The following guest editorial is from Ojai resident David Moody…
Democracy in Ojai
Democracy represents an ideal, and we actually achieve only some approximation to it. In a perfect democracy, all the citizens would meet and discuss every issue until it was resolved. We give up a slice of perfection when we vote for representatives to speak and decide each issue for us, and we accept other compromises for the sake of efficiency.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day, we are entitled to ask, How well are we doing? Are there any obvious flaws in the system that could readily be corrected? The recent election for Ojai City Council suggests at least one area that is ripe for improvement.
The final results show that 6236 votes were cast and distributed among the five candidates, as follows:
Betsy Clapp: 1694 votes (27.2%)
Sue Horgan: 1415 votes (22.7%)
Suza Francina: 1323 votes (21.2%)
Rae Hanstad: 1055 votes (16.9%)
Mike Lenehan: 723 votes (11.6%)
(There were also 26 write-in votes.)
Based on these percentages, it appears that nobody won a majority of the votes. We are inclined to accept that the top two vote-getters win seats on the City Council, and let it go at that.
But a closer inspection reveals a different reality. Because there were two open seats, each voter was eligible to cast TWO votes for City Council. This fact radically changes the meaning of the percentages.
If each voter in fact cast two votes for City Council, it means this election was decided by only 3118 voters. And if we evaluate the results in terms of percentage of voters (instead of votes), an unexpected picture emerges. Betsy Clapp in fact won the support of a majority of all voters, 54.4%. But she was the only one to do so.
Sue Horgan’s share of voters, not votes, was 45.4%, while Suza Francina’s share was 42.4%.
Should the citizens of Ojai be satisfied with this kind of result? Why should we accept anything less than the will of the majority?
Let’s look at the issue in terms of raw numbers rather than percentages. Of the 3118 voters who decided this election, how many actually expressed a preference for Horgan over Francina? Once again, the result is rather different than it appears at first glance.
Horgan received 92 more votes than Francina. But because there were five candidates, quite a few voters did not vote for either of these two. Let’s assume for a moment that none of Horgan’s voters voted for Francina, and vice versa — the most extreme case. That would mean 380 voters (3118 less 2738) did not vote for either of these two.
But certainly some voters must have cast ballots for both Horgan and Francina — and in that case, the number who did not express a preference for one over the other rises dramatically. To see how this works, let’s assume that just ten percent (312 voters) fell into this category. In that case, because of the overlap, the number who did NOT vote for either candidate rises to 692 (380 plus 312). And in addition, the voters in the area of overlap also did not express a preference for one candidate over the other, because they voted for both!
So if only ten percent voted for both Horgan and Francina — a conservative estimate — it means that fully 1004 voters (nearly a third of the total) did not express a preference for one over the other. And yet the actual outcome was decided by a difference of just 92 votes.
In my book those numbers add up to a denial of democracy.
But democracy provides a remedy for this kind of situation: it’s called a run-off election. If you have followed the logic presented here, wouldn’t you like to see Horgan and Francina go head to head, and find out which one really represents the will of the majority?
David E. Moody, Ph.D.
Ojai
David Moody has been a resident of Ojai for over 30 years. He is the Director of Mind Over Math, a private tutorial service with offices in Ojai and Ventura.
{ 34 comments }
david, i’m so pleased that there are thinkers like you in the world. honestly i cannot seem to follow the numbers you’ve laid out…fortunatly, you’ve more than proven yourself (on these very pages, in addition to real life) to be calm, intelligent, and honest…and so i’m with you. let’s have a run-off!
This is so interesting!
Will be curious to see what others think.
Our new council member Betsy Clapp and re elected member Sue Horgan were sworn in last night, so too late for a run-off, but the issues David brings up are worth considering.
When I have time, just out of curiousity, I will check out under what circumstances local elections have a run-off…
David,
I disagree with your calculations only a little. You state,
You go on to say that 10% of the voters(312 voters) making this choice was a conservative estimate. I really have to disagree. I would be very surprised if there were even 10 voters who voted for both Suza and Horgan. If such voters exists they either have a very strange sense of humor or they are woefully misinformed. The former is unlikely but the latter is all to possible and it makes up another very real problem for our democracy, namely that people vote even though they have no idea what is going on. However, I still seriously doubt that there were many ballots with both Suza and Horgan checked.
I do agree that electing a representative of the people to a body such as the City Council with less than 50% is not ideal. I would support an initiative to change the city charter to make the way we vote for city council more democratic. Although, I would be careful about submitting it. People who submit initiatives that directly confront the powers that be in this city are likely to find themselves in court. It is not at all clear that we still have the right to initiative here in Ojai, but I’m willing to chance it. How about forming a group to explore potential changes of the city charter to make our elections more democratic? Perhaps instant run-off voting? There are a lot of ideas we could consider and then we could ask the city council to change the charter themselves. When they won’t we could submit the initiative and gather the requisite signatures and place it on the next ballot. We might get dragged into court, but it could be worth the fight.
Who’s in.
Hi spk,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think there are many reasons why some voters might have cast ballots for both Horgan and Francina. For example: those voters who want the two strongest candidates (strongest in the sense of forceful articulators of their points of view) regardless of their positions on the issues.
There are many other possible reasons, including purely personal reasons, why a number of people might vote for those two. If you look at the thing through a strictly ideological lens, I agree the number would be diminished, but even then some voters might like to “balance” their ticket, just as they might vote for a Democrat for President and a Republican for Congress, or vice versa.
So I stand by my view that ten percent is a conservative estimate.
However, if you still reject that, even if not a single voter cast their ballot for both Horgan and Francina, there were still over 300 who did not express a preference for one over the other (as my column points out)……. so I believe my larger point still stands.
I agree David. I still think it’s unlikely there were ballots for Suza and Horgan, but I’ve already agreed with your broader point. So what do you want to do about it. Let’s get a group together and figure out how we can make local government in Ojai more democratic and responsive.
Some things to add to this interesting discussion:
The Ventura County Star Editorial Board endorsed Horgan and Francina.
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/oct/20/ojai-horgan-and-francina/
For what it’s worth, at least six voters told me they were voting for Sue and I, for a variety of reasons, including that we both speak our mind and have strong leadership qualities.
This week’s OVN Poll asks if the Mayor should be an elected position, rather than a rotating position.
I know that is a different issue, but perhaps it shows that Ojai is ready to consider change in the election process.
Please go vote at http://www.ojaivalleynews.com
Scroll down till you see the Poll.
The findings of Mr. Moody’s
data more than substantiate
earlier claims of conflict of interests and her (still)
murky politics that have dogged the citizens of Ojai
and their city’s well being. Her siding consistantly on pro-development,anti-citizen inniatives,poor voting record and fiscal decision making casts more than a shadow of a doubt about her earnest and sincere objectives,not to mention her lying about re-election to seat herself as mayor.
David,
It might be a statistical rounding error; however there are people who understand that in a multicandidate election for two vacancies, it’s best to only vote once for your candidate.
George, are you saying that you should only make one selection in a two selection race? It makes sense, but it also highlights the problems of this type of election for a representative of the people.
I still haven’t heard anyone who wants to address the issue with a real solution. Does anyone want to change the way Ojai votes for its representatives?
Anonymous #7: I think when you say “she” you are referring to Sue Horgan. I don’t think my article really addresses the points you raise, except perhaps indirectly — whether the system is set up to reflect majority will.
George: Yes, there may have been some voters who only voted once. I guess the lesson is we don’t really know for sure — just as we don’t know how many voted for both Horgan and Francina. The fact that the Ventura Star endorsed those two, however, after interviewing all five, may be indicative of a trend.
spk: you’re thinking way ahead of me here, but you raise an interesting point about the City Charter. I wonder what it says, not only about run-off elections, but also the position of Mayor, number of seats on the Council, and so on.
evan: thank you for your kind remarks! I know the numbers can be a little confusing, but if you can see the distinction between votes and voters in this strange kind of election, I think the rest falls into place.
Violence continued for a fourth day in Athens, as a funeral was held for the teenager whose death has sparked rioting across Greece.
Clashes erupted near the cemetery where 15-year-old Alexandros Grigoropoulos, shot by police on Saturday, was buried.
Youths also fought police outside parliament, in a repeat of the violence that has seen hundreds of buildings torched and dozens injured.
The opposition said the government had lost public support and should resign.
On Wednesday union leaders plan to hold a 24-hour general strike over welfare reforms. Police fear the stoppage, which is expected to bring the country to a standstill, could fuel further violence.
While the issue of run-offs is an interesting one, your logic is flawed. You postulate “If each voter in fact cast two votes for City Council” and then you draw all kinds of conclusions based on this unproved assertion. That’s very poor mathematics “in my book”.
Don’t forget your basic logic folks: a false assumption leads to *any* conclusion.
If we had a majority only system, so that every candidate had to get the vote of a majority of voters to take a seat, consider whether that would actually be democratic, or representative. I think not.
Many cities break the number of elected representatives up into districts within the city, so that every neighborhood has representation. Otherwise, you are ensured a majority council that does not have a single voice for the minority. Why have a multi-member council at all in that circumstance?
In cities like Ojai, one result is that a large percentage of the population has no voice at all, except through the initiative and referendum process. That’s one reason the lawsuit by Monte Widders, and the result endorsed by the appeals court, is so profoundly anti-democratic. In a city like Ojai, a vast portion of the citizenry is left without any voice, and subject to lawsuit if they try to use the one tool available.
In Ojai, what if we broke up into five districts, based broadly on neighborhoods?
Imagine.
This has worked very well in San Francisco.
In fact, thinking about it: If we could fix our politics in Ojai, we still have the problem that we are subject to the broken politics of Ventura County, with its broken planning, broken social services, broken courts, Gallegly and Strickland and the rest of the antithetical-to-Ojai-values crowd. Is there any requirement that counties be geographically contiguous? What about counties like LA, which have islands?
Maybe we should see if Ojai can secede from Ventura County and join San Francisco County. That would be something – we’d be instantly aligned with a place that reflects our values. We’d have functioning social services, quality courts. Universal health care. Rent control. Formula retail controls. Community policing. New business assistance programs. Ahead-of-the-curve green policies. Some of the country’s best urban planners and county staff. Etc. Yet, still have our bucolic Ojai life.
In one fell swoop, we could be governed by policies that would make us a leading model small city. And then we could go to work and really be that city.
I assume bbc is posting an example of what happens in democracies when a significant minority lacks any representation in government.
All over the world – except here in the U.S. – in fact it is common for people to take to the streets, shutting down roads and cities, as their only real way to influence their government. Is the reason people generally do not do that here that we are generally satisfied with our representation?
Markus Sandy,
You have said nothing whatsoever about the actual mathematics of my column, so you have no basis for challenging that.
You have presented a basis for challenging the logic, but you have provided no evidence in support of your challenge.
My logic is plain to see — nothing hidden, and assumptions clearly stated. Yes, it is an assumption that if voters have the opportunity to vote twice, they will do so. People who go to the polls are obviously motivated to vote, so I think it is a reasonable assumption that they will take the opportunity to vote where it is presented. And while you question this assumption, you present no reason or evidence to doubt it.
So that’s poor logic on your part, my friend.
David Moody, Ph.d., thank you for your exercise. I admire the effort you must have put in to get your Ph.d. in Behavioral Psychology.
The assumptions bear out your mathematical conclusion. But there is no way to validate your assumptions. And your premise, that less than a majority equals a denial of democracy, is incorrect.
Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote in his two victories. Would you also apply this standard to the MLB and Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fames?
Your suggestion of a runoff is fair as long as that is the understanding going into the contest. The runoff has been used successfully on “American Idol” and “Survivor”.
Changing the election rules after the fact is a denial of democracy.
Johnny Chingas,
Changing the rules after the fact might not be fair in most circumstances…….
However, what if Sue Horgan herself saw that her election was tainted by the absence of majority support? What if she agreed to a run-off? In that case, wouldn’t you like to find out which candidate actually represents the will of the majority?
david, why do you call this “tainted”? It isn’t a denial of democracy, and it is not tainted. Your premise is wrong.
Everybody knew what the criteria was, and agreed to it going in. There is no surprise here. Ojai has a history of attempts to rewrite the ending, especially recently with a campaign to recall a winner of the last election. And there was another effort to statistically make the case that the losers were actually the winners, or could have been if the rules were changed.
Don’t ask this question to me…ask it to Horgan, after you ask yourself. If it was you, why would you agree to put aside an election you spent money and time on to win? Why don’t you put it to the City Council, and ask if the next election will use a runoff? That is the question I want the answer to…don’t you?
And David, changing the rules after the fact is not fair in ANY circumstance.
O.K., Johnny, maybe tainted is too strong a word…..
and yes, the rules were clear going in…. but I don’t think most people understood the iimplications…. and still don’t understand them….
I don’t think you have faced the fact that the rules as they exist did not permit us to know the will of the majority…. and that is the bottom line. If you face that fact, you will look at the whole situation differently.
After reading over David’s article and the comments that followed, I don’t see anywhere where someone is saying this most recent election is somehow invalid. All I see is David pointing out that Horgan did not get the majority. I go on to comment that we could change the way elections take place here on the local level. I never said this election was invalid or that we needed to try and force a runoff now. Also JC, you write:
Having been the primary proponent of the recall effort against Joe DeVito, I can tell you that you are either misremembering the circumstances surrounding the effort, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The recall effort began when Mr. DeVito tried to block the enactment of a formula retail and restaurant ordinance to restrict chain stores. After the recall effort began, he quickly reversed his objections to the ordinance and the recall effort was stopped. The council subsequently passed an ordinance that is currently in effect. The recall effort had nothing to do with the re-election of Mr. DeVito six months earlier, however all recall efforts are against candidates that are winners of an election, by definition.
hey spk,
thanks for the back-up…. it gets a little lonely out here doing battle with every gunslinger who comes along…….
in the meantime, i’ve gone to the city of ojai website in search of the city charter…… can’t find it! got any leads?
No problem David. I too was looking on the city’s website for the charter that governs the local elections, and it doesn’t appear to be there. City Clerk Carlon Strobel would be the person to contact to get the information.
Hey David:
Off topic, but a couple of thoughts — I’m assuming you’re the David who was asking if I knew Bohm’s work on Suza’s marriage thread? Just now put it together that you were the Oak Grove director for lots of years… D’oh! So I’m sure you know Bohm’s work really well! Far, far better than me…
And I just wanted to say that while I’m grappling with the math of what you’ve written and as an Oak Viewer, it’s something I look at from a distance, more power to you for being willing to put your thoughts out there.
There does seem to be a gunslinging tendency in the forum comment world…makes me nuts.
As a city of Ojai “tourist” I thought the idea that came up for boroughs made sense — and I’d personally love to see the whole valley working this way…
Best,
Leigh
Hey Leigh,
regarding my past and present identities, guilty as charged….
regarding boroughs and the whole valley working this way…. who knows what the future may hold?!
I don’t think you have faced the fact that the rules as they exist did not permit us to know the will of the majority…. and that is the bottom line. If you face that fact, you will look at the whole situation differently.
Comment #21 Posted by: david | December 11, 2008 09:10 PM
David, I agree with your numbers. I agree that the second seat was not a 50% majority, and noted other examples above where a 50% majority was not met for a decision to be rendered. Sorry to come off as a “gunslinger”, but I strongly disagree with your assumptions and premise, and have given my reasons.
My problem is that you appear to be arguing for another ‘bite of the apple’ by advocating a runoff. Your concluding sentence invites all readers (here, and in your OVN letter) to wonder who would win in a head-to-head. If this is not the purpose of your mathematical exercise, what is? Is it just benign musings of statistical possibilities, without regard to the candidates? Would you have written this, if you didn’t prefer Suza over Sue? 92 more voters chose Horgan instead of Francina. What do you hope to accomplish by analyzing this in a vacuum?
My bottom line is, I do not see a denial of democracy, and perhaps I am mistakenly inferring your editorial as an attempt to slime Horgan and make her victory somehow “tainted”. But I take you at your word. Cheers.
Having been the primary proponent of the recall effort against Joe DeVito, I can tell you that you are either misremembering the circumstances surrounding the effort, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The recall effort began when Mr. DeVito tried to block the enactment of a formula retail and restaurant ordinance to restrict chain stores. After the recall effort began, he quickly reversed his objections to the ordinance and the recall effort was stopped. The council subsequently passed an ordinance that is currently in effect. The recall effort had nothing to do with the re-election of Mr. DeVito six months earlier, however all recall efforts are against candidates that are winners of an election, by definition.
Comment #22 Posted by: spk | December 12, 2008 02:22 PM
spk, I remember DeVito being the only council member to vote ‘no’ on the moratorium, and his reason was to notify more people and business owners. This was at an emergency meeting, and he wanted more time for the issue. He also scheduled another vote, but before that was held you started a recall.
I remember him getting slimed, like he was a puppet of Wal-Mart or something. The fact that he barely won over one of the three losing candidates (all of whom signed your petition) probably made him look like an easy target. DeVito loves the Ojai Valley just like you and me, has served for more than 20 years, and he did not deserve what he got in that recall drive.
I do note that using the recall as a tool in the toolbox of democracy has not been used before or since in Ojai. Though the City Council is non-partisan, the fact that DeVito is Republican probably made him that much more a juicy target.
Please correct me where needed, but that is how it looked to an outside party who does not know you or DeVito. I will take you at your word for your intentions. Cheers.
Johnny, I am glad we agree on so much!
“Slime” Horgan?? absolutely not!
“Tainted” — I have already withdrawn my use of that word…. anyway, when I used it i was attempting to suggest why SHE might want a more definitive result, in the interest of the will of the majority…. never meant to attach that word to the results myself.
Gotta run… you raise some larger issues that I will address at greater length later when time permits.
Johnny, you wrote,
“Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote in his two victories. Would you also apply this standard to the MLB and Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fames?”
I don’t think you have supplied any other evidence of places where majority rule is not necessary for democracy. But as far as Clinton is concerned, he DID get a majority of the Electoral College in both of his elections. I don’t think your other examples are relevant to a political contest.
As for why I wrote my article, you imply there are only two possibilities — either to “get another bite out of the apple” by forcing a run-off in the current election; or, just an idle exercise “in a vacuum.”
So you left out of consideration the most obvious motivation, which is to correct the system for future elections. But i don’t think anyone will feel that compelling energy to fix the system unless they see very clearly that it is broken. That is why it is necessary to bring into sharp focus the inadequacies of the current contest. It is certainly not to slime anybody, or to change the rules after the fact.
But my argument IS designed to evoke in readers an acute sense of the failure of the system in the present case. Maybe it will take another column to examine and evaluate some possible remedies. So stay tuned…….
David and SPK – you will not find Ojai’s charter on the city website or at city hall because Ojai is not a charter city. It is what is called a general law city, governed by state law.
Johnny Chingas, what did Joe DeVito “get” in that recall that “he did not deserve”? He got exactly what he deserved and needed, as I recall, namely a big head’s up, as a result of which, being the decent guy who actually does love Ojai that he is, he switched his vote and made the recall unnecessary.
When Council Member DeVito voted for more time and more outreach — extended notification of the public hearing for the Formula Retail Ordinance — it was taken as a potential “no” vote. Citizens often want expediency over transparency as it suits their cause.
Anonymous #31 — thanks for the tip!
If there is no charter, how is the set-up for city government and elections determined? Where is it established that there will be five city council seats…. rotating mayor, not elected….. no run-off elections…. etc., etc.??
Surely these points are not determined by state law!
Hi David,
As background information to your questions, click on the City of Ojai link in the left margin under
“Elsewhere.”
This explains how the City is governed.
Also read “The Ojai Valley, An Illustrated History,” by Patricia L. Fry. Page 207 explains how eighty people signed a petition for incorporation. On August 5, 1921, Ojai (formerly “Nordhoff”)became a City with 500 residents.
In many ways Ojai is governed as if it is still a dusty little town of 500 people with a volunteer City Council.
But that’s another story!
For what it’s worth, the current OVN Poll says that over 75% think the Mayor should be an elected position.
OVN POLL
Should Ojai’s mayor be elected by voters or by rotating council members into the position?
Election
Rotation
I think Ojaians are beginning to consider that perhaps the time has come where the role of mayor should be more of a leadership position, not just a ceremonial ribbon cutting position…
Comments on this entry are closed.