|
Take Action
|
Contribute to fall campaigns here.
Endorse ranked voting here.
Join Californians for Electoral Reform here.
|
| |
|
|
National
By Jack Santucci
February 23, 2008--Santa Fe, NM voters will decide March 4 whether to use instant runoff voting in municipal elections. The campaign website is here.
The area’s major daily, the Santa Fe New Mexican, has come out against Amendment 5.
Amendment 5 is for "instant runoff", or "ranked-choice" voting: Make your first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. This would, at last, ensure majority-elected politicians, más o menos — but it depends on well-run elections using special computer programs. We say wait and see how it works in huge numbers of other cities — and, for now, vote against.
Fear of technology is a bad reason to sideline principles like majority rule that the editors otherwise support - especially since the number of US cities successfully using IRV grows each year.
The campaign needs help. If you're in the region, you can get involved. No matter where you are, you can donate here.
Adapted from Jack Santucci's blog post at The Democratic Piece. Jack is a former staff member at FairVote and a graduate student at Georgetown University.
Last revised February 23, 2008
| Date |
Jurisdiction |
Measure |
Votes For |
Votes Against |
% For |
Notes |
| Nov 2008 |
Cincinnati, OH |
Choice voting for city council |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
| Nov 2008 |
Memphis, TN |
IRV for all city offices |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
| Nov 2008 |
Telluride, CO |
IRV for mayoral elections |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
| Nov 2008 |
Davis, CA |
Adoption of home rule charter |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Would allow future adoption of choice voting |
| Nov 2008 |
Albany, CA |
Direct election of mayor |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Would require either IRV or runoff to ensure majority |
| Sep 2008 |
Glendale, AZ |
IRV for all city offices |
4,435 |
6.088 |
44.8% |
|
| Mar 2008 |
Santa Fe, NM |
IRV for all city offices |
5,659 |
3,044 |
65.0% |
Council elected by districts |
| Nov 2007 |
Sarasota, FL |
Requires IRV for city commissioners |
6,554 |
1,891 |
77.6% |
3 seats in single-member districts, 2 seats at large using North Carolina multi-seat method |
| Nov 2007 |
Aspen, CO |
Instructs City Council to adopt ranked voting by ordinance |
608 |
186 |
76.6% |
Form of ranked voting for at-large council seats to be determined by ordinance |
| Nov 2007 |
Clallam County, WA |
Would have allowed county commission to adopt IRV for all county offices |
10,123 |
12,190 |
45.4% |
Comission elected from single member districts |
| Nov 2006 |
Minneapolis, MN |
Requires IRV for all single-seat offices, and choice voting for boards and commissions elected at-large |
78,741 |
42,493 |
64.9% |
|
| Nov 2006 |
Pierce County, WA |
Requires IRV for all county offices except law enforcement and judges |
103,407 |
91,949 |
52.9% |
Three measures to delay or weaken IRV were defeated in Nov 2007 |
| Nov 2006 |
Davis, CA |
Advisory vote on choice voting for city council |
11,620 |
9,352 |
55.4% |
|
| Nov 2006 |
Oakland, CA |
Requires IRV for all city offices |
64,093 |
29,299 |
68.6% |
|
| Nov 2005 |
Takoma Park, MD |
Requires IRV for all city offices |
1,992 |
390 |
83.6% |
Used Jan 2007 |
| March 2005 |
Burlington, VT |
Requires IRV for mayor |
4,715 |
2,600 |
64.5% |
Used March 2006 |
| Nov 2004 |
Ferndale, MI |
Requires IRV for mayor and city council when equipment available |
6,522 |
2,828 |
69.8% |
|
| March 2004 |
Berkeley, CA |
Requires IRV for all city offices when equipment available |
23,660 |
9,088 |
72.2% |
|
| Nov 2002 |
Basalt, CO |
New home rule charter requires IRV for mayor |
467 |
158 |
74.7% |
Vote was on charter as a whole |
| March 2002 |
San Francisco, CA |
Requires IRV for all offices |
76,340 |
61,261 |
55.5% |
Used 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 |
| Sept 2001 |
Eugene, OR |
Would have required IRV for mayor and city council |
10,261 |
19,559 |
34.4% |
|
| Nov 2000 |
Oakland, CA |
Requires special elections to fill vacancies, makes IRV optional |
72,537 |
27,749 |
72.3% |
|
| Nov 2000 |
San Leandro, CA |
Requires runoff if no majority, makes IRV optional |
14,347 |
8,381 |
63.1% |
|
| Nov 1999 |
Vancouver, WA |
Makes IRV optional for mayor and city council; state legislation required to become effective |
12,933 |
11,512 |
52.9% |
State legislation passed April 2005 |
| Nov 1998 |
Santa Clara County, CA |
Makes IRV optional for all county offices |
157,223 |
134,248 |
53.9% |
|
| Nov 1998 |
Multnomah County, OR |
Would have eliminated runoff elections and made IRV optional |
63,604 |
95,145 |
40.1% |
|
Last revised September 3, 2008
November 8, 2006. - Ranked voting was a big, big winner at the polls yesterday. Analysis will follow; for the moment, these numbers speak for themselves:
- Oakland, CA
- Yes: 64,093 (68.6%)
- No: 29,299 (31.4%)
- Davis, CA
- Yes: 11,620 (55.4%)
- No: 9,352 (44.6%)
- Pierce County, WA
- Yes: 103,407 (52.9%)
- No: 91,949 (47.1%)
- Minneapolis, MN
- Yes: 78,741 (64.9%)
- No: 42,493 (35.1%)
All figures are now final.
Since 1998, 13 of 15 ballot measures have been approved by voters. For the details see this table.
Last updated July 25, 2007
October 17, 2006 - As the pace of the fall campaign quickens, major newspapers are adding themselves to the ranks of those who support ranked voting for local elections.
Endorsing Measure L in Davis on October 14, the Sacramento Bee wrote:
Editor's note: On September 30 Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 2948, which would have committed California to join an interstate compact to ensure that the winner of the national popular vote is elected President.
Marin Ranked Voting has not taken a position on the National Popular Vote plan discussed in this letter from Californians for Electoral Reform president Steve Chessin. For more information, download the attachment at the end of this article, and visit National Popular Vote and FairVote's Presidential Elections Reform Program.
By Steven Hill
March 28, 2006
Dear friends and colleagues,
I thought you might be interested to know that my next book, 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy, will be in the bookstores in May (PoliPointPress, $11.00). The book is a brief, practical "one-stop shoppers' guide" to what's broken about democracy in the USA, and what Americans can do to repair it.
The following story is reproduced from Common Dreams Newswire.
TAKOMA PARK, Maryland - November 9 – In an advisory ballot measure placed on the ballot by a 7-0 vote of the Takoma Park city council, fully 84% of voters voted for the proposal to have future city elections use instant runoff voting. A majority of the city council is committed to implementing the new system in time for the mayoral and city council races in 2007.
|
|
|
Statewide and National Organizations
|
|
|
| |
|