If Clark and Zimmerman are your two must-haves, put them in the first two slots, in whichever order you actually prefer. The birthday split is about what thousands of us do together, not what any one of us must do. If Arnold is your reluctant but still acceptable third choice, put him third.
After that, rank only people you'd actually prefer to the candidates you leave blank. One candidate per rank, nobody ranked twice, and no obligation to fill boxes with candidates you really don't want.
I’m not convinced by the birthday rule. I prefer the “Would I hire this person?” rule.
Suppose I’m hiring for a position and 12 people apply. After reviewing their résumés and talking briefly with each, I decide there are three people I would be willing to hire. I wouldn’t hire the other nine.
So I rank the three in my actual order of preference:
1. Clark
2. Zimmerman
3. Arnold
Then I stop. I don’t rank someone I wouldn’t be willing to hire.
If I wanted to make my ranking more strategic, I might put Evanstar #4 and Jeremy Beausoleil Smith #5. I’d call those defensive rankings: not affirmative choices, but backups I still prefer to an unranked candidate if my higher-ranked choices can no longer use that portion of my vote.
Scott, this makes sense in the abstract--donuts, m&ms and life savers--but we are way past that moment. These are real candidates, this is real data, and what you are saying is misleading.
First, although you can rank several candidates, your vote only counts once. If you rank Olivia, Eric or Eli as your top three, your ONE vote will go to one of them, and your ballot will be subsequently out of play. It does not matter who you rank fourth or fifth. There is as close as you can get to a zero percent chance that one of those three will not be a winner.
Second, who in the world are Evenstar and Beausoleil Smith "defensive" against? Is there some candidate more noxious to the Clark/Zimmerman/Arnold voter than those two? Why would a voter favoring Clark/Zimmerman/Arnold rank Chloe Eudaly's former policy director, (Evenstar) at all? That makes no sense.
Lisa, I'm with you on the main point: nobody should rank a candidate just because there are empty boxes. If you wouldn't rather see that person elected than the people you leave blank, stop there. And on Scott's particular backups, I take your point entirely, "defensive" should mean "I prefer this person to the people I'm leaving unranked." If that's not true for Jamey Evenstar or Jeremy Beausoleil Smith, he shouldn't rank them.
The only place I'd add a wrinkle is the mechanics. In Portland's multi-winner RCV, a ballot can keep moving as long as it has transferable value and another ranked candidate available. Votes can move on from eliminated candidates, and surplus value can move on from candidates who have more than they need. So fourth and fifth choices often won't matter, but they aren't meaningless by definition.
I hope you're right that Clark, Zimmerman, and Arnold all get home. My caution is just that Mitch Green is also a sitting councilor contesting one of three seats, and Arnold lost the 2024 seat on transfers. That's the kind of race where backup rankings can matter, which is all Scott's insurance policy was meant to be.
I concede the point that defensive voting should be used with caution.
You only get one vote, but your ballot can help more than one candidate. My ballot starts with one vote of total value. If Clark exceeds the threshold, only the surplus fraction of my vote moves to Zimmerman. If Zimmerman later exceeds the threshold, only the remaining transferable fraction can move to Arnold.
If Arnold is then eliminated and I have ranked someone fourth, whatever transferable value is left can continue to that candidate. If I stop at Arnold, that remaining value is exhausted.
That is where defensive ranking comes in, but it is not a free tactical move. Ranking someone fourth or fifth may keep part of my vote from being exhausted, but it also means I am genuinely helping that candidate if the count reaches them. I would agree at that point the fraction is pretty small.
So I would use defensive rankings cautiously. I wouldn’t rank someone merely to hurt another candidate unless I am actually willing to live with that person being elected. I'm not advocating anyone actually voting for Evenstar, it was an example of someone who might be more acceptable than Green.
If you are looking for an additional ranking behind Clark, Zimmerman, and Arnold, perhaps consider Jayne Cronlund. Evenstar and Smith are DSA; both tried to get DSA endorsement by filling out the DSA questionnaire in which they pledged support the DSA national agenda, thus committing to putting party over Portland and their constituents. In any case, only rank candidates with whom at the end of the day you are comfortable winning a seat and representing you on the council.
Scott, I think your "would I hire this person?" rule is a good one, and I don't see it as contradicting the birthday rule.
The birthday rule isn't a test of who's more qualified. It's a coordination device. If everyone in the same lane piles onto the same first choice, the other candidate can look weak in the early rounds and get knocked out before transfers arrive. Splitting first choices between Clark and Zimmerman is meant to keep both alive long enough for the slate strategy to work.
Your 1-2-3 ballot is exactly what I had in mind. On #4 and #5, apply your own hiring test: rank Jamey Evenstar or Jeremy Beausoleil Smith only if, should your higher choices be eliminated or unable to use all of your vote, you'd truly prefer them to the people you leave unranked.
I am hoping for Arnold, Zimmerman, Clark. Arnold is a natural public servant and respectful to everyone. He is going to go far in public life. Clark is tough (a good quality) and holds the line against insanity. Zimmerman, very strong as well, with broad experience in government and getting things passed. These three people all have very significant strengths, and I was impressed with them all at the city club event.
Torres, Novick, and Sollitt would be my choices if I lived in District 3. Torres is very strong and experienced. Novick is incisive and decisive. Sollitt wants to reduce costs by finding inefficiencies and reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses. He is finding his way politically and has shown he is serious by his actions.
This article is confusing. It says; • Finish your list. Don’t let your ballot drop out before the last seat is decided. • Rank the whole slate, not just your favorite. If we include (rank) people that we do NOT want, even if we list them last, then they will inherit the dropped-down votes. Therefore I will vote for (I will rank) only Arnold, Olivia, and Eric, and I will leave all others completely unranked. (I.e., I REALLY don't want Mitch Green back in office, or ANY of the other wanna-be's).
I could guess who wrote this article but I want to know for certain.
I am still confused about rank-choice voting!
I want Clark and Zimmerman to win will vote for Arnorld ( and hold my nose).
Please instruct me how my ballot should be submitted.
Thank you
Marc, guilty as charged. Robert Miller wrote it.
If Clark and Zimmerman are your two must-haves, put them in the first two slots, in whichever order you actually prefer. The birthday split is about what thousands of us do together, not what any one of us must do. If Arnold is your reluctant but still acceptable third choice, put him third.
After that, rank only people you'd actually prefer to the candidates you leave blank. One candidate per rank, nobody ranked twice, and no obligation to fill boxes with candidates you really don't want.
Thank you very much; this is my first tank-choice rodeo
I’m not convinced by the birthday rule. I prefer the “Would I hire this person?” rule.
Suppose I’m hiring for a position and 12 people apply. After reviewing their résumés and talking briefly with each, I decide there are three people I would be willing to hire. I wouldn’t hire the other nine.
So I rank the three in my actual order of preference:
1. Clark
2. Zimmerman
3. Arnold
Then I stop. I don’t rank someone I wouldn’t be willing to hire.
If I wanted to make my ranking more strategic, I might put Evanstar #4 and Jeremy Beausoleil Smith #5. I’d call those defensive rankings: not affirmative choices, but backups I still prefer to an unranked candidate if my higher-ranked choices can no longer use that portion of my vote.
Scott, this makes sense in the abstract--donuts, m&ms and life savers--but we are way past that moment. These are real candidates, this is real data, and what you are saying is misleading.
First, although you can rank several candidates, your vote only counts once. If you rank Olivia, Eric or Eli as your top three, your ONE vote will go to one of them, and your ballot will be subsequently out of play. It does not matter who you rank fourth or fifth. There is as close as you can get to a zero percent chance that one of those three will not be a winner.
Second, who in the world are Evenstar and Beausoleil Smith "defensive" against? Is there some candidate more noxious to the Clark/Zimmerman/Arnold voter than those two? Why would a voter favoring Clark/Zimmerman/Arnold rank Chloe Eudaly's former policy director, (Evenstar) at all? That makes no sense.
Lisa, I'm with you on the main point: nobody should rank a candidate just because there are empty boxes. If you wouldn't rather see that person elected than the people you leave blank, stop there. And on Scott's particular backups, I take your point entirely, "defensive" should mean "I prefer this person to the people I'm leaving unranked." If that's not true for Jamey Evenstar or Jeremy Beausoleil Smith, he shouldn't rank them.
The only place I'd add a wrinkle is the mechanics. In Portland's multi-winner RCV, a ballot can keep moving as long as it has transferable value and another ranked candidate available. Votes can move on from eliminated candidates, and surplus value can move on from candidates who have more than they need. So fourth and fifth choices often won't matter, but they aren't meaningless by definition.
I hope you're right that Clark, Zimmerman, and Arnold all get home. My caution is just that Mitch Green is also a sitting councilor contesting one of three seats, and Arnold lost the 2024 seat on transfers. That's the kind of race where backup rankings can matter, which is all Scott's insurance policy was meant to be.
I concede the point that defensive voting should be used with caution.
You only get one vote, but your ballot can help more than one candidate. My ballot starts with one vote of total value. If Clark exceeds the threshold, only the surplus fraction of my vote moves to Zimmerman. If Zimmerman later exceeds the threshold, only the remaining transferable fraction can move to Arnold.
If Arnold is then eliminated and I have ranked someone fourth, whatever transferable value is left can continue to that candidate. If I stop at Arnold, that remaining value is exhausted.
That is where defensive ranking comes in, but it is not a free tactical move. Ranking someone fourth or fifth may keep part of my vote from being exhausted, but it also means I am genuinely helping that candidate if the count reaches them. I would agree at that point the fraction is pretty small.
So I would use defensive rankings cautiously. I wouldn’t rank someone merely to hurt another candidate unless I am actually willing to live with that person being elected. I'm not advocating anyone actually voting for Evenstar, it was an example of someone who might be more acceptable than Green.
If you are looking for an additional ranking behind Clark, Zimmerman, and Arnold, perhaps consider Jayne Cronlund. Evenstar and Smith are DSA; both tried to get DSA endorsement by filling out the DSA questionnaire in which they pledged support the DSA national agenda, thus committing to putting party over Portland and their constituents. In any case, only rank candidates with whom at the end of the day you are comfortable winning a seat and representing you on the council.
Also Evenstar was part of Eudaly’s effort to get rid of neighborhood associations. See https://nwexaminer.com/p/council-candidate-jamey-evenstar.
Scott, I think your "would I hire this person?" rule is a good one, and I don't see it as contradicting the birthday rule.
The birthday rule isn't a test of who's more qualified. It's a coordination device. If everyone in the same lane piles onto the same first choice, the other candidate can look weak in the early rounds and get knocked out before transfers arrive. Splitting first choices between Clark and Zimmerman is meant to keep both alive long enough for the slate strategy to work.
Your 1-2-3 ballot is exactly what I had in mind. On #4 and #5, apply your own hiring test: rank Jamey Evenstar or Jeremy Beausoleil Smith only if, should your higher choices be eliminated or unable to use all of your vote, you'd truly prefer them to the people you leave unranked.
I am hoping for Arnold, Zimmerman, Clark. Arnold is a natural public servant and respectful to everyone. He is going to go far in public life. Clark is tough (a good quality) and holds the line against insanity. Zimmerman, very strong as well, with broad experience in government and getting things passed. These three people all have very significant strengths, and I was impressed with them all at the city club event.
Torres, Novick, and Sollitt would be my choices if I lived in District 3. Torres is very strong and experienced. Novick is incisive and decisive. Sollitt wants to reduce costs by finding inefficiencies and reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses. He is finding his way politically and has shown he is serious by his actions.
This article is confusing. It says; • Finish your list. Don’t let your ballot drop out before the last seat is decided. • Rank the whole slate, not just your favorite. If we include (rank) people that we do NOT want, even if we list them last, then they will inherit the dropped-down votes. Therefore I will vote for (I will rank) only Arnold, Olivia, and Eric, and I will leave all others completely unranked. (I.e., I REALLY don't want Mitch Green back in office, or ANY of the other wanna-be's).