04-25-06 Charter Commission Regular MeetingCITY OF HOPKINS
CHARTER COMMISSION
AGENDA
April 25, 2006
630 p.m
Hopkins Center for the Arts
Upstairs Conference Room
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
4. Consideration of Communications
5. Old Business
• Instant Runoff Elections
6. New Business
7. Adjournment
ATTACHMENTS:
• Minutes of the March 28, 2006 Charter Commission meeting
• Current Roster of the Charter Commission
• Proposed ordinance regarding Ranked Ballot Voting
• Ranked Ballot for City Council scenarios
UNAPPROVED
Minutes of the Hopkins Charter Commission
March 28, 2006
The Hopkins Charter Commission met on March 28. Present were Commission members
Dorothy Boen, David Day, Roger Gross, Fran Hesch, Karen Jensen, Jerre Miller, Robert
Miller, and Emily Wallace -Jackson.
The meeting was brought to order at 6:35 p.m. by the Chair of the Commission, Fran
Hesch.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Commissioner Boen moved and Commissioner Jensen seconded the motion to approve
the minutes of the November 15, 2005 meeting. The motion was approved unanimously.
Election of Chair and Vice -Chair.
Officers were elected in April of 2005. Subsequent to that election, the Commission
amended its by-laws to make the tenn of office two years. This election will be for two
years.
Commissioner Boen moved and Commissioner Bob Miller seconded a motion that Roger
Gross be elected Chair. There were no other nominations. The Commission voted
unanimously to elect Roger Gross as Chair.
Commissioner Bob Miller moved and Commissioner Boen seconded a motion that Emily
Wallace -Jackson be elected Vice -Chair. There were no other nominations. The
Commission voted unanimously to elect Emily Wallace -Jackson as Vice -Chair.
Communications
There were no communications.
Old Business
Ranked Ballot Voting
Commissioner Hesch explained why this issue was back before the Charter Commission.
The City Council discussed the issue at January and March Council meetings and at a
February Worksession. On March 6, the City Council rejected Ordinance 2005-958 but
not the concept of ranked ballot voting. The City Council encouraged the Charter
Commission to consider adopting new language regarding implementing ranked ballot
voting in the City of Hopkins.
1
UNAPPROVED
Commissioner Jensen asked whether the Council indicated interest in changing the way
Council members are elected. Mr. Genellie said that they had not. The Council had gone
on record as supporting the traditional method of electing Council Members, i.e. multiple
candidates running for multiple offices.
Mr. Genellie presented information regarding the problem with the original ordinance .
where it was possible for a candidate to receive a majority of the first choice votes but not
be elected. He also went over a possible method of using ranked ballot voting that would
apply for multiple candidates running for multiple offices.
Commissioner Hesch then demonstrated another way to look at ranked ballot voting.
Commissioner Hesch maintained that the existing system of electing council members by
plurality did not allow people to understand what percent candidates received. She said
that there was difficulty in explaining how these percentages were arrived at.
The Commission discussed whether to continue to pursue ranked ballot voting in the City
of Hopkins.
Commissioner Karen Jensen moved to consider further changes to the Charter as regards
to electing City council members by ranked ballot voting. Commission Boen seconded.
After a brief discussion the motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Bob Miller abstained.
Commissioner Bob Miller moved to have the Charter Commission explore ranked voting,
create the wording for ranked voting and to present it to the Council in the best language
possible. Commissioner Jerre Miller seconded.
The Commission discussed this motion and determined that approval of this motion
should be followed by a Commission worksession devoted to ranked ballot voting.
The Commission approved the motion unanimously.
Commissioner Gross moved and Commissioner Boen seconded a motion to set the next
meeting for Tuesday, April 25 at 6:30 p.m. The Commission approved the motion
unanimously.
Sale of City Property
The Commission agreed to not consider any changes to the section of the Charter dealing
with the sale of City property.
Adi ourmnent
Commissioner Boen moved and Commissioner Jerre Miller seconded the motion to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent.
2
Name
Term
Term Expires
Dorothy Boen
Second
4/13/2008
David Day
First
9/22/2007
Roger Gross
Second
4/13/2008
Fran Hesch
First
4/7/2006
Karen Jensen
First
10/20/2009
Roger Johnson
Second
8/26/2009
Steve Lewis
First
9/26/2008
Jerre Miller
First
9/26/2008
Robert Miller
First
4/7/2006
Emily Wallace -Jackson
First
3/5/2008
Chair: Roger Gross
Vice -Chair: Emily Wallace -Jackson
DRAFT
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 2006—***
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY
OF HOPKINS
UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE HOPKINS CHARTER
COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO M.S.A. CHAPTER 410.12, SUBD. 7
The City Council of the City of Hopkins, upon
recommendation of and from the Hopkins City
Charter Commission does hereby ordain and thus
amend and adopt the following changes,
deletions, and amendments of or from the
following chapters and sections of the Hopkins
City Charter:
Section 1. Section 2.03, is amended as
follows:
Subdivision 3. After the City general
election, the City Council shall, at their
next regularly scheduled meeting, meet as the
canvassing board and declare the results of
the election. Theeanelidate—reeel-i4ngt4e
highest number of vetes f-ez a paLntieulaLa
effiee is ^l ^^t^'. If the election results in
a tie, then the winner should be determined by
lot in the presence of the Council acting as
the canvassing board.
Section 2. Section 4.04, is added as follows:
SEC. 4.04. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS -
SINGLE SEAT.
This section needs to be
amended if any voting
system, other than
plurality, is adopted.
The proposed amendment is split into two parts. Single seat elections (Mayor and special
elections for a single Council Member) and multiple seat elections. This not only provides more
clarity but could allow fora partial implementation of Ranked Ballot Voting.
Part of the difficulty of implementing RBV is the cost of either acquiring new voting machines or
reprogramming existing voting machines. (See Section 4.06)
It is possible that other jurisdictions might adopt RBV, thus making implementation less costly.
However, if the other jurisdictions adopt RBV and their machines are only programmed for single
seat elections, the City of Hopkins could still experience significant costs in programming
machines for multiple seat elections.
This a decision that the Commission needs to make as to whether they want to consider the
possibility of separate implementation.
1
DRAFT
(a) For the purposes of this section:
(1) a majority is defined as 500 of the
ballots cast plus one; (1) a candidate shall
be deemed "continuing" if the candidate has
not been eliminated; (2) a ballot shall be
deemed "continuing" if it is not exhausted;
and (3) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted,"
and not counted in further stages of the
tabulation, if all of the candidates chosen on
that ballot have been eliminated or there are
no more candidates indicated on the ballot.
If a ranked -choice ballot gives equal rank to
two or more candidates, the ballot shall be
declared exhausted at the point of the ballot
when such multiple rankings are reached.
If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot
but skips a rank, the voter's vote shall be
transferred to that voter's next ranked
choice. or
If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot
but skips a rank, the voter's choices after
the blank rank shall,not be counted.
(b) The Mayor shall be elected using a
ranked -choice, or "instant runoff," ballot.
The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number
of choices in order of preference equal to the
total number of candidates for each office;
provided, however, if the voting system, vote
tabulation system or similar or related
equipment used by the City and County cannot
feasibly accommodate choices equal to the
total number of candidates running for each
office, then the City Clerk may limit the
number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer
than three. The ballot shall in no way
interfere with a voter's ability to cast a
vote for a write-in candidate.
A majority is based upon
the total number of ballots
cast in the election. This
would include write-ins as
well as blank ballots.
The definition of a
majority would remain the
same throughout the
counting regardless of
whether any ballots were
"exhausted."
One alternative to total
ballots cast would be total
ballots cast for that office.
For example in 2005 there
were 2,186 total ballots
cast but only 2,034 ballots
were cast for Mayor.
The Commission needs to
decide what to do with
ballots where a position is
skipped, e.g. a voter marks
a ballot for the first
choice, skips Alternative
#1, and then marks
Alternative. 0.
2
DRAFT
(c) If a candidate receives a
majority of the highest ranked choices, that
candidate shall be declared elected. If no
candidate receives a majority, the candidate
who received the fewest highest ranked choices
shall be eliminated and each vote cast for
that candidate shall be transferred to the
next ranked candidate on that voter's ballot.
If, after this transfer of votes, any
candidate has a majority of the votes from the
continuing ballots, that candidate shall be
declared elected.
(d) This process of eliminating
candidates and transferring their votes to the
next -ranked continuing candidates shall be
repeated until a candidate receives a majority
of the votes from the continuing ballots or
there is only one continuing candidate.
(e) In the event of a tie between two
or more candidates after any round of
counting, the candidate to be eliminated shall
be determined by lot.
SEC. 4.05. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS -
MULTIPLE SEATS.
(a) For the purposes of this
section: (1) a majority is defined as 500 of
the ballots cast plus one; (2) the first two
choices on the ballot for City Council
candidates shall both be considered as the
first or highest ranked choice; (2) a
candidate shall be deemed "continuing" if the
candidate has not been eliminated;,(3) a
ballot shall be deemed "continuing" if it is
not exhausted; and (4) a ballot shall be
deemed "exhausted," and'not counted in further
stages of the tabulation, if all of the
candidates chosen on that ballot have been
eliminated or there are no more candidates
indicated on the ballot. If a ranked -choice
ballot gives equal rank to two or more
candidates, the ballot shall be declared
exhausted at the point of the ballot when such
multiple rankings are reached.
A majority is based upon
the total number of ballots
cast in the election. This
would include write-ins as
well as blank ballots.
The definition of a
majority would remain the
same throughout the
counting regardless of
whether any ballots were
"exhausted."
3
DRAFT
If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot
but skips a rank, the voter's vote shall be
transferred to that voter's next ranked
choice. or
If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot
but skips a rank, the voter's choices after
the blank rank shall not be counted.
(b) Members of the City Council shall be
elected using a ranked -choice, or "instant
runoff," ballot. The ballot shall allow
voters to rank a number of choices in order of
preference equal to the total number of
candidates for each office; provided, however,
if the voting system, vote tabulation system
or similar or related equipment used by the.
City and County cannot feasibly accommodate
choices equal to the total number of
candidates running for each office, then the
City Clerk may limit the number of choices a
voter may rank to no fewer than three. The
ballot shall in no way interfere with a
voter's ability to cast a vote for a write-in
candidate.
(c) If one or more candidates receives a
majority of the highest ranked choices, those
candidates shall be declared elected. If more
than two candidates for Council receive a
majority of the ballots cast, the two
candidates receiving the most votes shall be
declared elected.
If no candidate receives a majority, the
candidate who received the fewest highest
ranked choices shall be eliminated and each
vote cast for that candidate shall be
transferred to the next ranked candidate on
that voter's ballot. An elected candidate can
never be eliminated.
Again, the Commission
needs to decide what to do
with ballots where a
position is skipped, e.g. a
voter marks a ballot for
the first choice, skips
Alternative #1, and then
marks Alternative.0
This language is
necessary to account for
a situation where more
than two candidates
receive a majority of the
ballots cast. (See 1981
election)
COUNCIL MEMBER 1981
Ellen Lavin 895 70%
Jim Shirley SIR,, 5 6 %
Paul Slaton 657 51%
TOTAL BALLOTS
CAST 1,277
Once a candidate reaches a
majority, she/he is elected.
(except for the above example.)
Even if this elected candidate is
overtaken during the continuing
count, they remain elected.
G1
DRAFT
If, after this transfer of votes, any
candidate has a majority of the votes from the
continuing ballots, that candidate shall be
declared elected.
(d) This process of eliminating
candidates and transferring their votes to the
next -ranked continuing.candidates shall be
repeated until two candidates receive a
majority of the votes from the continuing
ballots or there are only two continuing
candidates.
(e) In the event of a tie between two
or more candidates after any round of
counting, the candidate to be eliminated shall
be determined by lot
SEC. 4.06. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS -
IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) The City Clerk shall conduct a
voter education campaign to familiarize voters
with the ranked -choice or, "instant runoff,"
method of voting.
(b) Ranked choice, or `instant
runoff,' balloting shall be used for the first
municipal election in November 2007 and all
subsequent elections unless the City Clerk
certifies to the City Council no later than
four months prior to an election that the
Department will not be ready to implement
ranked -choice balloting in that election. Such
certification must include the reasons why the
Department is not ready to implement ranked -
choice balloting. The City Council shall have
the ability to accept the certification or to
order the Department to implement ranked -
choice balloting.
This language has been
proposed to allow the
Council to defer
implementation should the
cost of acquiring or
programming machines be
excessive. The Council
would have the final say in
whether cost or any other
reason is sufficient to delay
implementation.
61
Ranked -ballot for Council
Scenario #1
100 BALLOTS.
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
X
0
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
o
X
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
50 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
Alternate #1
Alternate 92
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
0
X
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
X
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
P-TIM. well- M
Candidate
1st choice
1" choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
X
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
X
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
0
X
0
Stephen Douglas
X
0
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
rite -in:
0
0
0
0
0
25 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
0
0
0
X
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
X
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
40 BALLOTS
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
X
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
X
o
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
1
Scenario 1 - Counting Choice 1 and 2 as equal — redistributing from Choices 3 to 5
Majority = # of Ballots + 1 = = 235 + 1 = 117.5 + 1 = 118.5 (truncate) 118
* of seats 2
Candidate
Total of lst
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
and 2"d
John Adams
160
160
+50
210
Adams
Elected
Aaron Burr
100
100
+45
145
Burr
Elected
Henry Clay
90
+25
115
115
Stephen Douglas
95
95
-95
-
-
John C.
25
-25
-
Fremont
2
Ranked -ballot for Council
Scenario #2
100 BALLOTS....
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
X
o
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
X
o
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
0
X
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
50 R AT J ,OTR
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
0
0
X
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
X
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
20 RALLOTS_ _ _
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5'h choice
John Adams
0
X
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
X
0
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
o
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
25 RAT,T,OTS_..
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5eh choice
John Adams
0
0
0
0
X
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
X
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
40 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5ch choice
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
X
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
X
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
Scenario 2 - Counting Choice 1 and 2 as equal — redistributing from Choices 3 to 5
Majority = # of Ballots + 1 = = 235 + 1 = 117.5 + 1 = 118.5 (truncate) 118
# of seats 2
Candidate
Total of 1st
and 2°d
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
John Adams
160
Adams
Elected
160
+50
210
Aaron Burr
100
100
100
Henry Clay
90
+25
115
+45
160
Clay
Elected
Stephen Douglas
95
95
-95
-
-
John C.
Fremont
25
-25
-
V
Ranked -ballot for Council
Scenario #3
90 BALLOTS....
Candidate
1st choice
I" choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
X
0
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
0
X
0
[John C. Fremont
EIE
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
50 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
0
0
X
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
X
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
20 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
0
X
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X*
0
0
Stephen Douglas
X
0
0
0
0
ohn C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
35 BALLOTS...
Candidate
lst choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
0
0
0
0
X
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
X
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
40 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
X
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
o
0
X
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
5
Scenario 3 - Counting Choice 1 and 2 as equal — redistributing from Choices 3 to 5
Majority = # of Ballots + 1 = 235 + 1 = 117.5 + 1 = 118.5 (truncate) 118
# of seats 2
Candidate
Total of 1st
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
and 2°d
John Adams
150
150
Adams
Elected
Aaron Burr
90
90
Henry Clay
90
+35
125
Clay
Elected
Stephen Douglas
105
105
-
John C.
35
-35
-
Fremont
0
Ranked -ballot for Council
Scenario #4
90 BALLOTS....
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
X
0
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
0
X
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
50 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
0
0
X
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
X
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
20 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
0
X
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
X
0
0
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X*
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
0
X
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in•
0
0
0
0
0
35 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
0
0
0
0
X
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
X
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
40 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
lst choice
3rd choice
4th choice
5th choice
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
X
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
X
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
7
Scenario 4 - Counting Choice 1 and 2 as equal — redistributing from Choices 3 to 5
Majority = # of Ballots + 1 = = 235 + 1 = 117.5 + 1 = 118.5 (truncate) 118
# of seats 2
Candidate
Total of lst
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
and 2°d
John Adams
150
150
Adams
Elected
Aaron Burr
110
110
Henry Clay
90
+35
125
Clay
Elected
Stephen Douglas
85
85
-
John C.
35
-35
-
Fremont
8
Ranked -ballot for Council
Scenario #5
100 BALLOTS....
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
50 BALLOTS.._
Candidate
1st choice
I" choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
0
X
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
X
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
KI C _ w"IM
Candidate
1st choice
19t choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
X
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
X
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
0
X
0
Stephen Douglas
X
0
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
25 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
15t choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
0
0
0
X
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
0
X
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
X
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
X
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
40 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
18t choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
X
0
Henry Clay
0
X
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
X
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
X
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
w
Scenario 5 - Counting Choice 1 and 2 as equal — redistributing from Choices 3 to 5
Majority = # of Ballots + 1 = = 235 + 1 = 117.5 + 1 = 118.5 (truncate) 118
4 of seats 2
Candidate
Total of 1st
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
and 2°d
John Adams
160
160
160
Adams
Elected
Aaron Burr
50
50
+20
70
Henry Clay
90
+25
115
+25
140
Clay
Elected
Stephen Douglas
45
45
-45
John C.
25
-25
-
Fremont
lul
Ranked -ballot for Council
Scenario #6
All bullet votes (expresses need for "exhausted" line)
100 R A LLOTS
Candidate
1st choice
1St choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
X
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
50 BALLOTS_
Candidate
1st choice
Pt choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
0
0
Henry Clay
X
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
20BALLOTS---
Candidate
1st choice
I" choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
X
0
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
25 BALLOTS.._
Candidate
1st choice
15t choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
0
0
0
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
X
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
40 BALLOTS...
Candidate
1st choice
1st choice
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
John Adams
0
0
0
0
0
Aaron Burr
X
0
0
0
0
Henry Clay
0
0
0
0
0
Stephen Douglas
0
0
0
0
0
John C. Fremont
0
0
0
0
0
Write-in:
0
0
0
0
0
11
Scenario 6 - Counting Choice 1 and 2 as equal — redistributing from Choices 3 to 5
Majority = # of Ballots + 1 = = 235 + 1 = 117.5 + 1 = 118.5 (truncate) 118
# of seats 2
Candidate
Total of 1st
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
Transfer
Recount
and 2nd
John Adams
100
100
100
100
Adams
Elected
Aaron Burr
40
40
40
-40
Henry Clay
50
50
50
50
Clay
Elected
Stephen Douglas
20
-20
-
John C.
25
25
-25
-
Fremont
Total Exhausted
20
45
85
12