News
Our news section includes updates on our current activities; important election reform news from Marin County, around California, and across the United States; and commentary on recent press coverage.Marin
News and commentary about local events, including our own campaign.
Call for election observers: Feb. 5 primary election
By Linda Bagneschi Dorrance
January 18, 2008--This message is going out to folks interested in election integrity issues in Marin County.
It's time to sign up to be election observers for the upcoming Feb. 5 primary election. Transparency and public observation are critical to ensure open and honest elections. Please let me know your availability to observe during any of the following times, even just a few hours or so. I can provide you with guidelines, if that helps. Note: The elections office is closed weekends, so no observers are needed on the weekends.
1. Processing of absentee ballots - Takes place Jan. 25 - Feb. 5 from 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. at the County Registrar of Voters' Office, Marin Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 121, San Rafael.
2. Election day - We need monitors who will go out to one or more poll sites and observe set-up before the election (6-7am), during the election (7am-8pm), and/or especially after the polls close to observe closing procedures and record results from precinct tapes posted outside the poll site door (7:45pm - 9pm or so.) Another option is to observe the vote count that takes place at the Registrar's office on election night from 8pm until approx. midnight.
3. Post-election canvass - Begins Feb. 7 and continues for three or four weeks, 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. at the Registrar's Office. Activities to observe include balancing the rosters, duplicating damaged ballots, counting absentee ballots turned in at the polls, and verifying and counting provisional ballots.
4. One percent manual tally - Begins Feb. 14 (tentative) and continues for 1-2 weeks or more, as needed, at the Registrar’s office. This is a hand-count of ballots from 1% of precincts to check the accuracy of the machine tally.
Many thanks in advance for helping to observe the elections process in Marin County.
Linda Bagneschi Dorrance is an election integrity activist and a member of the Marin County Election Advisory Committee.
Last revised January 19, 2008
Should Novato consider district elections?
September 7, 2007 -- The September 5 Novato Advance includes this article about a Novato resident who wants the city to switch from a council elected at large to one elected from districts.
District proponent Gary Scheppke argues that the current system results in too many council members from one part of town and too few from another part of town. He may well be right, but there's a much better solution to this problem. We'll get to that in a moment.
Novato is not alone. Such geographical concentration of office holders is a common occurance in cities with at large elections in which voters have as many votes as there are seats to fill. This method has several names: at-large plurality, vote for N, block voting, and (here's an academic mouthful) the multiple nontransferable vote (MNTV).
But geographic concentration is only one manifestation of the problem. If the community is divided on a set of issues, and candidates run as members of slates, then block voting results in the largest slate getting all the seats instead of its fair share. When there are more than two slates, a minority of voters can choose the entire council, leaving most voters without any representation at all. That's why it's called "block voting".
District elections have defects too. Critics point out that they encourage office holders to put the interests of their neighborhoods ahead of the city as a whole. For us, the important point is that folks who think alike and want the same policies don't necessarily live in the same neighborhoods. District elections give geography a special status vis-a-vis political philosophy, economic interest, ethnic and lifestyle communities, and anything else you can think of.
There's a third option, one that lets voters themselves decide whether they want representation based on neighborhood, on political views, or on any mixture of factors. It's called "choice voting", and has been used continuously in the Republic of Ireland since 1921 and in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts since 1940 -- among other places.
Using choice voting, the council is elected at large, just as it is now in every city in Marin. But instead of just voting for 2 or 3 candidates, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. The candidates who get elected represent segments of the community roughly in proportion to their numbers.
Choice voting is the multi-seat sibling of instant runoff voting (IRV), which is used in San Francisco and has been adopted by the voters in Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Santa Clara County.
Just as in IRV, candidates who don't have enough support to win are eliminated one by one, and their votes reassigned to each voter's next choice. That way, votes aren't wasted on candidates who don't win.
In addition, when a candidate gets more support than she needs to win a seat, some of that support is reassigned to each voter's next choice. That way, votes aren't wasted on candidates who don't need them because they have already been elected.
As many votes as possible count for a winner. In other words, as many voters as possible get representation on the city council or board. The only limitation is the number of open seats. If there are two open seats, the smallest cohesive group that can be represented is one-third of the voters. With three open seats, the smallest cohesive group is one-quarter, and so on.
The counting process sounds complicated when you describe it in words, but one picture is worth a thousand words and these Flash animations are priceless. Note: these demonstrations are from Canada, where choice voting is called by it's academic name, the "single transferable vote (STV)".
Last fall, the voters of Davis adopted an advisory measure supporting choice voting for their city council. Many readers of this page are members of KPFA-FM. The Pacifica network uses choice voting for all board elections, national as well as local.
Current state law allows Novato to switch from at large to districts, as long as the voters approve a ballot measure. It also allows the city to switch from an appointed to an elected mayor. Again voter approval would be required.
AB 1294 would allow Novato voters to adopt choice voting on exactly the same basis as district elections or an elected mayor. It would also allow Marin County voters to adopt IRV for county offices (none of which are elected at large). It would not require anybody to use IRV or choice voting.
On September 12, the Legislature sent AB 1294 to Governor Schwarzenegger for his signature. We urge you to contact the Governor's office and ask him to sign it. See CfER's action page for details.
For more on both IRV and choice voting, visit FairVote.org as well as surfing this site.
Last revised September 13, 2007
Debra Bowen to speak at election reform forum on September 15
Secretary of State Debra Bowen will be the keynote speaker at a public forum on election reform on Saturday, September 15, at 7:00pm at the College of Marin.
The forum is titled Bring Democracy Home: Election Reforms That Empower Voters.
Click here to see the display ad, and download publicity materials here.
Five leading election reform activists will present their approaches to improving elections. The issues discussed will include integrity of election administration; fair representation and instant runoff voting; ballot access; media coverage and access to debates; and campaign finance reform.
The panelists are:
This panel will be moderated by Laura Wells, a member of the Oakland Measure O campaign and candidate for State Controller in 2006.
The forum will be in Olney Hall on the Kentfield Campus of the College of Marin. From Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, turn south on College Avenue. The main campus parking lot is on the right, opposite the post office. From there, Olney Hall is north on College Avenue at the main entrance to the campus.
The event is sponsored by Marin Ranked Voting and Students for Social Responsibility, and endorsed by Californians for Electoral Reform, the New America Foundation, and Project Censored.
Admission is free.
Last revised September 6, 2007
Could a Citizens' Assembly fix this problem?
By Bob Richard
May 18, 2007 -- In his blog entry for May 14, Marin Independent Journal columnist Brad Breithaupt writes, "Voters -- not politicians -- should be writing the rules when it comes to regulating political campaigns. Instead of a voters-up approach, the county has chosen a supervisors-down strategy."
He goes on to describe an essentially closed-door process for developing a campaign finance reform proposal, and concludes, "I’d feel a lot better if voters, such as the county Registrar of Voters’ elections committee, were authoring the rules rather than county supervisors who want to stay in office and are now writing the rules they -- and their challengers -- would have to follow."
We thank Breithaupt for bringing this up. The Canadians have come up with a great way for voters to write the rules:
These were at the provincial level (equivalent to the state level in the U.S.). But the idea would scale down to the county level extremely well. Needless to say, potential subjects include ranked voting as well as campaign finance rules.
As an aside, campaign finance reform - as important as it is - would not be within the purview of Marin's Election Advisory Committee, which advises Registrar Elaine Ginnold on election administration.
Last revised May 26, 2007
Election Advisory Committee annual community meeting is June 21
May 25, 2007 -- Lowell Finley, Deputy Secretary of State for Voting Systems Certification and Policy, will speak at the first annual community meeting of the Marin County Election Advisory Committee on June 21. For details, see this calendar page.
Brad Breithaupt on Marin Peace and Justice endorsement
From Brad Breithaupt's column in the Marin Independent Journal for November 4, 2006:
Cat Woods is a longshot to win Tuesday's race for Marin's seat in the state Assembly.
But the Green Party nominee won an endorsement from the Marin Peace and Justice Coalition, a progressive organization that boasts a mailing list of 1,500.
Coalition members were evenly split between Woods, a Novato writer, and front-running Democrat Jared Huffman, whose liberal stands on many issues are aligned with many coalition members, said Jim Geraghty of San Rafael, one of the group's leaders.
Woods won the endorsement because of her strong support for "ranked voting" election reform where voters, instead of casting their vote for one candidate, rank their choices. Instead of a plurality where a candidate with the most votes wins, "ranked voting" factors in voters' second, third and fourth choices.
If a candidate fails to win a majority in a multi-candidate race, "ranked voting" would eliminate the last-place finisher and count "second choice" votes that the candidates received.
That process would continue until one candidate wins a majority. There is a possibility that a front-runner who finishes short of a majority, could lose after the second- and third-pick votes are counted.
The change could open the door wider for third-party candidates by reducing defensive voting, in which voters vote for who they think can win, instead of the candidate with whom they agree.
Geraghty said the members used ranked voting to reach their endorsement.
Huffman is listed on their Web site as "our second choice."
All four State Assembly candidates endorse ranked voting
September 28, 2006 - Jared Huffman, Democratic Party candidate for State Assembly from the 6th district, met with Marin Ranked Voting activists on September 27 and endorsed our call to give all local jurisdictions the ability to use ranked voting in their elections.
Republican Party candidate Michael Hartnett and Libertarian Party candidate Richard Olmstead both endorsed ranked voting and joined our list of supporters at the previous meeting on August 23. Green Party candidate Cat Woods has been an active supporter from the beginning.
Our next monthly meeting will be held at the Student Services Building on the College of Marin campus in Kentfield, on Wednesday, October 25. Everyone interested in better ways of choosing public officials is encouraged to drop by.
Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER) annual meeting in Sausalito May 20
April 19, 2006
The Annual General Meeting of Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER) will take place in Sausalito on May 20. Please see the event listing for details on time and location.
The keynote speaker will be Assemblymember Joe Canciamilla, co-author of ACA 28, the bill that would establish a California Citizens Assembly to consider changes to the way the legislature and statewide officers are elected. He will speak on the future of electoral reform in California.
CfER's annual membership meeting is open to the public.
The agenda will include election of the Board of Directors, a review of CfER's achievements and challenges in the past year, a discussion of possible goals for the coming year, and presentation of the Wilma Rule Memorial Award(s) for 2006.
A social gathering after the meeting will be held beginning at 5:30pm (after the meeting) at a place to be determined. Directions to the party will be provided at the meeting.
Dick Spotswood: "Statistical nuances and other lessons of Nov. 8"
December 15, 2005
Dick Spotswood's column in the December 4 Marin Independent Journal column includes a number of interesting notes on the November 8 election. Among them:
Voters are frugal with their votes. In multi-person city council and special purpose districts' races, each voter is allowed to cast as many ballots as there are seats up for grabs. Yet some people chose to cast a "single shot," voting for only one candidate in a multi-person race when they had the option of voting for two or more. In Mill Valley, 2,745 of the 17,964 voters cast a ballot for only one candidate. Likewise, in San Anselmo, 3,896 Hub City residents voted for just one or two candidates, when they were eligible to cast three votes in the contest for three seats on the town council.
On December 9, the Independent Journal ran this letter to the editor (the text has disappeared from the paper's web site):
Columnist Dick Spotswood (Dec. 4) notes that in multiseat city council and district board elections, "some people chose to cast a "single shot," voting for only one candidate in a multiperson race when they had the option of voting for two or more." He doesn't explain why this is often rational given our current voting methods.
If your favorite candidate is not expected to win easily, and the other candidates you support are expected to do better than your favorite, then your second and third votes can help prevent your favorite from winning. In this situation you should "bullet vote" even though the strategy is insincere.
The need to put strategy ahead of voting your true preferences isn't the only problem with this "vote-for-N" method of filling multiple seats at once - or even the most important one. This method frequently allows one segment of the community to elect the entire council or board, while minority points of view go unrepresented. When there are more than two slates of candidates, this can happen even though the winning faction is less than a majority.
A far better method for at-large elections is choice voting, the multiseat sibling of instant runoff voting (IRV). Just as in IRV, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. The rankings are used to balance majority rule and representation of minority points of view. Like IRV, choice voting also creates incentives for positive campaigning, leads to higher voter turnout and minimizes the need for strategic voting.
Robert J. Richard, Kentfield
Two footnotes. The number of voters in Mill Valley was 6,424 rather than 17,964. Also, I don't agree that 3,896 San Anselmo residents voted for just one or two candidates. When exactly two seats are being filled, you can determine the number who cast only one vote by algebra. But I don't believe you can derive this number from the published results when more than two seats are being filled.
Dick Spotswood: "Democracy needs challengers to incumbents"
By Bob Richard
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Writing in the August 29 Marin Independent Journal, columnist Dick Spotswood notes that November's city council elections in three Marin cities are uncontested. Spotswood's commentary begins, "Noncompetitive municipal elections are a sad symptom of any community's poor civic health."
Read the whole column here.
In San Rafael, Corte Madera and Larkspur, all of the incumbents are running unopposed for reelection. The same is true of the San Rafael school board election. Spotswood points out that, even though incumbents may be well-qualified and popular, the lack of a contest does not mean that issues don't need to be debated.
In Larkspur, for example, the absence of opposing candidates certainly cannot be attributed to the absence of any issue on which voters have strong--and conflicting--opinions. The Central Larkspur Area Specific Plan (CLASP) is nothing if not controversial.
There can be many reasons why local elections are uncontested. Satisfaction with the incumbents is sometimes one of them. (Spotswood is very careful to praise the current incumbents for their competence.)
The other reasons include the winner-take-all structure of our elections. It is well documented that voter turnout improves when ranked voting methods are adopted. There is less research data available on candidate turnout, but it stands to reason that it would improve as well.
Our at-large city council elections, where several seats are filled at once, are decided by plurality voting rules. A single dominant slate or point of view often wins all of the seats. That's why political scientists call this system "block voting".
But in a ranked voting election to fill three seats, for example, a candidate can win with the support of 25 per cent of voters, plus one vote. This percentage can (and generally does) include second and third-place votes.
When more candidates have a realistic chance to win, more candidates will enter the race. Issues and positions are debated more fully. Public dialog reflects more points of view. And more voters are satisfied with the representation they receive. All of which contributes to the civic health about which we--and Dick Spotswood--are so concerned.
Bob Richard is Marin County Coordinator for Californians for Electoral Reform.
Elsewhere in California
New momentum in Los Angeles
May 14, 2008--This week the campaign for IRV for City of Los Angeles received major new endorsements from the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce and former mayor Richard Riordan. These come soon after a new position statement from the Los Angeles League of Women Voters.
All three endorsement statements are reproduced below.
L.A. Area Chamber Statement on Instant Runoff Voting for the City of Los Angeles
Source: L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce
May 13, 2008
LOS ANGELES, CA – The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce supports Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for the City of Los Angeles, which would combine primary and runoff elections by allowing voters to rank candidates and use the rankings to elect a majority winner. Already used in many other cities throughout the state and nation, IRV makes government more efficient and eliminates costly runoffs. The L.A. Area Chamber believes that IRV is good government policy which will save candidates and tax payers tens of millions of dollars in the years to come.
IRV will save money for candidates, who can now spend all their resources on a single race focused on the merits of their platforms, rather than bashing opponents. This new campaign dynamic will bring new candidates and their issues into the local debate, leading to more competitive races for important local government posts.
IRV will save local government money. Runoff elections are extremely expensive, costing the City of Los Angeles more than $9.2 million since 2001. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) have spent a combined $30.9 million administering runoff elections since 1993. These costs will continue to escalate, and the L.A. Area Chamber believes these tax dollars can be better spent on other pressing needs in Los Angeles.
The decision to endorse IRV for the City of Los Angeles was reached by the Chamber’s Board of Directors at a meeting on May 8, 2008.
###
The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce represents the interests of business in L.A. County. Founded in 1888, the Chamber promotes a prosperous economy and quality of life in the Los Angeles region. For more information, visit http://www.lachamber.com.
Media Contacts:
Gwen Oldham, 213.580.7532
Jessica Schmidt, 310.552.4177
Letter from former mayor Richard Riordan
Source: Better Democracy for Los Angeles
May 2, 2008
Gautam Dutta, Esq.
Deputy Director, Political Reform Program
New America Foundation
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2724
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Re: Instant Runoff Voting
Dear Mr. Dutta:
I strongly support a critical electoral reform that will save Los Angeles millions of dollars and boost voter participation: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).
Currently, our City uses an expensive, two-round election system. If no one receives a majority in the general election, the top two finishers advance to a separate runoff election. Last May, an abysmal 6 percent of registered voters took part in a runoff election (for the Los Angeles Community College District). That election alone cost our taxpayers $5 million – which could have been used for affordable housing, transportation, and other pressing needs.
IRV will consolidate the general and runoff elections into one single, consolidated election. In this manner, IRV will help our City make headway with two major challenges: fiscal hardship and low voter turnout. By eliminating a separate runoff election, IRV will save our City $8 to $9 million per election year. Furthermore, by reducing the number of elections, IRV will both empower voters and reduce voter fatigue.
To date, a wide variety of jurisdictions have adopted IRV, including San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, and Santa Fe. After San Francisco adopted IRV, San Francisco voters preferred IRV over the previous two-round system by a margin of 3 to 1.
Let us strengthen our democracy – and set an example for the entire nation. I urge the City Council and Mayor Villaraigosa to take all necessary steps to adopt and implement IRV.
Sincerely,
Richard Riordan
LWVLA advocates instant runoff voting (IRV)
Source: League of Women Voters of Los Angeles
Our League now advocates using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for single-winner elections. At our February unit meetings, we concurred on the issue with the League of Women Voters Pasadena Area (LWVPA).
Concurrence (agreeing with a position) is far simpler than developing a consensus, because with concurrence members vote yes or no on a statement or position that's already been adopted by another League. The IRV concurrence built on the work of the Pasadena Area League, which had extensively studied election methods.
Votes (89% in favor) and discussion at the unit meetings showed overwhelming sentiment among LWVLA members that LWVLA should concur with the LWVPA position on IRV.
IRV provides a majority winner in a single election, unlike the two-round runoff system our city elections use now. (The two-round system consists of a first round "primary" followed, only if no candidate got a majority, by a separate runoff election between the top two vote-getters.) In an IRV contest, voters rank candidates they choose to vote for, in preference order (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, and so on), on single ballots. In this way, voters communicate – with no need to cast more ballots – whom they would like to vote for if their top choices are eliminated before a runoff.
When counting begins, each ballot counts as a vote for its voter's first choice. If a candidate has a majority of the votes, that candidate is the winner. If no candidate got a majority of first choice votes, however, one candidate (the one who has the fewest votes) is eliminated, and everybody's ballot now counts as a vote for their top choice who is still in the election. In practice, if the ballots have been sorted into piles by 1st choice candidate, most of the ballots stay where they are, but each ballot from the eliminated candidate's pile is moved to the pile for its voter's next choice. Once again, if a candidate has a majority of the votes, that candidate is the winner.
And once again, if no candidate has a majority, a candidate (the one who now has the fewest votes) is eliminated. And once again, each ballot counts for its top choice who is still in the election. And once again, in practice, this only involves moving ballots from the eliminated candidate's pile. The process continues, counting each ballot for its top choice who is still in the election — if your top choice candidate is not eliminated, your ballot always counts for that candidate — until a candidate does get a majority of the votes in the election. The LWVPA position we concurred with is to have "Advocacy of Instant Runoff Voting for single seat elections" as part of the League's local program. This position covers singlewinner elections for all branches of government. It is broader than the League of Women Voters of California (LWVC) position supportive of IRV, because the LWVC position only refers to executive offices. (As such, we could not use the LWVC position to advocate using IRV in elections for seats on the Los Angeles City Council, which is a legislature.)
The concurrence process began last year, when the topic of IRV emerged as a priority from the program planning meeting. At the Annual Meeting, members approved making IRV, and possible concurrence with LWVPA on the issue, part of our program.
Each unit meeting was treated to a mock IRV election for "Muppet City Councilmember" from the imaginary 16th District. The mock elections used a set of prevoted ballots, to which attendees could add their own ranked-choice votes. Ernie the Muppet won all the mock elections (by as little as one vote!), although Ms. Piggy received the plurality (but always less than 40%) of first choice votes.
The new position is timely. On the same day the LWVLA Board accepted the concurrence, the Los Angeles City Council Rules and Government Committee began considering a long-awaited report by the City Clerk, which recommends using IRV to fill Council vacancies. Now that IRV is being considered in Council, our League will advocate using it for all city elections.
--
David Holtzman
IRV Program Chair & Westside Evening Unit Chair
Page last revised May 14, 2008
Support choice voting at Davis city council meeting February 26
By David Cary
February 24, 2008--Please help Davis takes its next step towards implementing choice voting. After AB 1294 was vetoed last fall, a two-member subcommittee of the Davis City Council began hearings on adopting a charter. The subcommittee is now presenting its findings and recommendations for consideration by the full City Council. This call to action is for all ranked voting supporters who are within striking distance of Davis.
Please attend the Davis City Council's hearing on the Charter City Subcommittee's report and show your support for choice voting this coming Tuesday, February 26, at 6:30 pm. As the full City Council begins its consideration of a city charter, your presence and voice at the Tuesday meeting can help keep the focus and priority on implementing choice voting in time for the 2010 city council elections.
The agenda for the meeting is at:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/meetings/councilpackets/20080226/Agenda_02-26-08.pdf
and the subcommittee report is at:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/meetings/councilpackets/20080226/06_Charter_City.pdf
Some talking points include:
- Thanking the council members for their previous support of choice voting.
- Thanking subcommittee members for their investigation of chartering issues and their report and recommendations.
- It is time for the city council to develop its best recommendation for a charter, so that choice voting can be used in the 2010 city council elections.
- Choice voting was the primary recommendation of the Governance Task Force in 2005.
- Voters approved Measure L in 2006 with 55% of the vote.
- Choice voting produces more accurate results, leads to more stable governance, and gives voters more choice.
- San Francisco CA, Cambridge MA, Burlington VT are already using choice voting.
- More jurisdictions are adopting ranked voting for their elections.
- In Exit polls 82% of San Francisco voters said "They prefer choice voting to the prior system." (For more info click here.)
It is likely that members of the subcommittee will be recommending further consideration of charter that is a variation of the Version 1 charter listed in the report. The subcommittee has made important progress in moving Davis closer towards using choice voting. Let's encourage the full City Council to help make choice voting happen. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting.
P.S. While this item is one of the earlier items on the agenda, it might not be discussed before 7pm. The address of the meeting is: 23 Russell Boulevard, Davis, CA
David Cary is Secretary of Californians for Electoral Reform and active in Davis Citizens for Representation.
Last revised February 25, 2008
Los Angeles City Council considers IRV
By Steven Hill
June 5, 2007 -- On Wednesday, June 13, the Rules & Elections Committee of the Los Angeles City Council will hold an important hearing on using instant runoff voting in Los Angeles for local elections. It’s crucial that we turn out as many people as possible to this hearing, and also that we generate numerous letters, emails and phone calls to targeted city council members (see sample letter and talking points below). We need to demonstrate that there is significant support for IRV!
Background
Last month, Los Angeles held a runoff election and hardly anyone bothered to show up -- only 6 percent turnout for an election that cost taxpayers $5 million -- 40 dollars per voter! This has fueled intense interest in instant runoff voting, including a hearing on June 13 at the Rules & Elections Committee, plus supportive opeds in the Los Angeles Times and LA Daily News (see this L.A. Times op-ed). A resolution about IRV has been introduced by city council members Huizar and Garcetti.
We need your help
Please do one or more of the following:
- Attend the Rules & Elections Committee meeting and give your 2-3 minute public testimony.
- And/or write a letter to the 3-member Rules & Elections Committee: Alarcon, Garcetti, Zine (and send a blind copy here).
- Write letters to the Daily News and LA Times. LA Times columnist Steve Hymon will be having a short piece about IRV in next Monday’s paper.
Please show your support for IRV at this crucial moment:
What: Rules & Elections Committee Meeting
When: Wednesday, June 13th, 3:00pm
Where: Room 1070, City Hall (10th floor)
Please let us know if you are coming by RSVP-ing here.
MAIL letters to:
Honorable Members of the Los Angeles City Council Rules & Elections Committee, c/o Frank Martinez, City Clerk, 200 North Spring Street, Room 360, Los Angeles, CA 90012
FAX letters to: 213-978-1027
Please send a copy to: Lynne Serpe, New America Foundation, 3435 Wilshire Blvd, #2724, Los Angeles, CA 90010
Main talking points
- The current two-round system is broken / isn’t working -- 6 percent turnout in May, $5 million spent ($40 per voter).
- IRV elects majority winners in one election, eliminating costly runoffs, saving millions that could be spent on other much needed services.
- IRV reduces voter fatigue /allowing voter mobilization efforts to focus on one election not two.
- IRV promotes positive, issue-based campaigns since candidates might need 2nd or 3rd rankings to win / trash-talking their opponents will turn off their opponents’ supporters.
- IRV allows voters to choose candidates they really like rather than worrying about “spoiling” or “splitting the vote” in the first round.
- Vote YES on the Huizar-Garcetti motion to have the City Clerk and the Chief Legislative Analyst prepare reports and recommendations.
Sample letter (please modify)
Honorable Members of the Los Angeles City Council
c/o Frank Martinez, City Clerk
200 North Spring Street, Room 360
Los Angeles, CA 90012
DATE
Attention: Rules & Elections Committee
(INTRO/INCLUDE ORGANIZATIONS IF ANY)
I am a ten-year resident of Los Angeles and a member of the Mid-City Neighborhood Council. I’m appalled at the recent 6% turnout in the May election.
(PROBLEM)
The current two-round runoff system in Los Angeles isn’t working. Millions of dollars are being spent on elections where no one shows up. We clearly have a problem and I thank the Rules & Elections Committee for looking at various reforms and solutions.
(SOLUTION/URGE YES)
In particular, I’m writing to urge you to vote in favor of the Huizar-Garcetti motion on instant runoff voting (IRV). IRV is being used successfully in other parts of California, and across the country. With IRV, candidates and voter mobilization organizations can focus their efforts on turning out the vote for a single election. And IRV saves taxpayer dollars.
(SNAPPY CLOSE- OPTIONAL) It’s a win-win situation for the voters, for candidates and the City.
Sincerely,
NAME
ADDRESS
Steven Hill is Political Reform Director at the New America Foundation.
New America Foundation study shows problems with runoff elections in Los Angeles
By the New America Foundation
April 11, 2007 -- As Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa proposes decreasing the city of Los Angeles’ budget deficit, a new study suggests another way to save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars: eliminate the May runoff election and instead use instant runoff voting to elect majority winners in a single election.
Los Angeles taxpayers are about to spend an estimated five million dollars for a May 15 runoff election in which fewer than 10 percent of voters are likely to participate. Lynne Serpe, deputy director of the New America Foundation's political reform program based in Los Angeles, says: "If Mayor Villaraigosa wishes to decrease the budget deficit, he can start by eliminating an unnecessary May runoff election. The runoff election will cost taxpayers and candidates millions of dollars, even though voter turnout is predicted to be in the single digits."
New America’s new study analyzes the impact of runoff elections in Los Angeles in terms of the cost to taxpayers, voter turnout, campaign finance expenditures, and environmental impacts. The full report may be found at the New America Foundation website. The report finds the following:
* Cost to taxpayers. The City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Unified School District and the Community College District have spent over $30.9 million administering runoff elections since 1993. From 2001 to 2005 the City of Los Angeles spent $9.2 million to administer runoff elections, $4.7 million in 2005 alone as costs have escalated in recent years.
* Voter turnout. Despite the high costs, hardly anyone is bothering to vote. The recent March 6, 2007 election had a voter turnout of barely 10% overall, with single digit turnout for LA Unified School District and LA Community College District races. Since 1997, voter turnout has declined in more than half the runoff elections for the city of Los Angeles.
* Campaign finance. Runoff elections are having a negative impact on campaign finance reform, leading to huge increases in independent expenditures. Since 1993, $7.5 million have been spent by independent expenditure committees in runoff elections, over $3 million in the 2005 mayoral race alone as political fundraising has escalated in recent years. Since 1993, $27.8 million have been donated to local candidates for their runoff campaigns, over six million dollars in 2005 alone. And the City’s partial public financing program has dispensed $8.9 million to candidates engaged in runoffs, in addition to money given to a full field of candidates in the first (primary) election.
* Environmental costs. Runoff elections also waste huge amounts of paper. For the 2005 runoff, the voters information pamphlet was mailed to 1.5 million voters, a total of 20.7 million pieces of paper, and sample ballots were made available at 1,599 polling sites. A blizzard of multiple campaign mailers sent out by candidates and organizations wasted additional amounts of paper.
On May 15, when a runoff will be held for one district-wide seat for the LA Community College District and two district seats for LA Unified School District, voter turnout is expected to be in the single digits, yet taxpayers will still foot the bill for millions of dollars to pay for this runoff election.
As a solution, the New America Foundation is proposing an electoral method known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Instant runoff voting allows voters to rank a first, second and third choice candidate, and the runoff rankings are used to elect a majority winner in a single election. This saves the cost and inconvenience of holding a second election. With IRV, Los Angeles could combine the primary and runoff into a single consolidated election.
Instant runoff voting (IRV) is currently used in San Francisco, and in November 2007 69% of voters in Oakland passed a measure to adopt IRV. Voters in Davis and Minneapolis also recently passed IRV ballot measures. Student governments at UCLA, California Institute of Technology, Stanford, UC-Berkeley and others are using such electoral methods.
A California statewide survey commissioned by the New America Foundation last year found that 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.
"The costs of running elections and political fundraising have escalated in recent years," said Steven Hill, director of New America’s Political Reform Program. "Los Angeles could combine the primary and general election into one instant runoff election, and improve democracy as they save tax dollars. It’s a win-win solution."
Contact: Lynne Serpe (213) 480-0994 or Steven Hill (415) 665-5044.
Last revised April 12, 2007
IRV in Oakland/Measure O under attack! Please help
By Steven Hill
October 31, 2006--The campaign for Instant Runoff Voting in Oakland (known as Measure O) needs your URGENT help to buy radio ads to respond to negative attacks against Measure O coming from sleazy political consultants. Allow me to explain.
First, the good news: We have been making great strides towards winning on November 7, having secured most of the top endorsements in the city, and waging a vigorous voter contact/outreach campaign (see details below).
But here's the bad news: Suddenly Measure O is under attack by shady political consultants who are opposed to reforming our broken democracy. Theirs is an act of desperation, but that seems to be the theme for this political season.
What they have done is they have created a fake Democratic Party slate card and mailed it to thousands of Oakland voters saying vote NO on Measure O -- even though the Democratic Party has endorsed Measure O (the fake slate card also says vote No on Prop 89, the statewide measure for public financing of campaigns, even though the local Democratic Party has endorsed 89 and the state Dems are neutral). The fake slate card lists the originator as a shadowy independent expenditure committee called "Voter Information Guide" located in southern California. A Google and FPPC search reveals that this is one of those sleazy, for-profit, slate cards where they sell themselves to the highest bidder, and then pose as if it's coming from the Democratic Party. On the front side, which is in tri-color, are large letters saying "Voter Information Guide for Democrats." That is next to a fairly large photo of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and just above a photo of a bald eagle's head. It also says on the front side, "Evaluations and Recommendations by the Democratic Party." In fact, the San Diego Union Tribune did an article exposing this slate card, which during the June primary was mailed all over San Diego. If you're interested, you can read the article about that here.
WE MUST RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK. Oakland voters may see more hit pieces like this during the final week. So we are trying to raise money to counter this. Primarily that means buying radio ads, e-mail outreach lists, and possibly automated phone calls, since there is no time to design, print and mail another mail piece. Radio ads will begin tomorrow, featuring a well-known local officeholder plugging Measure O.
We have not even raised the money yet for these radio ads, but we are contracting for services anyway. We are going out on a limb because we just can't stand by and watch our victory snatched away. So we are going on faith -- our faith in YOU. We need your donation -- urgently -- today. We are hoping we can rely on you!
Be assured, we have had a vigorous campaign here. We already have raised $50,000 and spent that on targeted mail pieces to various selected pools of voters all over the city of Oakland. We also have bought newspaper ads, been doing precinct walking and phone banking. We really have an excellent chance of winning -- we have most of the biggest endorsements in Oakland -- if only we can prevent this kind of sleazy mudslinging from changing the momentum during this final seven days.
PLEASE DON'T DELAY -- MAKE AN ONLINE DONATION TODAY! Many of you have responded to my call before, and I hope you will again. This Nov. 7, we have an excellent chance of passing IRV not only in Oakland but also in Minneapolis, Pierce County (WA) and Davis (CA) where it is also on the ballot. That will go along with San Francisco, which is about to hold its third election using IRV, Burlington (VT) which elected its mayor using IRV, and other cities around the country that have passed it. This is a slowly growing national movement, and we all are a part of it.
So we can't let these sleazy political consultants snatch victory away from us during these final seven days. Whatever you can donate to help nail down this victory for IRV in Oakland will be greatly appreciated. We couldn't do this without people such as yourselves, all across the country. We are all on the same team, so let's bring this victory home on November 7.
Here's how to donate, either online or by sending a check (our preference would be that you donate online, since there are so few days left and we need the money or at least your pledge right away).
For online donations, visit this page and follow the instructions.
Or mail a check made out to "IRV for Oakland" to:
IRV for Oakland
P.O. Box 3730
Oakland, CA 94609
Friends, please help us make history in Oakland by securing this victory for Measure O. You can do that by making a donation immediately. And if you don't mind, please forward this e-mail to your own e-mail lists and encourage people to support this important campaign. Sorry in advance if you receive this email more than once.
Steven Hill is the author of Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politcs (2002) and 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy: An Owner's Manual for Concerned Citizens (2006).
Oakland to vote on IRV on November 7
July 21, 2006
The Oakland City Council voted on July 18 to let the city's voters decide whether to use instant runoff voting (IRV) for all city elections. The council vote was 6-2.
If the measure on the November 7 ballot passes, IRV will replace Oakland's existing two-round runoff system for all city offices.
In 2000, Oakland's voters approved a charter amendment that permitted the use of IRV in special elections to fill vacancies, but left adoption for this purpose up to the city council. The 2006 charter amendment would require the use of IRV as soon as Alameda County election officials have the equipment in place to count ranked voting elections.
The Oakland campaign is a milestone event for ranked voting advocates in California, especially since the multi-winner sibling of IRV, choice voting, is on the ballot in Davis.
Marin Ranked Voting's endorsement states, "Momentum for IRV is building rapidly and Oakland (along with Davis, Minneapolis and Pierce County, Washington) is leading the way this fall. IRV frees voters from the spoiler effect, increases voter turnout, reduces negative campaigning, and eliminates costly runoff elections. Marin Ranked Voting applauds the Oakland City Council for putting IRV on the ballot. We enthusiastically support your work to ensure its adoption on November 7."
Click here for information on how you can contribute to the success of IRV in Oakland.
Last revised August 3, 2006
Davis voters to consider choice voting
July 12, 2006
Last night the Davis City Council placed a choice voting advisory measure on the November 7 ballot.
The text of the measure is, "Should the City of Davis consider adopting choice voting, also known as instant runoff or preference voting, as the system to elect City Council members?"
In the Spring of 2005 an eleven-member Governance Task Force recommended--with no dissents and one absention--to the city council that Davis use choice voting to elect its city council, and become a charter city if necessary to do so. The ballot measure this November is the direct result of that recommendation, and of continued activism by supporters of Davis Citizens for Representation (DCR).
The city council vote was 3-2. Both councilmembers who opposed the advisory vote are positive about choice voting. One disagreed with the timing and the other wanted explicit consideration of single-member districts. The Davis council is currently elected at large, as are all city councils in Marin.
The campaign in Davis is a major step forward for ranked voting in California, especially in the context of a ballot measure to adopt IRV for all city elections in Oakland.
Marin Ranked Voting's endorsement states, "Choice voting is a key step toward better local government. It improves representation by making every vote count, increases voter turnout, reduces negative campaigning, and often saves money. Marin Ranked Voting applauds the Davis Governance Task Force for putting choice voting on the city's agenda and the City Council for putting Measure L on the ballot this fall. We enthusiastically support your work to ensure its passage on November 7."
Click here for information on how you can contribute to the success of choice voting in Davis.
Last revised August 3, 2006
Humboldt Voters’ Association to Hold Instant Runoff Demonstration Election
The following article was received from the Humboldt Voters Association. See also "Instant runoff voting to be demonstrated in Eureka on June 6", Eureka Reporter, May 29, 2006.
May 25, 2005
Did you know that our elected officials can be, and often are, elected without a majority? Have you had enough of negative campaigning? Wouldn’t you like to see elected leaders in office who have the clear mandate of demonstrated majority support?
On election day, June 6th, the Humboldt Voters’ Association will hold an Instant Runoff Voting demonstration election. at the Municipal Auditorium, 1120 F Street in Eureka. The demonstration is meant to be a fun and educational introduction to ranked voting. Voters will be asked to fill out a ranked ballot (called a Single Transferable Vote) for the Fourth District supervisors race, which includes Bonnie Neely, Richard Marks, and Nancy Flemming. The results will be tabulated and published on the HVA website.
Instant-Runoff Voting is an easy way for voters to be explicitly clear about what they want in a future leader, without ever having to worry that their votes will be “wasted” on a likely loser or “spoil” an election. In IRV, voters are allowed to rank the candidates in order of preference, rather than forced to choose only one from a list.
In IRV elections, only candidates with a majority can win; negative campaigning is discouraged because candidates will appeal to their opponents’ supporters for second rankings; costly primary and run-off elections, which have notoriously low turnout rates, are unnecessary; and voters can leave the voting booth feeling they have truly spoken their peace, knowing that their values will be reflected in the final vote tally.
If you’re interested in helping out and/or learning more about IRV activism by volunteering for a couple hours at the table, write us at info@humvote.org.
If you’re eligible to vote in the Fourth District supervisors race and would like to vote in the demo election, feel free to drop by the Muni on election day to vote and learn more about Instant Runoff Voting.
If you have any other questions, feel free to write us at info@humvote.org.
Sacramento High School First in California to Use Instant Runoff Voting
By Pete Martineau
May 24, 2006
This week Sacramento's C.K. McClatchy high school became the first California high school to use ranked choice voting to elect its student government.
Voting was Monday, May 22, and the manual count was Tuesday and Wednesday. Almost 1,240 votes were cast in 10 classroom and Associated Student Body single member office contests.
Eight of the 10 races had more than two candidates and voting was by instant runoff voting (IRV). In two of those races candidates who would have won a plurality election were eliminated by instant runoff ballot transfers.
Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER) provided written instructions for manually counting an instant runoff election. The tellers found them easy to understand and use.
CfER members first briefed the McClatchy student government and its advisor on May 5th. They then observed preparations for the election such as ballot preparation, the voting itself, and the count.
Jill LaVine, Sacramento County Registrar of Voters, watched Wednesday's count. She asked several questions, and showed an understanding of IRV.
The student elections committee members were enthusiastic about ranked choice voting, and they and Mr. Tim Douglas, the faculty student government advisor intend to make it a permanent part of student government by-laws. To find opportunities for more school's ranked choice voting adoption, Mr. Jerry Houseman, board member of the Sacramento City Unified School District, has offered to introduce CfER members to principals of other Sacramento high schools.
It was not difficult to convince McClatchy advisors and teachers to try ranked voting and adopt it. Contact your local high school and see the student government advisor about them using ranked voting. CfER and Fairvote have materials to use. Some high schools will have student elections in the fall, most will have elections in the next few weeks.
Pete Martineau is Vice President for Legislation of Californians for Electoral Reform.
Ranked voting: Less money, more turnout
This article is reproduced with permission of the authors from the San Francisco Examiner, February 6, 2006 and BeyondChron.com, February 13, 2006.
by Richard DeLeon, Chris Jerdonek and Steven Hill
Recent studies of local election results in 2004 and 2005 (posted at www.sfrcv.com) show that the introduction of ranked choice voting in San Francisco is off to a good start. The shift from December runoffs to RCV has saved millions of taxpayer dollars, and voter participation was much higher and more inclusive than would be expected using the old runoff system. The voters themselves, when polled, overwhelmingly preferred RCV to the old December runoff system.
In RCV, voters rank up to three candidates. If no candidate wins a majority of first rankings, the candidate with the fewest first rankings is eliminated. Voters who ranked this candidate now have their vote counted for their second choice, and all ballots are recounted in an "instant runoff." If a candidate reaches a majority, she or he wins. If not, the process repeats until a candidate wins a majority of votes. By using RCV, we elect majority winners in a single election.
We can understand the impact of RCV by making a before-and-after comparison of two recent elections:
In December 2001, San Francisco paid approximately $3 million to hold a runoff election in which 70,000 voters, only 17 percent of those registered, turned out to elect the city attorney. Turnout plunged all over the city, especially in minority precincts.
In November 2005, approximately 200,000 registered voters turned out to vote for city attorney, treasurer, assessor-recorder and various ballot propositions. Thanks to RCV, there was no need to hold a December runoff for assessor-recorder, the only race that did not produce a majority winner in November.
Instead, the "instant runoff" system was activated, resulting in Phil Ting being elected as the majority winner in a single election. Two hundred thousand voters cast a first-choice ballot, and a full 190,000 of them [95 percent] saw their ballots count in the decisive instant runoff round. That means 120,000 more voters decided the contest between Ting and second-place candidate Gerardo Sandoval than likely would have turned out in a December runoff. The reason is simple. Returning to vote in a second election requires much more time and effort than voting once and ranking your favorite candidates in a single RCV election. Using RCV resulted in nearly a tripling in voter turnout in the decisive contest, and taxpayers saved $3 million by not paying for a second election.
Let's look more closely at the assessor-recorder's race. Leading candidate Ting won 47 percent of the first rankings, missing the required majority. Without ranked choice voting, Ting and second-place finisher Gerardo Sandoval would have faced off in a second, December runoff, costing millions of dollars to pay for the second election even as voter turnout plummeted.
Instead, with RCV last-place candidate Ron Chun was eliminated, and his supporters had their ballots count towards their next ranking as their runoff choice. Statistical analysis of anonymous records of voters' rankings (available from the Department of Elections) show that over 70 percent of Chun's supporters ranked a second choice. Chun's supporters preferred Ting over Sandoval by a 2-to-1 margin. Overall, Ting won 58 percent of the ballots in the final "instant runoff," giving him a solid win (in fact, Ting won a 55% majority of all voters as indicated by the first-round total).
A strong coalition of Asian voters clearly was decisive in electing the winner. Even though major Asian organizations split on their endorsements (Chun was backed by the Chinese American Democratic Club, Ting by the Westside Chinese Democratic Club), the Asian vote did not split, thanks to ranked choice voting. Asian voters used their ranked ballots to form their own informal Asian voter coalition.
In addition, while all San Francisco neighborhoods benefited from this boost in voter turnout, the six neighborhoods benefiting most had the highest concentrations of racial minorities. In order, the top six neighborhoods were Visitation Valley (307% increase, more than quadrupling voter participation), Bayview/Hunter's Point, Mission, Ingleside, Excelsior/Outer Mission, and Western Addition (210% increase). Together these six neighborhoods alone had more than 35,000 additional voters casting a vote in the decisive runoff round, showing how RCV can empower minority voters and produce a more racially diverse electorate.
In addition, the Public Research Institute at San Francisco State University conducted an exit poll survey of precinct and absentee voters in the 2004 RCV elections. The results are encouraging. The vast majority of voters -- 86 percent -- reported that they understood ranked choice voting. Many more voters (46% vs. 3%) felt they were more likely to vote sincerely (i.e. for their favorite candidate instead of the "lesser of two evils") using RCV than the old December runoff system. And after using it, 61 percent said they prefer RCV to the former runoff system, with only 13 percent preferring the old runoff system.
Important differences were observed across racial groups. Asians, whites, Chinese speakers, and English speakers all said they understood RCV and preferred it to the old December runoff at the same high rates. Latinos, blacks and Spanish-speakers were somewhat less enthusiastic but still preferred RCV to the old December runoff.
What all these numbers reveal is that San Francisco has made the transition to ranked choice voting with a remarkable degree of success. Still, public education should continue, with a focus on those communities who have adapted more slowly. With the City saving millions of dollars each year by not holding a December election, it would be good public policy to commit some of the savings to RCV education to ensure that all communities are using RCV as effectively as possible.
Rich DeLeon is professor emeritus of political science at San Francisco State University, Chris Jerdonek is a representative of FairVote in California, and Steven Hill is director of New America Foundation's political reform program. To view the studies cited in this article, visit www.sfrcv.com.
IRV to be used in San Luis Obispo County special district votes
Reprinted from the San Luis Obispo Tribune, January 24, 2006.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/13698446.htm
Los Osos CSD approves new voting method
The system, which allows voters to rank their choices, will be used in the vote to accept or decline a new sewer project as required by Measure B
By Abraham Hyatt
The Los Osos Community Services District has approved a voting method residents will use to accept or decline a new sewer project -- a vote required by Measure B.
The controversial measure, which was approved by voters last September in the same election that replaced the majority of the district board, does not address financing or project costs. However, it mandates that residents support the location of a sewer treatment facility before it is built.
It also prohibits sewer construction on the Tri-W site in the middle of town.
The newly approved method uses a ranked choice voting system, which mirrors the system used in San Francisco.
The system would allow voters to rank the choices according to their preference.
If no proposal receives a majority of the vote, then the option with the least amount of votes would be dropped and the votes from those voters' second choices would be distributed throughout the remaining choices.
The process continues until one choice receives a majority of the vote.
Chris Gunn contributed to this report.
To see the voting method report the Los Osos CSD approved for election on a new sewer project, go to http://www.sanluisobispo.com/multimedia/sanluisobispo/archive/CSDvote.pdf.
Instant Runoff Voting--on the move?
Originally published in the November, 2005 issue of the North Bay Progressive.
By Matt Gonzalez
American presidential elections have been consumed in recent years by a side-story--namely, whether or not third party candidates like Ralph Nader "spoil" the outcome by obtaining just enough votes to deprive another of winning the contest.
As one might expect, neither major party has embraced the types of election reforms that would cure this problem once and for all. Such reforms would give voters the freedom to vote for candidates who truly reflect their values; hence, greatly devaluing the votes Republicans and Democrats would be able to continue to garner. Instead of pursuing election reform, strategists from both parties prefer to wait until an election nears to mount impressive efforts to discourage anyone from considering voting for a third party candidate, regardless of how akin that candidate's views might be to those of the voter.
In November of 2004, a little-reported election in San Francisco, which included several city council races, underscored how simple it is to eliminate the "spoiler" problem in elections. In 2002 San Francisco voters had adopted a voting system called ranked choice voting. Also commonly referred to as "instant runoff voting", or IRV, this method ensures that a majority outcome can be achieved during a single trip to the ballot box.
IRV works like this: Voters are asked to rank their candidate preferences when they vote. Voters indicate their first, second, and third choices in every contested race. If no candidate receives a majority of votes after tallying all of the first choice votes, the bottom vote getter is eliminated, and the voters who had selected that last place finisher as their first choice then have their second preferences counted instead. This algorithm repeats until a majority outcome is achieved, and a winner is declared. Naturally, if there is a majority winner in the first round of tallying votes, then there is no need to go to second preferences.
If this method of voting had been used in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, for instance, George W Bush would probably not have won the contest. Neither he nor Al Gore received a majority of votes. Rather than picking the highest vote getter and declaring a winner, as is currently done, IRV would have resulted in instantaneous runoff elections until a candidate had garnered a majority of votes. Because most of Nader's supporters would have likely chosen Gore before Bush as their second choices, it is highly probable that Gore would have won the electoral votes for state of Florida and, hence, the Presidency.
One has to wonder how different America's foreign policy might be today had such a majority election happened. Or what President Gore's Supreme Court choices would have looked like. It is a mistake to attack candidates like Nader who are raising issues of importance to many Americans and who are usually at odds with the major candidates, when the solution to the "spoiling" of elections is so simple, and so inherently democratic. It is disheartening to think that in the United States, a country founded upon the principles of democracy, major elections, including the Presidency and most other major elected offices, are not decided by a majority of voters.
In San Francisco, where majority votes were already required in local elections, political contests are now decided using IRV during a single day of voting, eliminating the need for a costly runoff election one month later. Studies conducted after the November 2004 election showed that San Francisco voters enjoyed the new method. Moreover, concerns that this method of voting might pose a challenge to certain minorities and ESL constituencies ultimately proved to be incorrect.
San Francisco's election method, the only one in the entire United States to employ IRV of this kind, ought to be getting more attention, particularly if IRV's wider implementation could mean that what happened in 2000 would not be repeated. Despite the unfortunate media blackout concerning the successful San Francisco election, many other cities and jurisdictions are beginning to follow suit.
Berkeley citizens recently voted overwhelmingly for IRV, and Oakland and Santa Clara County are currently developing rules for its implementation. The state of Washington has passed legislation allowing Vancouver, Spokane, and Tacoma to use it. North Carolina's State Assembly has passed similar legislation, which will now be considered in the State Senate. Voters in Takoma Park, Maryland will decide this November whether to use IRV Burlington, Vermont voters approved IRV in March, and the city council is developing rules for its implementation. Vermont's Howard Dean, the former Presidential candidate, is on record numerous times supporting it. Despite these significant successes, there are still only a small number of American citizens who will have the opportunity to voice their full candidate preferences in upcoming elections.
It is clear that the old method of voting is failing our democracy by stifling the diversity of opinion in public discourse. It either funnels voters into two choices or accuses them of "throwing their vote away" and "spoiling" an election by voting their consciences. The public no longer wants to be straddled with only two choices when the diversity of opinion and of candidates in this country is so much greater. The public should know that a simple, cost-effective, proven, and more democratic solution-IRV-is within reach.
Matt Gonzalez is the former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. This article was written for the North Bay Progressive.
Los Angeles Councilmember Rosendahl endorses IRV
By David Holtzman
Saturday, September 17, 2005
This morning, Councilmember Bill Rosendahl became the first elected City of Los Angeles official to sign the following statement: "I endorse having instant runoff elections for city and county offices in Los Angeles County."
Bill Rosendahl was elected this year in a two-round, three-candidate election. No candidate got a majority in the first round, so the two front-runners -- and their volunteers -- and their donors -- and the voters -- had to engage in a (NON-instant) runoff election held ten weeks later.
Rosendahl said that in endorsing instant runoff elections he was honoring friendships with, and teachings from, people with whom he has discussed the instant runoff system, in some cases on the public affairs television show he hosted. People he named included Ralph Nader, consumer rights advocate Harvey Rosenfield, Santa Monica City Councilmember Kevin McKeown, and Steven Hill from San Francisco and the Center for Voting and Democracy.
Rosendahl's first question this morning was 'who else have you been talking with?' Thanks to the efforts of a growing L.A. VoteFIRE lobbying corps, including Denise Munro Robb, Linda Piera-Avila, Jeff Horne and Patrick Meighan, I was able to tell him about several contacts to date, and future appointments. I told him he would be the first to sign the endorsement, but I think he took some comfort in the thought that he probably won't be alone for long.
Special thanks are due to Edgar Saenz and Susan Haskell, who joined me to form this morning's delegation. Both Edgar and Susan are on a first-name basis with Bill Rosendahl, and their participation seemed key to obtaining his endorsement. Thank you both!!
I've posted an endorsement form at http://lavotefire.org/endorsement -- please take it to any candidates or elected officials you know in the county, and send signed forms to L.A. VoteFIRE, 1255 Federal Ave. #304, Los Angeles, CA 90025.
Thanks again to everyone helping with this!
David Holtzman is on the board of Californians for Electoral Reform and leads Los Angeles Voters for Instant Runoff Elections (L. A. VoteFIRE).
Berkeley City Council Wants Implementation in 2006
By Dave Heller
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Last night the Berkeley City Council, in an unanimous vote, passed a resolution to request the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters to make IRV happen in Berkeley in November 2006.
Eight to ten IRV enthusiasts showed up for the council meeting and, with the luck of the draw, we had 4 speakers on the topic. We displayed pro-IRV signs next to and behind the speaker which were broadcast to the city's cable network. Everyone spoke eloquently and positively about the need for IRV.
Councilmember Gordon Wosniak, a staunch detractor of IRV when we were attempting to put IRV on the ballot, pulled the resolution from the consent calendar early in the meeting and we had to wait until about 9:30 pm for the outcome.
His concern was that IRV in Berkeley should allow a full ranking of all candidates and write-ins and that Berkeley needed to decide on the "best form of IRV" and that some forms of IRV are not completely fair.
When the resolution came to a vote, all the councilmembers, including Wosniak, voted to pass.
Elaine Ginnold and the Board of Supervisors now have complete confirmation that Berkeley intends to use IRV for the 2006 election and hopefully, as negotiations for new voting equipment proceed, we will have IRV compatible equipment county wide in the very near future.
Dave Heller is Vice President for Chapters of Californians for Electoral Reform
Santa Monica Council Authorizes Study of Ranked Voting
For additional coverage of this story, see
By Kevin McKeown
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Santa Monica City Council last night authorized staff resources to investigate the use of ranked voting in our local elections. The vote on my motion was 5-1, with the mayor absent last night. Among the actions approved were
* sending our City Clerk to San Francisco to monitor their IRV elections
* investigating how we might coordinate ranked voting with the County
* tracking state legislation creating approved ranked voting procedures
That last, of course, involves SB 596, which has become a two year bill. Santa Monica is now on the list of "interested cities," along with Davis, Berkeley, etc. When discussion of SB 596 again becomes active, I'll seek a statement of support from Santa Monica.
Thanks to the advocacy group Santa Monica Ranked Voting for their presentation last night (actually, this morning -- it was after midnight by the time their item came up at the end of a long City Council meeting).
Kevin McKeown is a member of the Santa Monica City Council
California Statewide
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 themselve