Special Election to Select a Representation Plan

[Brian Langstraat]

Linn County, Iowa is having a special election soon to select a representation plan for the county board of supervisors.

Currently, Linn County uses Plan “three.”

The ballot instructs "Vote for only one plan."

Iowa law (IA Code § 331.206) mandates that:

1.  One of the following supervisor district representation plans shall be used for the election of supervisors:

a.  Plan “one.”  Election at large without district residence requirements for the members.

b.  Plan “two.”  Election at large but with equal-population district residence requirements for the members.

c.  Plan “three.”  Election from single-member equal-population districts, in which the electors of each district shall elect one member who must reside in that district.

The special election ballot instructs "Vote for only one plan." and the general election ballot instructs "Vote for only one candidate." for every plan.

Do other states have similarly limited options for "representation plans" or voting systems?

Plan “one.” is multi-winner Single Non-Transferable Voting (SNTV).

Plan “two.” is like an overly simplified version of GOLD Voting with the Geographic (G) but no Open List (OL) nor Delegated (D) aspects.

Plan “three." is basic First Past The Post (FPTP) with multiple districts.

I favor Plan “one.” which would typically have the most votes contribute to the winners and no redistricting, but apparently many of my neighbors have not:

In a special election that saw a 14.4 percent turnout, voters selected the current representation plan — district voting with district supervisors — by a more than 56 percent majority.

District representation with at-large voting received about 41 percent of votes. At-large voting brought in less than three percent approval from voters.

Of Iowa’s 99 counties, 44 follow full districts with as in Plan “three.", 17 have Plan “two.” and 38 are Plan “one.”.

Has anyone analyzed a voting system like Plan “two.”?

[Brian Langstraat]

Today is the special election.

I voted for Plan "one." since it would not involve districts and would typically be the most proportional, but considered Plan "two." since it was an interesting voting system and more likely to win.

[Brian Langstraat]

The results of the special election were disappointing.

Voter turnout was a pathetic 6.26% of Linn County's population, which cost more than $20 per voter.

A total of 9,339 residents voted in the countywide special election, making for a voter turnout of about 6.2 percent. That’s more than 3,000 fewer people than signatures on the June petition that called for the special election in the first place.

The votes for each plan were:

Plan "one.". . . . . . . . . . 13.37%

Plan "two.". . . . . . . . . . 15.20%

Plan "three." . . . . . . . .  71.43%

Almost everyone complains about government, but when there is an opportunity to make a fundamental change, the few people that show up choose the status quo.

Supervisor Stacey Walker summed up the results as a success for all Linn County residents.
“Representation by districts is going to allow for people in all communities, rural and urban, to have a voice on their Board of Supervisors,” he said. “This also allows for the greatest chance for there to be ideological diversity on the board.”

Plan "three." almost guarantees 2 Democratic urban districts and 1 Republican rural district, while Plan "one." could have increased ideological diversity of supervisors as 1 urban (D), 1 suburban (R/D), and 1 rural (R).