Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
A charter change sponsored by five city council members, looks
to change the way at large council members are elected
in Denver while also increasing voter participation.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
District two council Member Kevin Flynn one of those sponsors,
and he joins us now on the KWA Common Spirit
Health Hotline to talk more about it. Council Member Flynn,
thank you so much for your time this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Oh, you're welcome. How are you Dad doing well?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Before we dive a little bit into this new proposal
that you're looking for, tell us a little bit about
how the current at large city council seats are chosen
and why you'd like to see a current a change
to the current system.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Well, there was a charter change back in nineteen sixty
eight that started to apply in the seventy one election.
So it's been in here for quite a time, and
it wasn't meant to be that way. A long story
that I don't want to go into right now, but
right now, what we do is everybody runs on one
ballot and you vote for two and the result is
(00:57):
when you have a lot of people running that we
end up up with at large members who have won
office by averaging less than one third of the vote.
When you vote for two on one ballot, what happens
is a lot of people decide I'm only going to
vote for my favorite, I'm not going to use my
(01:18):
second vote. So then we have under voting. That is,
people don't use their second vote because they don't want
to harm the chances of their first choice. So you
have your more than one third of the votes going
to waste, and frankly, that's not good for democracy in Denver.
(01:39):
Every other elected official in Denver has to win by
fifty percent plus one at least of the vote. That's
been true since the fifties when we put in the
runoff system. So this would allow voters to vote separately
or what we call at large seat A at large
(01:59):
seat B, and that would assure that they'd be elected
by a majority of the vote.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Kevin, I'm assuming that this is less about the politics
and more about the process. Sounds like mission creep to
me that you did it so long and then no
one really looked to change it, and then you got
to the situation. But I'm assuming there's bipartisan support firm
if I've read properly on.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
This, Yes, we have What happened was Marty. This was
supposed to be in nineteen sixty eight. There were two
charter changes, one of which the state Supreme Court declared unconstitutional.
Denver was supposed to have partisan elections instead of our
long history of non partisan elections. And in that case
(02:39):
we would have had party primaries. There are caucuses, and
there would have been two elections for city council all
the time, and the at large people were supposed to
be running as Democratic or Republicans, and so you would
have had four candidates, two Democrats, two Republicans. And that
(02:59):
was the declared The partisan amendment was declared unconstitutional, so
we went back to the system where you vote for
any number of candidates on a single ballot. There have
been as many as thirteen people running for two seats,
and there have been as few as three people running
for those two seats. Before I ran, I was a
(03:20):
reporter for the Rocky Mountain News, and I used to
talk to at large councilwoman Kathy Reynolds, who served for
a long time, and she said, no, you ought to
run for a city council. You ought to run at
large because you only have to come in second to
win a seat. That's not a really good campaign slogan
for me, right.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Okay, So, Councilman Flynn, how would candidates choose which race
to enter if you had an at large seat A
and an at large seat B? How would that be designated?
Speaker 3 (03:50):
It would be up to then I'll want to run
for A. I want to run for B.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
But is there the possibility that competition could be more
challenging in A and then not as dominant candidates and B.
And it's really just the luck of the draw of
knowing if you have a better chance in one than
the other.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Certainly that's how politics goes.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
And so I'm guessing, Oh, I'm sorry, Kevin, And I'm
guessing part of this is it incorporates more democracy people voting.
But I'm assuming too, in your view that you probably
get a little better representation in the process as well.
Would that be a fair way to describe it exactly.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
I had to get a majority of the vote I
had when I first rand and I had a runoff
in twenty fifteen, and that's how it was assured that
the majority of the people in my district want to
be to serve. We don't have that for at large,
and I think it's time we do that.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
We have about a minute left, and I know this
next question maybe a little lengthier than that, but do
you have thoughts on if we went to a rank
choice voting system for all city positions.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Oh, I got a lot of thoughts on that. Ryank
choice voting is a a wolf in sheep's clothing. That
would be a way to go back to the old
plurality voting. Rhine choice voting very rarely results in a
majority winner because it determines its winner by throwing out
people's ballots as the rounds continue. If you don't if
(05:20):
a voter doesn't rank any of the continuing candidates over
multiple rounds of counting, their ballot is thrown out of
the denominator. There was an elect official in San Francisco,
where they've had rhine choice voting for years. After twenty
rounds of counting, she took her seat on their Board
of Supervisors, which is their city council. When she got
(05:43):
only twenty I think it was twenty four percent of
the total vote, but that's because almost sixty percent of
the ballots were thrown out of the count That's as
though those voters never even showed up. It's disenfranchising. So yeah,
I have a lot of thoughts on that.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
That would be a huge backward Kevin final.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
Quest or ranked never had a ranked preferential voting system
similar to this back in the nineteen sixteen I believe
in nineteen thirty five where you could vote for up
to three people your first choice, your second choice, your
third choice, and we got rid of that in nineteen
thirty five. We should not go back to it.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Kevin final question, is there a space if I understand
where people on that people can weigh in on what
you're trying to do the sponsor bill, what people get,
people's thoughts, public opinion.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Yes, because we we're going to have a why I
don't have to date some from me. We're having a
virtual townel hall and we're having an in person town hall.
Why I should get them to I'll get them to
you so you can let people know the days they
just don't have it.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Right in front of me, council Member of District two,
it's Kevin Flynn. Thank you so much for your time.
As always,
A charter change sponsored by five city council members, looks
to change the way at large council members are elected
in Denver while also increasing voter participation.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
District two council Member Kevin Flynn one of those sponsors,
and he joins us now on the KWA Common Spirit
Health Hotline to talk more about it. Council Member Flynn,
thank you so much for your time this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Oh, you're welcome. How are you Dad doing well?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Before we dive a little bit into this new proposal
that you're looking for, tell us a little bit about
how the current at large city council seats are chosen
and why you'd like to see a current a change
to the current system.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Well, there was a charter change back in nineteen sixty
eight that started to apply in the seventy one election.
So it's been in here for quite a time, and
it wasn't meant to be that way. A long story
that I don't want to go into right now, but
right now, what we do is everybody runs on one
ballot and you vote for two and the result is
(00:57):
when you have a lot of people running that we
end up up with at large members who have won
office by averaging less than one third of the vote.
When you vote for two on one ballot, what happens
is a lot of people decide I'm only going to
vote for my favorite, I'm not going to use my
(01:18):
second vote. So then we have under voting. That is,
people don't use their second vote because they don't want
to harm the chances of their first choice. So you
have your more than one third of the votes going
to waste, and frankly, that's not good for democracy in Denver.
(01:39):
Every other elected official in Denver has to win by
fifty percent plus one at least of the vote. That's
been true since the fifties when we put in the
runoff system. So this would allow voters to vote separately
or what we call at large seat A at large
(01:59):
seat B, and that would assure that they'd be elected
by a majority of the vote.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Kevin, I'm assuming that this is less about the politics
and more about the process. Sounds like mission creep to
me that you did it so long and then no
one really looked to change it, and then you got
to the situation. But I'm assuming there's bipartisan support firm
if I've read properly on.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
This, Yes, we have What happened was Marty. This was
supposed to be in nineteen sixty eight. There were two
charter changes, one of which the state Supreme Court declared unconstitutional.
Denver was supposed to have partisan elections instead of our
long history of non partisan elections. And in that case
(02:39):
we would have had party primaries. There are caucuses, and
there would have been two elections for city council all
the time, and the at large people were supposed to
be running as Democratic or Republicans, and so you would
have had four candidates, two Democrats, two Republicans. And that
(02:59):
was the declared The partisan amendment was declared unconstitutional, so
we went back to the system where you vote for
any number of candidates on a single ballot. There have
been as many as thirteen people running for two seats,
and there have been as few as three people running
for those two seats. Before I ran, I was a
(03:20):
reporter for the Rocky Mountain News, and I used to
talk to at large councilwoman Kathy Reynolds, who served for
a long time, and she said, no, you ought to
run for a city council. You ought to run at
large because you only have to come in second to
win a seat. That's not a really good campaign slogan
for me, right.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Okay, So, Councilman Flynn, how would candidates choose which race
to enter if you had an at large seat A
and an at large seat B? How would that be designated?
Speaker 3 (03:50):
It would be up to then I'll want to run
for A. I want to run for B.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
But is there the possibility that competition could be more
challenging in A and then not as dominant candidates and B.
And it's really just the luck of the draw of
knowing if you have a better chance in one than
the other.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Certainly that's how politics goes.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
And so I'm guessing, Oh, I'm sorry, Kevin, And I'm
guessing part of this is it incorporates more democracy people voting.
But I'm assuming too, in your view that you probably
get a little better representation in the process as well.
Would that be a fair way to describe it exactly.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
I had to get a majority of the vote I
had when I first rand and I had a runoff
in twenty fifteen, and that's how it was assured that
the majority of the people in my district want to
be to serve. We don't have that for at large,
and I think it's time we do that.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
We have about a minute left, and I know this
next question maybe a little lengthier than that, but do
you have thoughts on if we went to a rank
choice voting system for all city positions.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Oh, I got a lot of thoughts on that. Ryank
choice voting is a a wolf in sheep's clothing. That
would be a way to go back to the old
plurality voting. Rhine choice voting very rarely results in a
majority winner because it determines its winner by throwing out
people's ballots as the rounds continue. If you don't if
(05:20):
a voter doesn't rank any of the continuing candidates over
multiple rounds of counting, their ballot is thrown out of
the denominator. There was an elect official in San Francisco,
where they've had rhine choice voting for years. After twenty
rounds of counting, she took her seat on their Board
of Supervisors, which is their city council. When she got
(05:43):
only twenty I think it was twenty four percent of
the total vote, but that's because almost sixty percent of
the ballots were thrown out of the count That's as
though those voters never even showed up. It's disenfranchising. So yeah,
I have a lot of thoughts on that.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
That would be a huge backward Kevin final.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
Quest or ranked never had a ranked preferential voting system
similar to this back in the nineteen sixteen I believe
in nineteen thirty five where you could vote for up
to three people your first choice, your second choice, your
third choice, and we got rid of that in nineteen
thirty five. We should not go back to it.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Kevin final question, is there a space if I understand
where people on that people can weigh in on what
you're trying to do the sponsor bill, what people get,
people's thoughts, public opinion.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Yes, because we we're going to have a why I
don't have to date some from me. We're having a
virtual townel hall and we're having an in person town hall.
Why I should get them to I'll get them to
you so you can let people know the days they
just don't have it.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Right in front of me, council Member of District two,
it's Kevin Flynn. Thank you so much for your time.
As always,
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.