Ironically, the Portland City Council’s decision to place an alternative referendum question to the small shelter initiative on the November ballot may turn out to be an unwise decision. Portland voters now have three options: 1) The Riverton citizen’s referendum; 2) The council’s alternative; or 3) neither. But two of the options are essentially different ways to vote “no” on the citizen’s initiative.
This now opens the following possibilities. Let’s hypothetically posit the two following scenarios.
Scenario 1: Suppose the Riverton initiative has 40 percent of the popular vote and there was no alternative, then the initiative loses 40 to 60 percent.
Scenario 2: Again, the Riverton initiative has 40 percent of the popular vote and the no vote is equally split between the council’s alternative and neither. This leads to a 40, 30, 30 percent outcome. Since there is no ranked-choice voting here, the option with the largest number of votes wins. Thus, the citizen’s initiative wins.
Obviously, there are many more alternative outcomes, but I think the point is clear. By allowing more “no” options you are essentially splitting up the “no” vote, divide and conquer. Look familiar? This is what happened in the two elections of former Gov. Paul LePage.
Additionally, the public has had more time to become familiar with the Riverton initiative, while the City Council initiative appears to have been hastily cobbled together, giving the public little time to get comfortable with it.
The City Council may learn the hard way in November about the “Law of Unintended Consequences.”
Samuel Rosenthal
Portland
Send questions/comments to the editors.
