In conclusion
We've reached out to Oregon WatchDog, addressed the misunderstanding that STAR Voting is a type of RCV, and hope to see them change their position to an endorsement.
If you are still undecided on STAR Voting Measure for Oakridge 20-364 and/or Oregon Measure 117, here are a few recent debates between the advocates for RCV and STAR Voting: PDX Real, Willamette Week, The Oregonian, OPB.
