California Statewide
News and commentary on electoral reform at the statewide level. For more statewide news visit Californians for Electoral Reform.
Call to Action: Support AB 1662 in the State Senate
CfER-sponsored AB 1662 would help overcome the frequent disenfranchisement of overseas absentee voters by providing them with a special ranked ballot whenever a runoff election might have to be conducted within 90 days of the preliminary round.
AB 1662 must pass the Senate Appropriations Committee by August 15 at the latest, and may be heard by the committee sooner than that. Please take action to support the bill immediately after reviewing this action page.
AB 1662 Action Page Index and Links
Call To Action
Urge your state Senator to support and co-author AB 1662
AB 1662 is CfER's bill to use ranked ballots to improve access to the ballot box for overseas absentee voters. It would apply to general elections held within 90 days of the primary. These include all special elections to fill vacancies in the Legislature and Congress and elections in at least 10 charter cities. Overseas absentee voters would be able to return a special ballot ranking all of the candidates on the first-round ballot. If they are unable to return their second-round ballot in time, this ranked ballot would be used to determine their second-round vote.
As detailed in this chronology , AB 1662 passed the Assembly last year and has been approved by the Senate Elections Committee. It is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee, which must approve it by August 15 at the latest. We estimate that the cost of implementation would be at most $100,000, but this year the annual summer budget crisis is more severe than usual. We need to keep the momentum going and build additional support for the bill if it is to be enacted.
We will need your help to get AB 1662 through the Senate and signed by the Governor. We need you to make two contacts today in the state Senate.
(1) Please contact Senator Tom Torlakson, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and urge him to support the bill when it is heard in committee soon. The hearing must be held by August 15 at the absolute latest.
Senator Tom Torlakson
Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
Postal: State Capitol, Room 5050, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Fax: (916) 445-2527
Email: Senator.Torlakson@senate.ca.gov
(2) Please contact your state Senator today and urge their support for the bill. In particular, please ask that they co-author the bill and send them
You can call, fax, email, or send a postal letter to them. Written comments, especially handwritten letters, have the greatest impact, but do whatever works for you. For contact information for your Senator, please view the Senate roster available here. You can also find out who your Senator is using your address or a map here.
If your senator is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee -- Senators Torlakson (Chair), Cox (Vice Chair), Aanestad, Ashburn, Cedillo, Corbett, Dutton, Florez, Kuehl, Oropeza, Ridley-Thomas, Runner, Simitian, Wyland, and Yee -- be sure to ask them to support the bill when it is heard in committee.
CONDENSED TALKING POINTS
- About 20 percent of overseas voters who attempt to vote don't have their votes counted, and the tight deadlines for runoff elections make this problem worse.
- The federal government urges states to mail overseas ballots by 45 days before election, a deadline that cannot be met in some California runoff elections.
- Ranked ballots offer a very low cost way for voters who cannot return their runoff ballots in time to participate in runoff elections.
- The special ranked ballot will be counted only if a regular runoff ballot is not received from the same voter.
- This process already has a track record and enthusiastic support in Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolinia and Illinois.
For more detailed talking points, see here.
Page last revised July 30, 2008
Urge Governor Schwarzenegger to Sign AB 1294
AB 1294 will allow all cities and counties to use ranked voting systems, incluing instant runoff voting and choice voting. It passed the Legislature on September 12 and is now on Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk.
Please contact the Governor today and urge him to sign AB 1294. You can call, email, fax, or send a postal note. The most important thing is to do it immediately.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916-445-4633
Phone: 916-445-2841
Email: visit gov.ca.gov/interact
A sample letter appears below. For more information, see our AB 1294 Fact Sheet and the abbreviated talking points below. For additional background, detailed talking points, and the list of organizations and public officials supporting AB 1294, please visit CfER's AB 1294 action page.
As a rule of thumb, legible handwritten letters are better than typed or computer printed ones. Letters (as long as they’re legible) are better than faxes. Faxes are better than emails. Emails are better than phone messages. Phone messages are better than illegible handwritten letters. And all of these options are much better than doing nothing and then regretting it later. The most important thing is to take action immediately.
Ballot Access News has these useful tips on surviving your encounter with the Governor's telephone system.
Brevity is the soul of wit, and also the heart of an effective constituent letter.
Brief Talking Points on AB 1294
- AB 1294 is about local control. It provides an option, not a mandate. It makes it possible for general law municipalities and counties to consider election reforms that can increase voter participation and save our municipalities money. Currently, charter cities and counties can adopt electoral systems that best meet their unique needs. The same opportunity should be extended to all cities and counties. The bill requires voter approval in order to adopt a change to ranked voting, so it will only be implemented where there is strong public support for the change.
- Cost savings for local government. There is no fiscal impact on the state, while it gives local governments an opportunity to save money, in some cases a considerable amount. San Francisco alone saves about $1.6 million per election. Los Angeles recently spent $5 million on a runoff election for local offices, which only had 6% voter turnout.
- Instant runoff voting has worked extremely well for voters where it has been implemented. Research in San Francisco shows that 87% of voters understand ranked voting; voters prefer it, three-to-one, to their old system; and think it is more fair by a margin of two-to-one. Voter approval of IRV holds up across every demographic: neighborhood, race, age, sex, party and political philosophy.
- AB 1294 contains uniform election code support for ranked voting, which will help both charter and general law jurisdictions that want to use them. City and county officials and/or local Registrars are not put in the difficult positions of having to make up such procedures themselves
- AB 1294 has broad support. Endorsements include the League of California Cities, the California League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, and the City Clerks Association of California.
Sample Letter to the Governor
Letters to public officials are always more effective when they are in your own words. The example below is best used as exactly that -- an example. Please see the talking points above for other useful ideas.
[Date]
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
I urge you to sign AB 1294, giving all cities and counties the option to use Instant Runoff Voting and Choice Voting. These ranked voting systems have proven themselves to be both good for local governments and good for voters.
Local governments can save a lot of money by being able to elect their representatives in a single election, without the need for a costly runoff election. San Francisco alone saves over $1.6 million per election. Los Angeles just recently held a set of runoff elections that cost around $5 million and only had a 6% voter turnout. That money could be better spent elsewhere, and democracy would be better served by involving more citizens in the process.
Instant Runoff Voting works well, and voters understand it, use it effectively, and like it. Voters in San Francisco preferred IRV by a three to one margin over their previous system, and two to one thought it more fair.
This bill would give general law cities and counties the same opportunity to use ranked voting methods that charter cities and counties have now. These methods can be advantageous in many situations and cities and counties should have the right to make the decision to implement them based on their own specific circumstances and the will of their electorates, rather than being constrained as under current law.
Sincerely,
[YourNameHere]
Last revised September 27, 2007
AB 1294 goes to Governor Schwarzenegger
Update September 12, 2007 -- Late last night the Assembly concurred in minor amendments made in the Senate, and sent AB 1294 to the Governor for his signature.
Please watch CfER's action page for updates on how you can help pass AB 1294.
The vote was 47-30, along party lines, with two members absent.
Update September 10, 2007 -- AB 1294 passed the California Senate today, 22-18.
CfER's bill to allow all cities and counties to adopt ranked voting now returns to the Assembly for concurrence with minor amendments made in the Senate. Then it will go to Governor Schwarzenegger for his signature.
Democrats voted 21 for and 4 against the bill. Republicans vote 1 for and 14 against.
Update August 27, 2007 -- The Senate Appropriations Committee passed AB 1294 today on a 9-8 vote. CfER's bill to allow all cities and counties to adopt ranked voting now moves to the Senate Floor.
Update August 20, 2007 -- The battle over the state budget has thoroughly disrupted the activities of the Legislature. In today's episode of the saga, a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing was cancelled. The two ranked voting bills sponsored by Californians for Electoral Reform, AB 1294 and AB 1662, were among the 255 or so Assembly bills scheduled for this hearing.
There is no word on when our bills will be heard by the Appropriations Committee. Deadlines are looming -- August 31 for committees to report bills to the floor, and September 14 for their passage. These deadlines are in the Joint Rules rather than a statute or the Constitution, so they can be changed at any time by a two-thirds vote of both Houses. (There are some statuatory deadlines, but they pertain only to the second year of the session.)
Presumably, the rules will be suspended or changed if need be once the budget crisis is resolved. But nothing is guaranteed right now, and there is a small (but greater than zero) chance that either or both bills will not reach the Senate floor until next year.
Update July 24, 2007 -- AB 1662 and AB 1294 have both been scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, August 20. Appropriations hearings are in Room 4203 of the State Capitol and begin at 10:00am.
Update July 10, 2007 -- Today the Senate Elections Committee approved AB 1294 and AB 1662, both sponsored by Californians for Electoral Reform. Both bills now advance to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The vote on AB 1294 was 3-2 along party lines. The bipartisan vote on AB 1662 was 4-0, with committee chair Ron Calderon (D-30) abstaining.
Update June 6, 2007AB 1294, which would allow all cities and counties -- not just those with home rule charters -- to use ranked voting methods, passed the California Assembly today. The vote was 47-31, with one abstention and one absence.
Later the same day, AB 1662, which would let overseas voters use ranked ballots when the time between first round and runoff is short, also passed. The vote was 77-0.
An audio transcript of the AB 1294 debate is posted here. Details will follow soon.
Update May 31, 2007 -- Today AB 1662 (see CfER action page) passed the Assembly Committe on Appropriations. The vote was 17-0.
Update May 10, 2007 -- AB 1294 (see CfER action page) passed the Assembly Committee on Appropriations yesterday and is headed to the Assembly floor. The party line vote was 11-5.
During the same hearing AB 1662 was placed on the Appropriations Committee's "suspense file", due in part to a committee staff analysis based on a misreading of the bill that dramatically inflated the expected cost. Bills in the "suspense file" are reviewed at a later hearing in which the committee decides which ones to approve based on the costs and perceived benefits of all the bills in the file.
April 18, 2007 -- Yesterday the Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting approved both of the ranked voting bills before it.
AB 1294 would give all cities and counties the option to use IRV or choice voting in their local elections, and would facilitate the development of compatible voting systems by establishing standards for ranked voting elections. The vote was 5-2.
Marin's representative in the Assembly, Jared Huffman, is among several co-authors of AB 1294.
AB 1662 would help overcome the frequent disenfranchisement of overseas absentee voters by providing them with a special ranked ballot whenever a runoff election might have to be conducted within 90 days of the preliminary round. The 6-0 vote showed bipartisan support for reporting this bill out of committee.
This is exciting news, but it's also just one step. As these bills -- especially AB 1294 -- progress through the Committee on Appropriations and to the floor of the Assembly, they will need steadily growing support from communities and organizations around the state.
Here is a partial list of endorsements of AB 1294:
- Secretary of State Debra Bowen
- Assembly Member Jared Huffman, among other co-authors
- San Mateo County Chief Elections Official Warren Slocum
- Yolo County Registrar of Voters Freddie Oakley
- Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey
- Santa Monica Council President Kevin McKeown
- League of California Cities
- City Clerks Association of California
- League of Women Voters of California
- California Common Cause
- California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG)
- New America Foundation
- Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
- Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
- Asian Pacific American Legal Center
- Community Development Institute of East Palo Alto
- Democracy for America
- Latinos for America
- Green Party
- Libertarian Party
- Peace and Freedom Party
- FairVote – the Center for Voting and Democracy
- Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections
- Davis Citizens for Representation
- Marin Ranked Voting
Last revised September 10, 2007
AB 1662 held over until next year
By Bob Richard
August 30, 2007 -- This afternoon AB 1662 joined roughly 200 other bills for an extended sojourn in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file. It will be considered again next year.
AB 1662 is CfER's bill that would use ranked ballots to increase the number of overseas absentee voters who are able to return their runoff election ballots in time to be counted. For more on the bill, see this fact sheet and this earlier article.
We -- author Assembly Member Paul Cook's staff and CfER activists -- simply don't know why the bill wasn't voted out of the Appropriations Committee. We thought we had cleared up the confusion about cost and equipment requirements that resurfaced in the committee's staff analysis on August 22. And we received positive feedback from the Senators' offices we talked to during the last couple of days. We're surprised by this outcome.
The good news is that we have several months to keep working on the bill. The (somewhat) bad news is that we have to start by finding out who stood in the way and why.
I listened to the entire hearing and, I have to say, there's a lot about the suspense process that I didn't learn. It's clear that all the decisions are made in advance; not a single bill was defeated on a vote. The many bills (including ours) that weren't going to be sent to the floor simply weren't mentioned. The public part of the process serves only to document each vote for the record.
The other day, though, I did find this informative description of the suspense process, written by Frank Russo last May.
AB 1662 had been placed on the Appropriations Committee suspense file at the August 22 hearing because committee staff misunderstood the cost implications.
Stayed tuned.
Bob Richard is Marin County Coordinator for Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER).
Last updated August 30, 2007
Ask your state Senator to support AB 1294
Please Help Us Pass Electoral Reform Legislation in California
AB 1294 — Mullin and Leno — Local Option for Ranked Voting
Urge Your Senator To Support AB 1294
AB 1294 is CfER's bill to allow cities and counties to use ranked voting systems, including instant runoff voting and choice voting. We are very pleased that the California Assembly passed AB 1294 in June and that the Senate Elections Committee passed the bill out of that key policy committee in early July and that just this week we passed the bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill will be up for a vote on the Senate floor in just a matter of days.
Please contact your state Senator today and urge his or her support for the bill when it is voted on soon.
You can call, fax, email, or send a postal note - most important of all is to do it immediately.
For more information, see Background or Talking Points or Supporters below. A sample letter appears below.
For contact information for your Senator, please view the Senate roster available at: http://www.cfer.org/senate You can find out who your Senator is using your address or a map at: http://www.cfer.org/findmysenator.
BACKGROUND
AB 1294, introduced by Assembly Members Mullin (D-19) and Leno (D-13), would allow all cities and counties to use ranked voting systems to elect their representatives. The bill would allow these jurisdictions to use Instant Runoff Voting for single-winner elections or Choice Voting (a ranked voting system similar to IRV) for multiple-winner elections. It would also add to the state Elections Code the guidelines and procedures that registrars and equipment vendors need to count and report ranked voting elections.
AB 1294 passed in the Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting on April 17th and passed through the Committee on Appropriations on May 9th. The bill passed in the full Assembly on June 6th. The bill then moved to the Senate, where it passed out of the Senate Elections Committee on July 10th and out of Senate Appropriations just this week on Monday (8/27). It will come before the Senate floor any day now.
In addition to the successful votes above, we are also very pleased that a number of other legislators have signed on as co-authors of the bill, including Assembly Members Mike Davis, Loni Hancock, Jared Huffman, Betty Karnette, John Laird, Fiona Ma, and Lois Wolk, in addition to the principle authors Gene Mullin and Mark Leno.
This bill is important in that most local jurisdictions are not able to use ranked voting systems under current law, and this bill would permit them to do so. Today only charter counties or charter cities can use IRV, but over three-fourths of cities and counties are general law jurisdictions and don't have these options. Over half of Californians live in a general law city, a general law county, or both. AB 1294 would give these jurisdictions these additional options, but would not mandate that any jurisdictions use these systems. In other words, it is simply permissive and gives local governments the tools they need to respond to the wishes of their voters.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ensures that the winner of a single-winner election has the support of the majority of voters in a single election. By eliminating the need for a costly runoff election it saves local governments a lot of money -- about $1.6M per election in San Francisco alone. IRV also eliminates vote-splitting and spoiler effects, both of which undermine the public's confidence in the political process. Finally, IRV helps promote positive, issue-based campaigns with less negative campaigning because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes in addition to 1st choice votes.
San Francisco has used Instant Runoff Voting extremely successfully for three consecutive elections, and all academic and survey research shows that the results have been excellent. San Francisco voters understood IRV extremely well, used it effectively, and overwhelmingly prefer it to the old two-round runoff system that they had used for decades.
Given the momentum for ranked voting building around the country -- shown last November in Oakland, Davis, Minneapolis (MN) and Pierce County (WA) -- this bill comes at an excellent time.
TALKING POINTS FOR AB 1294:
1) IRV can lead to dramatic improvements in voter participation
One of the arguments that legislators are finding particularly compelling about the bill is the potential for dramatic improvement in voter turnout as a result of using ranked voting, especially among minority communities. San Francisco saw an estimated effective tripling of voter participation overall as a result of using ranked voting (and being able to combine two elections into a single election), and as much as a quadrupling of turnout among minority and low-income neighborhoods. Significant improvements seem likely in other jurisdictions as well, and also for local elections which coincide with the statewide primary and general elections. For an analysis of how IRV led to significant improvements in voter turnout in San Francisco, see: http://www.sfrcv.org/reports/turnout.pdf
2) IRV has an extremely successful track record in its usage in San Francisco
All of the available research and surveys of the usage of IRV in San Francisco support the fact that every single demographic in the city -- defined by where they live and their race, age, gender, party and political philosophy -- preferred IRV to the old runoff system. In fact, voters prefer IRV by a three-to-one margin over the old system. Over 87% of voters said that they understood IRV perfectly well or fairly well, and voters two-to-one perceived the instant runoff voting system as more fair than the prior two-round runoff system. So from the standpoint of voter acceptance, ranked voting has proven exceptional in the last three elections in San Francisco. And in addition to this local usage, over 25 million people worldwide use IRV and have done so for many decades, showing that this is not something on the bleeding edge, but rather a proven system gaining acceptance in California and other states.
3) IRV can save local governments considerable money
There is a significant potential for cost savings by eliminating the need for expensive runoff elections, often elections with single-digit voter turnout. San Francisco alone saves around $1.6 million per election, which is real money when we are talking about local government budgets. In Los Angeles County, they had a recent runoff election for local government offices that cost $5 million dollars and only had 6% voter turnout.
4) Cities and counties deserve the opportunity to use the electoral systems that best address their unique needs.
Currently, only charter cities have this opportunity, and it should be extended to all local governments. Giving general law jurisdictions the right to improve their election procedures would open up valuable new opportunities for them to achieve more representative democracy and better government. Allowing local jurisdictions to demonstrate improvements to their electoral processes allows the whole state to benefit and see what works best.
5) Our current voting systems suffer from a variety of deficits.
These include vote splitting and spoiler effects, and unequal representation. Spoiler and vote splitting effects can allow a candidate to be elected where the majority of people would prefer a different candidate. Our winner-take-all electoral systems ensure that a significant percentage of the population is denied representation, and this ultimately undermines the political system. In particular, minority communities suffer the most, and the Choice Voting system allowed by this legislation provides for much greater opportunities for representation than are afforded under our current at-large winner-take-allsystems.
6) The lack of uniform election code support for these improved electoral systems is a significant obstacle to cities and counties and other jurisdictions that want to use these systems.
AB 1294 addresses this need. In addition, City and County officials and/or local Registrars are not put in the difficult positions of having to make up such procedures themselves.
7) AB 1294 is broadly supported.
See the partial list below of organizations and individuals supporting AB 1294.
SUPPORTERS OF AB 1294 INCLUDE:
- Californians for Electoral Reform (sponsor)
- Secretary of State Debra Bowen
- Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
- Asian Pacific American Legal Center
- California Common Cause
- California League of Women Voters
- California Peace and Freedom Party
- California Public Interest Research Group
- City Clerks Association of California
- City of Davis, CA
- City of Fort Bragg
- Community Development Institute of East Palo Alto
- Davis Choice Voting
- Democracy for America
- FairVote – the Center for Voting and Democracy
- Greenlining Institute
- Kevin McKeown, Councilmember, City of Santa Monica
- Latino Voters League
- Latinos for America
- League of California Cities
- Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections
- Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)
- New America Foundation
- San Mateo County Democracy for America
- Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP)
- Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-Clerk-Recorder, San Mateo County
- William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI).
- Yolo County Registrar of Voters Freddie Oakley
SAMPLE LETTER TO YOUR SENATOR
--------------------------------------------
Send To: {my Senator’s email address here}
Subject: Support AB 1294
--------------------------------------------
Dear {my Senator’s name here},
I urge you to support AB 1294 when it comes up for a vote on the Senate
floor.
AB 1294 gives cities and counties an option to use Instant Runoff Voting
and Choice Voting, two ranked voting systems which have proven themselves to
be both good for local governments and good for voters.
Local governments can save a lot of money by being able to elect their
representatives in a single election, without the need for a costly runoff
election. San Francisco alone saves over $1.6 million per
election. Los Angeles just recently held a set of runoff elections that
cost around $5 million and only had a 6% voter turnout. That money could
be better spent elsewhere, and democracy would be better served by involving
more citizens in the process.
In addition, because only a single election is needed, voter turnout
improves because the election is held when turnout is highest, thus including
more people in the process. An analysis of citywide races in San
Francisco before and after Instant Runoff Voting was used showed that voter
turnout improved by an estimated 2.7 times. The greatest improvement in
voter participation was in minority and low-income neighborhoods, which in
some cases saw as much as a quadrupling of effective voter participation.
Finally, Instant Runoff Voting works well, and voters understand it, use it
effectively, and like it. Voters in San Francisco preferred IRV by a
three to one margin over their previous system, and two to one thought it more
fair.
Let's give all local governments the option to use ranked
voting. It's only an option, not a mandate, and cities and counties at
least deserve a choice.
Sincerely,
{YourNameHere}
--------------------------------------------
Thanks again for your help. If you have questions, please contact:
Rob Dickinson
Executive Vice President
Californians for Electoral Reform
Email:
Web: www.cfer.org
Phone: 650-365-6025
Mobile: 650-544-5925
Last revised August 31, 2007
Contact Senate Elections Committee Today!
Take Action Today:
Support Key Electoral Reform Legislation in California
AB 1294 —
Mullin and Leno — Local Option for Ranked Voting
Please contact members of the California Senate Elections Committee to urge support for AB 1294
Your help is needed now to move key electoral reform legislation in the California Senate. In June, the California Assembly passed AB 1294, legislation by Assembly Members Mullin and Leno to give local governments (i.e. cities and counties) the option to use Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and Choice Voting to elect their representatives. Choice Voting is a similar ranked system as Instant Runoff Voting, only designed to work when electing multiple winners, such as for a city council. Charter jurisdictions already have the opportunity to use these improved electoral systems, but three-fourths of all California cities and counties are "general law" jurisdictions and are not able to use these systems. AB 1294 would level the playing field and give all cities and counties this option.
Please contact members of the California Senate Elections Committee to urge support for AB 1294
We need your help to move this legislation in the Senate. We need you to contact the members of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments committee, and urge their support AB 1294 when the bill is heard in committee on July 10th. You can call, fax, email, or send a postal letter. Written comments, especially handwritten letters, have the greatest impact, but do whatever works for you. But do it soon, as the hearing is on July 10th. For more information, see Background or Talking Points or Supporters below.
California Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional
Amendments Committee
Senator Ron Calderon
Chair, Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments
Postal: California State Capitol, Room 4088, Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: Senator.Calderon@senate.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 445-3090
Fax: (916) 327-8755
Senator Alex Padilla
Postal: California State Capitol, Room 4032, Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: Senator.Padilla@senate.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 445-7928
Fax: (916) 324-6645
Senator Carole Migden
Postal: California State Capitol, Room 2059, Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: Senator.Migden@senate.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 445-1412
Fax: (916) 445-4722
Senator Jim Battin
Postal: California State Capitol, Room 3056, Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: Jim.Battin@sen.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 445-5581
Fax: (916) 327-2187
Senator David Cogdill
Postal: California State Capitol, Room 3048, Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: Senator.Cogdill@senate.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 445-9600
Fax: (916) 327-3523
Optional 6th contact:
Senator Don Perata
Senate President pro Tempore
Postal: California State Capitol, Room 205, Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: Senator.Perata@sen.ca.gov
Phone: (916) 445-6577
Fax: (916) 327-1997
If you can only write one letter, please write to Senator Calderon, the Chair of Senate Elections. If you can write three letters, write to the three Democrats on the committee. Better still, contact all five members of the committee AND send a separate note to Senate President pro Tem Don Perata urging his support for the bill.
BACKGROUND
AB 1294, introduced by Assembly Members Mullin (D-19) and Leno (D-13), would allow all cities and counties to use ranked voting systems to elect their representatives. The bill would allow these jurisdictions to use Instant Runoff Voting for single-winner elections or Choice Voting (a ranked voting system similar to IRV) for multiple-winner elections. It would also add to the state Elections Code the guidelines and procedures that registrars and equipment vendors need to count and report ranked voting elections.
AB 1294 passed in the Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting on April 17th and passed through the Committee on Appropriations on May 9th. The bill passed in the full Assembly on June 6th.
In addition to the successful votes above, we are also very pleased that a number of other legislators have signed on as co-authors of the bill, including Assembly Members Mike Davis, Loni Hancock, Jared Huffman, Betty Karnette, John Laird, Fiona Ma, and Lois Wolk, in addition to the principle authors Gene Mullin and Mark Leno.
This bill is important in that most local jurisdictions are not able to use ranked voting systems under current law, and this bill would permit them to do so. Today only charter counties or charter cities can use IRV, but over three-fourths of cities and counties are general law jurisdictions and don't have these options. Over half of Californians live in a general law city, a general law county,
or both. AB 1294 would give these jurisdictions these additional options, but would not mandate that any jurisdictions use these systems. In other words, it is simply permissive and gives local governments the tools they need to respond to the wishes of their voters.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ensures that the winner of a single-winner election has the support of the majority of voters in a single election. By eliminating the need for a costly runoff election it saves local governments a lot of money -- about $1.6M per election in San Francisco alone. IRV also eliminates vote-splitting and spoiler effects, both of which undermine the public's confidence in the political process. Finally, IRV helps promote positive, issue-based campaigns with less negative campaigning because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes in addition to 1st choice votes.
San Francisco has used Instant Runoff Voting extremely successfully for three consecutive elections, and all academic and survey research shows that the results have been excellent. San Francisco voters understood IRV extremely well, used it effectively, and overwhelmingly prefer it to the old two-round runoff system that they had used for decades.
Given the momentum for ranked voting building around the country -- shown last November in Oakland, Davis, Minneapolis (MN) and Pierce County (WA) -- this bill comes at an excellent time.
TALKING POINTS FOR AB 1294:
1) IRV has an extremely successful track record in its usage in San Francisco
All of the available research and surveys of the usage of IRV in San Francisco support the fact that every single demographic in the city -- defined by where they live and their race, age, gender, party and political philosophy -- preferred IRV to the old runoff system. In fact, voters prefer IRV by a three-to-one margin over the old system. Over 87% of voters said that they understood IRV perfectly well or fairly well, and voters two-to-one perceived the instant runoff voting system as more fair than the prior two-round runoff system. So from the standpoint of voter acceptance, ranked voting has proven exceptional in the last three elections in San Francisco. And in addition to this local usage, over 25 million people worldwide use IRV and have done so for many decades, showing that this is not something on the bleeding edge, but rather a proven system gaining acceptance in California and other states.
2) IRV can lead to dramatic improvements in voter participation
One of the arguments that legislators are finding particularly compelling about the bill is the potential for dramatic improvement in voter turnout as a result of using ranked voting, especially among minority communities. San Francisco saw an estimated effective tripling of voter participation overall as a result of using ranked voting (and being able to combine two elections into a single election), and as much as a quadrupling of turnout among minority and low-income neighborhoods. Significant improvements seem likely in other jurisdictions as well, and also for local elections which coincide with the statewide primary and general elections. For an analysis of how IRV led to significant improvements in voter turnout in San Francisco, see: http://www.sfrcv.org/reports/turnout.pdf
3) IRV can save local governments considerable money
There is a significant potential for cost savings by eliminating the need for expensive runoff elections, often elections with single-digit voter turnout. San Francisco alone saves around $1.6 million per election, which is real money when we are talking about local government budgets. In Los Angeles County, they had a recent runoff election for local government offices that cost $5 million dollars and only had 6% voter turnout.
4) Cities and counties deserve the opportunity to use the electoral systems that best address their unique needs.
Currently, only charter cities have this opportunity, and it should be extended to all local governments. Giving general law jurisdictions the right to improve their election procedures would open up valuable new opportunities for them to achieve more representative democracy and better government. Allowing local jurisdictions to demonstrate improvements to their electoral processes allows the whole state to benefit and see what works best.
5) Our current voting systems suffer from a variety of deficits, including vote splitting and spoiler effects, and unequal representation.
Spoiler and vote splitting effects can allow a candidate to be elected where the majority of people would prefer a different candidate. Our winner-take-all electoral systems ensure that a significant percentage of the population is denied representation, and this ultimately undermines the political system. In particular, minority communities suffer the most, and the Choice Voting system allowed by this legislation provides for much greater opportunities for representation than are afforded under our current at-large winner-take-all systems.
6) The lack of uniform election code support for these improved electoral systems is a significant obstacle to cities and counties and other jurisdictions that want to use these systems
AB 1294 addresses this need. In addition, City and County officials and/or local Registrars are not put in the difficult positions of having to make up such procedures themselves.
7) AB 1294 is broadly supported.
See the partial list below of organizations and individuals supporting AB 1294.
SUPPORTERS OF AB 1294 INCLUDE:
- Californians for Electoral Reform (sponsor)
- Secretary of State Debra Bowen
- Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
- Asian Pacific American Legal Center
- California Common Cause
- California League of Women Voters
- California Peace and Freedom Party
- California Public Interest Research Group
- City Clerks Association of California
- City of Davis, CA
- City of Fort Bragg
- Community Development Institute of East Palo Alto
- Davis Choice Voting
- Democracy for America
- FairVote – the Center for Voting and Democracy
- Greenlining Institute
- Kevin McKeown, Councilmember, City of Santa Monica
- Latinos for America
- League of California Cities
- Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections
- Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)
- New America Foundation
- San Mateo County Democracy for America
- Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-Clerk-Recorder, San Mateo County
- Yolo County Registrar of Voters Freddie Oakley
If you have questions, please contact:
Rob Dickinson
Executive Vice President
Californians for Electoral Reform
Email:
Web: www.cfer.org
Phone: 650-365-6025
Mobile: 650-544-5925
Assembly Bill 1294 would allow all cities and counties to adopt ranked voting
By Rob Dickinson
February 25, 2007 -- AB 1294, introduced on February 23 by Assemblymembers Gene Mullin (D-19) and Mark Leno (D-13), would allow all local jurisdictions (cities, counties, and districts) to use ranked voting systems to elect their representatives. The bill would allow these jurisdictions to use Instant Runoff Voting for single-winner elections or Choice Voting (a ranked voting system similar to IRV) for multiple-winner elections. It would also add to the state Elections Code the guidelines and procedures registrars and equipment vendors need to count and report ranked voting elections.
This bill is important in that most local jurisdictions are not able to use ranked voting systems under current law, and this bill would permit them to do so. Today only charter counties or charter cities can use IRV, but over three-fourths of cities and counties -- and nearly all districts -- are general law jurisdictions and don't have these options. Over half of Californians live in a general law city, a general law county, or both.
AB 1294 would give these jurisdictions these additional options, but would not mandate that any jurisdictions use these systems. In other words, it is simply permissive and gives local governments the tools they need to respond to the wishes of their voters.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ensures that the winner of a single-winner election has the support of the majority of voters in a single election. By eliminating the need for a costly runoff election it saves local governments a lot of money -- about $2M per election in San Francisco alone. IRV also eliminates vote-splitting and spoiler effects, both of which undermine the public's confidence the political process. Finally, IRV helps promote positive, issue-based campaigns with less negative campaigning because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes."
San Francisco has used Instant Runoff Voting extremely successfully for three consecutive elections, and all academic and survey research shows that the results have been excellent. San Francisco voters understood IRV extremely well, used it effectively, and overwhelmingly prefer it to the old two-round runoff system that they had used for decades. In fact, of voters expressing a preference, approximately 5 to 1 prefer the IRV system over their old system.
Given the momentum for ranked voting building around the country -- shown last November in Oakland, Davis, Minneapolis and Tacoma -- this bill comes at an excellent time.
Endorsements and letters of support should be addressed to:
Assemblyman Gene Mullin
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Fax: (916) 319-2119
Talking points on AB 1294
- Cities and counties deserve the opportunity to use the electoral systems that best address their unique needs. Currently, only charter cities have this opportunity, and it should be extended to all local governments.
- Giving general law jurisdictions the right to improve their election procedures would open up valuable new opportunities for them to achieve more representative democracy and better government. Allowing local jurisdictions to demonstrate improvements to their electoral processes allows the whole state to benefit and see what works best.
- Our current voting systems suffer from a variety of deficits, including vote splitting effects, spoiler effect, and unequal representation. Spoiler and vote splitting effects can allow a candidate to be elected where the majority of people would prefer a different candidate. Our Winner-Take-All electoral systems ensure that a significant percentage of the population is denied representation, and this ultimately undermines the political system.
- The lack of uniform election code support for these improved electoral systems is a significant obstacle to cities and counties and other jurisdictions that want to use these systems, and AB 1294 addresses this need. In addition, City and County officials and/or local Registrars are not put in the difficult positions of having to make up such procedures themselves.
- IRV saves taxpayer money by eliminating the need for a separate runoff election.
- IRV reduces negative campaigning.
More Resources
The full text of AB 1294 is here. Also, please visit our download page.
Rob Dickinson is Executive Vice President of Californians for Electoral Reform.
Last revised March 23, 2007
Assembly Bill 1662 would use ranked voting to aid overseas absentee voters
By Bob Richard
February 24, 2007 -- AB 1662, introduced yesterday by Assemblymember Paul Cook (R-65), includes CfER-sponsored language requiring that active members of the military who are stationed overseas be able to use ranked ballots when voting in elections that might lead to a runoff.
When the first and second rounds of a two-round runoff election occur close together, it can be difficult for absentee voters located overseas to receive their second-round ballots (which aren't printed until the first-round results are known) and return them in time to be counted. Only a small number of California cities have second rounds within 45 days of the first round, but a larger number have second rounds 60 to 70 days after the first.
Because the right to cast an effective vote is at stake, this is a significant problem even if it affects only some voters in only a few jurisdictions.
In the long run, we want to replace two-round runoffs with IRV. In the meantime, providing ranked ballots to those voters who might not be able to receive and return their runoff ballots by a deadline, is a useful reform. Under this bill, affected voters would receive both a normal ballot for the first round, and an optional ranked ballot. Only the normal ballot would be counted in the first round. The ranked ballot would be counted only if there is a runoff (and if the voter does not return a normal runoff ballot). It would count for the candidate who receives the highest ranking of those candidates who made the runoff.
AB 1662 has since been amended to require that ranked ballots be sent to all overseas absentee voters rather than just active military stationed overseas, to clarify that the procedure is not instant runoff voting and does not required equipment upgrades, and to improve the description of the procedure.
Arkansas, Louisiana and South Carolina have already adopted this reform. A bill to expand it from active military to all overseas absentee voters is making progress through the Arkansas legislature. And the city of Springfield, Illinois will vote on a similar measure affecting local elections on April 7.
Other provisions of AB 1662 -- not sponsored by CfER -- would allow Federal absentee ballot paperwork to serve in lieu of prior voter registration for overseas absentee voters, and would authorize state and/or county participation in the Federal Voting Assistance Program’s pilot project that would allow persons who register and vote overseas to vote electronically pursuant to federal regulations. The second provision is contingent on funding and authorizes participation rather than requires it.
A one-page fact sheet is here. The text of AB 1662 itself is on the Legislature's website.
Endorsements and letters of support should be addressed to:
Assemblyman Paul Cook
State Capitol
Room 5164
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: (916) 319-2165
Bob Richard is Marin County Coordinator for Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER).
Last revised August 28, 2007
Survey Shows Support for Electoral Reform, Citizens Assembly
By the New America Foundation
December 13, 2006 – As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger calls for more competition in elections, a survey commissioned by the New America Foundation finds that nearly three-quarters of California voters would like to see the governor and the Legislature create a citizen’s panel to explore ideas for making the state’s election process more fair and competitive. If lawmakers did not convene the panel, two-thirds said they would vote for an initiative to create one.
The findings identified overwhelming demand for better elections, as the governor and other leaders have sought to achieve through an independent redistricting proposal. Nearly 70% of respondents said they are unsatisfied with the quality of candidates on the ballot and they "often feel [they] are voting for the lesser of two evils." More than three out of four voters also said the system favors Democrat and Republican candidates and is unfair to independents or minor party candidates. And nearly 60% said the system needs improvement and that government would perform better if a wider variety of candidates were elected.
But the poll also suggests that voters don’t trust politicians to set the rules for their own elections and they are much more confident in citizen-based solutions. About 70% of the poll respondents said they would be more likely to support the recommendations of an average citizens panel as opposed to government or political leaders. Just 10% were more likely to support government recommendations. Voters also were more likely to support a recommendation from an average citizens panel than one composed of independent experts.
"The biggest problem for political reform may not be the message, but the messenger. People don't trust politicians to design their own election system," said Steven Hill, director of the Political Reform Program at New America Foundation, which sponsored the survey. "The poll findings suggest a highly popular method for improving California’s electoral system and creating a government with a wider variety of lawmakers and more public confidence," Hill said.
The support for citizen recommendations was also reflected in the reaction to a citizen-based reform model that was used recently in British Columbia (Canada). Nearly 73% of respondents said California should repeat the British Columbia model, where 160 voters were randomly selected to participate in a year-long evaluation of their democracy. At the conclusion, the recommendations of the panel – known as a Citizens Assembly – were placed on the ballot for all voters to decide.
Under the Citizens Assembly model, average California voters could recommend improvements to the state’s election process, possibly including an independent redistricting commission, open primaries, campaign finance reform or alternative election methods. The survey found a majority of voters across the state already support two alternative election methods – Instant Runoff Voting or Proportional Voting.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) has been used in San Francisco to elect local offices since 2004. Under the plan, voters are allowed to rank their first, second and third choices for each office. The second and third choice rankings are used to elect majority winners in a single election if no candidate receives more than 50% (a majority) of the first choice rankings. The idea is designed to encourage a wider variety of viable candidates, discourage negative campaigning and save taxpayer money by eliminating traditional runoff elections. On Nov. 7, Oakland voters overwhelming passed Instant Runoff Voting with 69% of the vote, and Davis voters passed it with 55%.
Nearly 52% of the poll respondents liked the idea of ranking their choices for elected office. Support for the idea increased to 59% if voters thought it would discourage negative campaigns and to 70% if it would save taxpayer money.
A similar majority in the poll supported Proportional Voting, which also uses ranked choices as well as multiple seat districts to help elect a wider variety of candidates and give voters more viable choices on election day.
The survey was commissioned by New America Foundation and conducted by the Survey and Policy Research Institute in San Jose. It interviewed a random sample of 600 registered California voters who had cast ballots in at least one of the last four elections or who were newly registered to vote. These voters are referred to as active voters. The Surveys were conducted Nov. 27-30 in English and Spanish by EMH Opinions of Sacramento. The statistical margin of error for the survey, at the 95% confidence level, is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The poll analysis, survey questions and results are attached (below) for download in PDF format.
More information about the poll and about Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Voting and Citizens Assembly can be found at the New America Foundation website.
Contact: Steven Hill (415-665-5044) or David Lesher (916-448-3721).
California Democratic Party Reiterates Support for IRV
May 17, 2006 - In the political reform section of its 2006 platform, adopted April 30th at its state convention, the California Democratic Party reiterated its support for IRV with the following sentence: "Encourage, where feasible, instant run-off elections".
Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER) board members Steve Chessin and Rob Dickinson collected the signatures that convinced the platform committee to restore that sentence after it had been dropped from the pre-Convention draft.
In October of last year, the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party adopted this resolution supporting giving communities, including general law cities and counties, the option to use IRV in local elections.
Citizens' Assembly Proposed for California
January 26, 2006
Assembly Members Joseph Canciamilla (D-11) and Keith Richman (R-38) have introduced legislation to create a California Citizens' Assembly modeled on what was done in British Columbia last year.
Read the measure, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 28 (ACA 28), and track its status here.
This development is extremely significant for the electoral reform movement in California. Marin Ranked Voting will maintain this links page to help you keep up-to-date on the progress of the Richman/Canciamilla bill.
The members of a Citizens' Assembly are recruited by drawing names at random from voter registration lists, then selecting members from among those who express an interest to insure a balance of men and women, ethnic groups, and geographical areas. Potential members are allowed to opt out, but no one can opt in. After listening to testimony from both expert witnesses and the general public, the Assembly formulates proposals which are submitted to the voters for possible adoption.
According to early reports, the mandate of the Citizens' Assembly proposed by Canciamilla and Richman would be extremely broad, and would include all aspects of how we elect both the legislature and the state's executive officers. The Assembly would likely be able to consider IRV for executive offices, multimember districts and proportional voting for the legislature, the size of the legislature, redistricting, term limits, and campaign finance reform.
This mechanism for designing electoral reform proposals was first used in the Canadian province of British Columbia in 2004. It has not been used in the United States, but it resembles, in some respects, a state-wide civil grand jury.
Details of the selection process will not be known until the bill is introduced, but press reports suggest that the proposal will call for 160 members, one man and one woman from each of the state's 80 assembly districts, perhaps with 10 additional members selected to provide demographic balance.
The authors have said that if their bill does not pass the legislature, they will support a petition drive to place it on the ballot as an initiative.
Legislative Hearing On Ranked Choice Voting Set For Tuesday
This is an informational hearing rather than a hearing on SB 596 or any other legislation. But it is very important. The committee will hear testimony on IRV implementation in San Francisco and Alameda County, and on choice voting.
October 21, 2005
WHO: Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), Chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee
WHAT: An informational hearing by the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee entitled “Instant Runoff and Ranked Choice Elections: Will They Lead To A Better Democracy?”
WHEN: Tuesday, October 25, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.
WHERE: Auditorium of the Elihu M. Harris State Office Building, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland
WHY: “We’ve used the plurality system to elect people for more than 200 years, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a better way to build the mousetrap,” said Bowen, the author of SB 596 which would allow any city or county to adopt an instant runoff or ranked choice voting system for their local elections. “Preference voting encourages candidates to really try and appeal to a wider audience and it could re-energize voters, because even if their first choice isn’t elected, they’ll still have the opportunity to help elect their second or third choice.
“It takes democracy to a whole new level and given San Francisco’s experience, where 87% of the voters said they understood the system and 61% preferred it to the traditional runoff system, it’s definitely something we should explore.”
Witnesses for the hearing will include:
* Hector Preciado, The Greenlining Institute
* Theis Finlev, California Common Cause
* Goro Mitchell, Community Development Institute
* John Arntz, Director of Elections, City and County of San Francisco
* Elaine Ginnold, Registrar of Voters, Alameda County
* The Honorable Pat Kernighan, Oakland City Council
* The Honorable Kriss Worthington, Vice Mayor, City of Berkeley
* Steve Chessin, Californians for Electoral Reform
* David Holtzman, Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections
* Christopher Jerdonek, The Center for Voting & Democracy
There will be time for public comment at the end of the hearing.
Contact: Evan Goldberg (916) 651-4028
###
CfER Speaks Out on Prop. 77
The board of Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER) adopted the following statement on September 25, 2005:
Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER) takes a deliberate position of neutrality on Proposition 77. We neither support nor oppose it -- not because we disagree among ourselves, but because it would have, at best, a marginal effect on representation. At worst, it would be tied up in the courts for years.
We believe that arguing over who should draw district lines is like arguing over who should rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic; it does not address the fundamental problem. While it may seem egregious to have legislators draw their own districts, having someone else do it won't bring the results proponents of redistricting reform seek to achieve.
Consider the results in states that have taken redistricting out of the hands of their legislators.
Arizona has had an independent redistricting commission since 2001. It now has some of the least competitive races in the nation. All eight congressional incumbents won reelection last year by landslide margins, an average of 34 percent. In the state Senate, none of the 30 seats were competitive, and more than half of the seats were uncontested by one of the two major parties. And 97 percent of all incumbents won reelection, whether they had publicly financed or privately financed races.
Iowa has long been held up as the poster child for the effectiveness of redistricting commissions, yet in 2004 all congressional incumbents easily won reelection, and the average margin of victory was a landslide of 18 percent. In the state Legislature, 61 percent of seats in the House were won by landslide margins, 85 percent by noncompetitive margins of 10 points or more. Only four seats out of 100 were won by less than a five-point margin, and the average margin of victory was a whopping 47 percent. Also, in lower house, the Democrats won a majority of the vote but the Republicans won a majority of seats. Thirty-two seats were uncontested, with another six contested by just one major party.
In Washington State, where the bipartisan redistricting commission produced some of the most competitive races of the 1990s, only one of nine congressional races was close in 2004; the average margin of victory was 28 percent. In the state Legislature, huge numbers of races went uncontested. Republicans dominate almost every legislative district east of the Cascade Mountains and Democrats win almost every district in King County, the most populous, with Seattle as its seat.
Other states with redistricting commissions have had similarly disappointing results. California would too. In addition, the proponents of Prop 77 did both themselves and the voters a disservice by wanting Prop 77 to take effect immediately, as opposed to after the next census. By doing so they have caused the redistricting discussion to become sidetracked by debates over which data to use, and guaranteed a lengthy and expensive court battle over the initiative should it pass. (We believe that any redistricting exercise should always be done with up-to-date demographic information.)
The fundamental problem is that single-member districts pit competitiveness and representativeness against each other in a zero-sum game. In districts that are evenly divided between opposing points of view, elections are hotly contested and the margins of victory are small, but fewer voters have their views represented by the winners. Conversely, in districts that strongly favor one point of view, where elections are often won by landslides, the winners represent more voters but only at the expense of competitiveness.
About 65% of California's voters saw their candidate elected in 2004; that was true for the Assembly, the State Senate, and the Congressional delegation. Yet if these legislative districts are made more competitive, that representation index can only drop towards 50%.
There is a solution to California's redistricting problem, however, and that solution is proportional representation (PR). The principle behind PR is simple: majority rule, with representation for electoral minorities, in direct proportion to the way people vote. That is, 60% of the vote gets you 60% of the seats, not all of them. And 10% of the vote gets you 10% of the seats, not none of them.
There are many systems of PR, but they all share two key ingredients: at least some of the districts elect more than one person, and the winners are allocated in proportion to the vote.
The benefits of PR are increased voter turnout, conformity of government policies with public opinion, and better representation of women and minorities.
How does it work? Instead of voting for just one candidate, you vote for a list. In some systems, parties make up the lists presented to voters. In others, each voter makes up his or her own list by ranking the candidates. Either way, the more votes a list gets, the more candidates from that list get elected.
For example, suppose we divided the state into sixteen districts, each of which elected five members to the Assembly. By using a system of ranking candidates similar to that used in San Francisco to elect their Board of Supervisors, it would only take about seventeen percent of the vote to win a seat, making more seats competitive, while the representation index would simultaneously jump to at least 83%.
(One could view the nesting feature of Proposition 77, that it groups 20 Assembly districts into each Board of Equalization district, as an example of how such "superdistricts" could be created.)
Another benefit of PR is that it renders gerrymandering much less effective, so that it really doesn't matter who draws the lines. With single-member districts, it takes only slightly more than half the vote in slightly more than half the districts to control a legislature. This means that as few as 26% of the voters, properly arranged, can rule over the other 74%. However, using our five-member district PR example, a gerrymander would have to control at least 42% of the voters and carefully arrange them in order to rule over the other 58%.
But CfER is not wedded to any particular system of PR. Rather, we support a process, similar to that used in the Canadian province of British Columbia, in which a panel of ordinary citizens, called a Citizens' Assembly, studies the pros and cons of the various systems and develops a system that its members believe is best. The resulting proposal is then submitted to the whole electorate for a vote.
We agree with the San Jose Mercury News and the Sacramento Bee that the time is right to investigate PR systems. CfER stands ready to lead that discussion.
----
Our thanks to Steven Hill, New America Foundation's Irvine Senior Fellow, for the election statistics on Arizona, Iowa, and Washington State.
###