Flawed reporting on ranked choice voting

VTDigger ran an article on Gov Scott allowing Burlington to determine how we run our local elections, but it shows a lack of understanding of local history and does not interrogate misleading statements made by the governor.  

"One person, one vote"

The third paragraph states that the Governor "made clear that he opposed a statewide system of ranked choice voting because he believes 'one person should get one vote, and candidates who get the most votes should win elections.' "

Here Gov Scott is spreading the false narrative that ranked choice voting constitutes giving people multiple votes.  In March 2009, Burlington Ward 7 voters did not elect a winner in the City councilor race between Vincent Dober, Ellie Blais, and Eli Lesser-Goldsmith, and a runoff was held at a later date between Dober and Lesser-Goldsmith.  People who voted for Blais on March 3 were rightly allowed to participate in the runoff election.  Transferring your single vote to later stages of an instant runoff are no different. 

By blindly reprinting the Governor's words without remark, VTDigger helps to perpetuate the lie.

Prior history of ranked choice voting in Burlington 

The fourth paragraph states:

In his letter, the governor referred to an earlier era of ranked choice voting in Burlington. The city adopted the system for all city elections in 2005 but discarded it in 2010 after it led to the election of Progressive Mayor Bob Kiss — who had not won a plurality of votes and whose tenure ended in scandal.

There are two problems with this paragraph:

1. The city only used ranked choice for the mayoral elections of 2006 and 2009, and no other elections. 
2. The paragraph implies that Kiss only won re-election in 2009 because of ranked choice voting.  In fact, under the current rules, no one would have won the 2009 mayoral election in the first round because no one had 40% of the vote.  There would then have been a runoff between Kiss and Wright.  By looking at the ranked choice ballots, we can see that Kiss would have won this traditional runoff election. 

By getting basic facts about the history of ranked choice voting in Burlington wrong, VTDigger erodes trust in a system that works.

What does Scott think the "right" results were?

The fifth paragraph quotes Scott: “Ten years ago, Burlington voters rejected a similar instant runoff election system because it yielded flawed results”.

This is a rather vague statement that allows for multiple interpretations.  Republicans can point to the fact that Kurt Wright had the plurality of votes in the first round and (wrongly) claim he should have won.

Democrats can point to the fact that Andy Montroll was the Condorcet winner of the election.  Of course, it is only because we had ranked choice ballots that we knew that Andy Montroll "should have" won the election.  The solution to this is not to get rid of the ranked choice ballots, but to check whether there is a Condorcet winner before falling back to approval voting or instant runoff if there is no Condorcet winner.

By not interrogating this statement, VTDigger lets Gov Scott off the hook as he tries to please both Republicans and Democrats by eroding trust in a system that can be improved, but works better than the current one.

A Tale of Two Townships

Today's internet rabbit hole.

There are two Ocean Townships in New Jersey, and this has caused no end of confusion for one having grown up in one of them.  (or, as my mom has noted, "Very smart NJ, let’s have another Ocean Twp, that won’t be confusing.")

However, it is only today that I bothered to find out that the Monmouth County Ocean Township is the OG Ocean Township, and the Ocean County Ocean Township is a case of people always been stupid.

Moreover, I hadn't realized before that the OG Ocean Township actually bordered the ocean, until it was carved up to make all the oceanside towns.  The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968 is kinda awesome, and while browsing, came upon this map, which labels the river south of the Manasquan River as the "Metetecunk", which feels like an important omission from the Wikipedia page for the Metedeconk River. 

Bad Reviewer Quotes, Bad Days in History Edition

We have a copy of Michael Farquhar's Bad Days in History: A Gleefully Grim Chronicle of Misfortune, Mayhem, and Misery for Every Day of the Year, which I had intended to read one day at a time over the course of 2021, but it was engrossing and I quickly got too far ahead (was at mid-March in mid-January), so I put it aside to pick up again in March, but forgot to put in a calendar reminder, and so here I am on December 31 trying to power through it.  

It's... good, I guess?  but I'm not entirely certain it's that much better than looking through the Wikipedia entries for "on this day".  Part of my hesitation comes from the fact that entries vary from a couple sentences to a couple pages.  I know they can't all be particularly detailed, because Farquhar is writing a sub-500 page book and not a 732 page book.  And sometimes the short ones work well, like the day Joan of Arc's death sentence was nullified, 25 years after she was burned at the stake.  

That sort of tale seems to fit the "Gleefully Grim" part of the subtitle, and the quote from the Washington Post's review on the front cover leans into this: "An upbeat catalog of defeats, faux pas[,**] and falls from grace that contributed to some very crummy moments."  Similarly, the Portland Book Review*** quote on the back cover states, "A wonderful morbid and entertaining collection."

A lot of the entries are morbidly entertaining.  Then there are entries like July 30, 1865, when Ignaz Semmelweis was committed to an asylum.  This is not merely a morbidly entertaining "crummy moment", but the culmination of nearly 20 years of trying to get fellow doctors to wash their hands before examining patients -- especially in the obstetrics department.  There are many more entries like this, which I think are important, but they are sobering tragedies, not "upbeat defeats". 

** Fixing the lack of Oxford comma

*** Note that the full review is more measured; this is just a bad choice of quote for the book cover.  

The importance of emphasis (Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer edition)

 In a production with a number of things one could take issue with, one of the things that really bugs me about the Rankin & Bass "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" is that, in the scene after the disastrous reindeer games in which Rudolph's "nonconformity" is discovered, Clarice tries to comfort Rudolph, and he says to her: 

"Aren't you going to make fun of *my* nose, too?"  

...with the emphasis on *my* instead of *you*. With the emphasis on *my*, it sounds like Clarice has just been making fun of other reindeer's noses and now Rudolph is expecting her to also make fun of his.  If the emphasis were properly placed on *you*, then it would correctly sound like a bunch of other reindeer have been making fun of Rudolph's nose, and he is expecting her to join the others in making fun of it.

(note: posted 12/24/25, backdated to when I originally shared to friends on FB)

the kiddie pool is gone and it looks like they turned that area into a splash park

For four summers, I was a lifeguard at the community pool.  Back in the day, there were: 

• a primary pool; 50 meters long, and 5 feet at its deepest.  At one end were 6 25-yard lap lanes; at the other was a "shallow end" for small children   
• a diving tank (not pictured) that was 16 feet at its deepest
• a "kiddie pool" that was wading depth for toddlers.   

I recently noticed that the kiddie pool is gone and it looks like they turned that area into a splash park.  Maybe for insurance reasons, since many parents did not exactly watch their kids, maybe for maintenance reasons, since it's probably much easier to clean up a splash park than that tiny pool with all the stuff that babies do in it. 

I also noticed across the street that the high school has this big new addition/wing where the "temporary" trailers used to be.  (I guess they really did end up being temporary!)

(Note: this post was uploaded to this blog on Dec 23, 2025, backdated to Aug 13, 2021, which was the date of the conversation this was transferred from)