Kevin Flynn

@ricksallinger Working around Rick was always a treat. I will always remember him as a great competitor and friend. I will always *especially* remember some of the stories about the time we spent in Seattle covering the neo-Nazi RICO trial in '85. A very good human gone too soon.

A note from Rick's family- Rick passed away peacefully Wednesday night. We are heartbroken For 30 years he was a devoted journalist in Denver. He loved every second of it He was the best father to his two sons and a loving husband to his wife of 30 years We love you endlessly

@SteveStaeger Missouri loves company.

I don’t know if I’m getting targeted ads, but it appears the people of Missouri would really like us to come visit.

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny Not a failure. You're talking about a multi-candidate contest. In a single position race, no one hurts their first choice by voting for their first choice. The failure here is electing two at-large on one ballot by mere plurality.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Which is a failure of the system. Voters shouldn’t have to do that to ensure they’re not hurting their first choice.

Oy vey, I forgot the Denver runoff is two months long. Would you rather do ranked choice voting instead? Why/why not?

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny Everyone knows they can vote for two. But they "strategically" bullet-vote (or single-shot) their fav. I talked with lots of voters who did this.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Typically because people don’t realize they can vote for two, or they don’t want to hurt their first choice. Ranking reduces that risk.

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny Why? Check out the voting history on our at-large contests. Massive undervoting. CdeBaca and I teamed up two years ago to try to convert the two at large to districts 12 and 13, with redistricting and termed-out incumbents. Failed at council 6-7.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Sure, but we give people multiple votes for offices with multiple winners. Why can’t we give people additional votes here so they can more fully express their preferences? And everyone gets the same amount so it’s fair.

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny One person, one vote is the best way. No voter should cast more votes in a single race than other voters. We choose who makes the runoff by every participating voter casting a ballot for their choice, and the top two go to runoff.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny It’s often accomplished by high quality polling, which we didn’t get. And I’m asking you only about the first round, how we go about choosing who makes the runoff. Do you think there’s a way to improve that? Or is what happened Tuesday really the best way to do it?

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny That doesn't make sense. You have to vote first to know what the results would be. If you knew ahead of time...? None of this justifies electing a mayor supported by only 20 percent of all the voters. RCV makes that possible in a large field.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Put another way, if voters had known, approximately, what the final results were going to be, how many of them would have wanted to change their vote? I think the answer is a lot. And in a good voting system, that shouldn’t be the case.

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny Would not be true regardless. Most Denver runoffs since 1983 Pena-Tooley have generated higher turnout than the first election. The meaningful say is your vote -- one person, one vote.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Sure, but that would be true regardless. The question is, how can we help make the first round better? Unless you’re saying that most people shouldn’t have a meaningful say in who those final two are. Because that’s what it seems like you’re saying.

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny Not sure I would agree. Those 60% get another vote in runoff and more time to study two contenders, which was lacking in the field of 17. With RCV, those 60% might as well never have voted at all if their ballots get "exhausted"

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Either way, it’s better than what we’re dealing with now where 60+ percent of the city will have voted for someone who’s not in the runoff.

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny I do think what we do now works. But tell me more about your suggestion for a hybrid.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Granting your premise, isn’t a big part of the problem how you decide who gets in the runoff? How would you feel about using ranked voting simply in the first round (to pick the top 2) Do you think what we’re doing now is working?

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny True. But I'm not looking for cheapest way to elect leaders, I'm looking for the most authentic and true majority way. Only via runoff can you increase turnout; majority of Denver runoffs since Peña-Tooley 1983 have seen increased turnout.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Two Round system has its own issues. It’s more expensive, it can disenfranchise the people who were able to show up the first time, but either couldn’t or didn’t vote the second time, or who just got tired. And yeah, it’s important to give voters more choices, not just three.

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny Actually they can't fill out entire ballot; most RCVs allow only three to be ranked. That means voters are disenfranchised even if they rank three who don't make the cut in a 17-candidate race. Horrible system. Only two-round produces majority winner.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny We are disagreeing on the meaning of majority in this case. And it’s not disenfranchising, people have the option of filling out their entire ballot they just choose not to. To disenfranchise someone has a very specific meaning and a long, ugly history.

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny And in RCV, it's disenfranchising. And in nearly every RCV race I examined, it absolutely did mean that the winning candidate didn't get a majority. It's very rare that they do in fact.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny That doesn’t mean the winning candidate didn’t get a majority. It just means that some voters opted not to choose between two candidates they didn’t like. that’s a legitimate choice in a democratic election .

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny Majority winners are rare. Of 46 RCV contests I examined, only 5 winners had actual majority. 10 had less than 40% of the vote. And the more candidates in play, the worse the result. In 9 major city mayorals w/RCV, not a single one "won" with majority.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Because I can show you plenty that have had majority winners. And if some voters prefer not to rank multiple candidates that is, in fact, a legitimate choice to make, councilman.

@chrisFnicholson @AndyKnny But it IS correct. I documented an RCV race in which 3 of every 5 ballots had to be thrown out before a "winner" was declared who had only 21% of the votes. RCV almost never produces a majority winner, and that's not a good thing.

@kflynncolo @AndyKnny Respectfully councilman that’s simply not correct. A majority of exhausted ballots is not something that has happened in any RCV election I’ve followed. And instant runoff RCV always results in a majority winner among the remaining ballots.

@LoDoDistrict @denverlibrary Blake Street Bath and Racquet Club.

Happy #ThrowbackThursday! Do you know the location of this week's #TBT photo? #denver #colorado #lodo #explorelodo #denverhistory (Photo credit: @denverlibrary)

@LoDoDistrict @denverpost @GettyImages Mayor Tom Currigan talking with Dana Crawford while walking down 15th Street toward Larimer Street.

Happy #ThrowbackThursday! Do you know the location of this week's #TBT photo? You also get a star if you can name the woman in the photo! #denver #colorado #lodo #explorelodo #denverhistory (Photo credit: @denverpost via @gettyimages)

@MVitco @LoDoDistrict @denverlibrary Most likely Market Street. Old City Hall was at Cherry Creek and Larimer.

Happy #ThrowbackThursday! Do you know the location of this week's #TBT photo? #denver #colorado #lodo #explorelodo #denverhistory (Photo credit: @denverlibrary)