The Political Reform Blog

Sacramento Should Consider Instant Runoff Voting

Blair Bobier — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:22:00 -0500

"With Mayor Kevin Johnson’s 'strong mayor' proposal headed for the ballot and a Charter Review Committee examining potential changes to city government, now is the perfect time to consider whether Sacramento’s method of electing local officials serves the best interests of its citizens."

So begins my op-ed running in today's Sacramento Bee. You can read the rest of the piece here where I propose Instant Runoff Voting as a way to generate interest and new ideas for Sacramento city government. Sacramento's city council races are pretty low-key affairs with little voter participation in what are largely uncontested or landslide elections. By changing the dynamics of elections and making campaigns easier and cheaper to run, IRV could encourage more local citizens to step up to the plate and run for office; leading to innovation, increased voter turnout and a greater diversity of elected officials.

The Oakland Scene: What's the hold up?

Blair Bobier — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:36:00 -0500

For those of you interested in understanding more about how Instant Runoff Voting can benefit Oakland, where it is poised to be implemented for the 2010 election, and why there is a delay in the implementation, check out these two radio interviews (14 minutes in length total) from KPFA-FM.

KPFA has a new program called OaklandSeen, which focuses on Oakland issues. The host, Aimee Allison, recently interviewed two people about IRV: Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont, Director of a coalition called Oakland Rising, and Oakland city councilmember Rebecca Kaplan.

According to its website, Oakland Rising is made up of Just Cause Oakland, Urban Habitat, EBASE, ACORN, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the Ella Baker Center. Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont's interview starts at the 25:44 minute mark on the KPFA link. In her four minute interview she does a great job laying out how IRV could help disenfranchised communities.

Following the interview with Esperanza is a ten minute segment with Rebecca Kaplan, whose comments on IRV perfectly complement Esperanza's. Kaplan says that IRV in Oakland is “incredibly important for our democracy and our budget.” The segment also features sound bites from community activists and members of the League of Women Voters at the rally and press conference held at Oakland City Hall last Friday.

If you want to know why IRV would be good for Oakland and get a sense of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans which threaten the will of the Oakland electorate, check out this very informative and enlightening segment from OaklandSeen.

Instant Runoff Voting Wins in St. Paul, Minnesota

Blair Bobier — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:24:00 -0500

Minnesota's capital city, St. Paul, is the latest American city to adopt Instant Runoff Voting for local elections, according to news reports from Minnesota. IRV had a big day in the Twin Cities--Minneapolis' first instant runoff election was conducted today and went off without a hitch.

League Questions Delay

Blair Bobier — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:52:00 -0500

East Bay voters in the cities of Oakland and Berkeley have overwhelmingly approved using Instant Runoff Voting for local elections. Both cities are slated to use IRV—also known as Ranked Choice Voting—for the first time in 2010. But heel-dragging on the part of state election officials—and questionable interference by an Oakland mayoral candidate—has local activists wondering what the heck is going on.

Last week, the League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, San Leandro, Castro Valley, Hayward, San Lorenzo and Oakland sent a letter to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen expressing their concern over the delay in implementation of IRV in the East Bay.

In order for Oakland and Berkeley to use IRV, the voting machine hardware and software used by those cities must first be approved by the Secretary of State. As the League points out in their letter, San Francisco uses the same exact system to conduct their local IRV elections. The League then poses this question to Secretary Bowen: “Please explain to us why Alameda County is not being allowed to “piggy-back” on the approval that has been granted to San Francisco, to use the identical election systems. We have heard no adequate explanation for this, and our cities are running out of time in order to call, or not to call, elections for 2010.”

Berkeley voters approved IRV by an 80% majority in 2004; Oakland voters adopted IRV with 69% of the vote in 2006. Once implemented, IRV will combine what were formerly two rounds of elections into one. IRV not only saves money by eliminating one unnecessary and expensive election, it also allows more voters to have a say in who elects local officials. That’s because IRV moves the decisive election from June—when most races were wrapped up in low turnout primaries—to the much higher turnout November election. Not everyone likes the idea of more voters weighing in, however. Low turnout elections are good for some candidates—particularly those with name recognition and political machines behind them.

The East Bay Express reported last week that one Oakland mayoral candidate is trying to delay the use of IRV because the old two round system of elections would provide him with an advantage. Two round elections also favor those with big donors in the wings who can finance what are essentially two separate campaigns for the same office. This blog won’t name the aforementioned mayoral candidate because we won’t sully these pages with that kind of political chicanery. (We will, however, happily provide the link to the East Bay Express article for those of you who want to dig up the dirt).

Alameda County Registrar of Voters Dave MacDonald has been putting together plans for the cities’ IRV elections and has repeatedly told local citizens and activists that he is ready to go. MacDonald has been holding meetings with members of the League, election officials and other concerned citizens to discuss the plans for voter outreach and education to make sure that all voters know how to vote the instant runoff way—(which really is as easy as One, Two, Three).

League members held a press conference on Friday along with representatives from a number of East Bay community organizations to question the delay. If city officials or the Secretary of State continue their foot-dragging, things could get interesting. Now that Oakland’s city charter has been changed and the County Registrar has indicated his readiness to implement the new system, there really is no turning back. There is no longer a provision in the city charter for Oakland to use the old system.

So what’s the hold-up?

The League of Women Voters is ready to go and to do their part of the necessary public education and outreach. The Registrar of Alameda County, his staff and his voting machines are ready to go. Accordingly, the League of Women Voters has placed the issue directly before the Secretary of State. Their letter to the Secretary concludes this way:

“With all systems “go” on our end, please assure us that you are doing your part and that your approval will be quickly forthcoming, in adequate time for the cities and county to proceed with these elections as the voters intended.”

A New Era of Civic Engagement

Blair Bobier — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:13:00 -0400

On October 11, 2009, a bill to uniformly set California’s voter registration age at 17 was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This legislation does not change the voting age; it simply changes the age at which one may register to vote. Prior to the adoption of AB 30, California’s voter registration law was inconsistent and confusing: some 17 year olds could in fact register to vote (those who would turn 18 before the next election) while the rest could not.

AB 30 had broad support ranging from the California Association of Student Councils (CASC) to the California chapter of the AARP. Student leaders from CASC, along with an AARP representative and leaders from “good government” organizations met with an aide to the Governor to press for the administration’s support of the bill. In the highly charged and partisan atmosphere of Sacramento politics, the fate of the bill was anything but certain. Despite the fact that a number of other states have set or lowered the registration age to 17, despite the favorable columns in support of AB 30 from SoCal and NorCal, and notwithstanding the many benefits that this legislation would bring to California, there was a concern that this non-partisan issue would become a victim of partisan politics. Although this type of “pre-registration” legislation has been embraced by “red” states and “blue” states, AB 30 did not win any Republican support in the California legislature. The concern, therefore, was that Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, would follow the lead of the Republicans in the legislature.

In the end, however, the Governor must have decided the issue on its merits and, by doing so, will open the door to a new era of civic engagement for the youth of California.

California's Future Leaders

Blair Bobier — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:32:00 -0400

Student leaders called on Governor Schwarzenegger Thursday to sign AB 30, a bill passed by both houses of the California Legislature that would lower the voter registration age to 17. The students, from the California Association of Student Councils, held a press conference and afterwards met with Jacque Roberts, the Governor's Assistant Legislative Secretary, whom they presented with a petition signed by many other students requesting the passage of AB 30.

The Governor was unavailable for the meeting as he was attending the New America Foundation-sponsored conference in Los Angeles on climate change.

Ms. Roberts, although non-committal about the Governor's position on the bill, noted that he, as an immigrant to this country who has achieved great success in a number of realms, has a great appreciation for American participatory democracy. The Governor has until October 11 to sign or veto the bill. However, for all practical purposes, the last day for the public to weigh in with comments about AB 30 is Wednesday, October 7. At some point on Wednesday, Ms. Roberts will collect comments from the public which have been sent to the Governor's office and will include them in her report to the Governor on AB 30.

AB 30 has been the subject of a recent column in the Ventura County Star and of an op- ed in the Sacramento Bee. If passed, AB 30 would bring greater uniformity and consistency to California's voter registration laws, increase voter registration and turnout among young voters, and increase civic engagement in California high schools.

Voting Early & Often

Blair Bobier — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:10:00 -0400

California has no shortage of problems. One problem in particular that does not bode well for the future is this: young voters, tomorrow's leaders, are staying away from the polls in droves. Almost half of California's eligible voters in the critical 18-24 age bracket are not registered to vote.

There is no magic wand that will solve this problem overnight. But there are steps we can take toward the ultimate goal of encouraging and ensuring participation in the heart of the democratic process.

One potential solution is now sitting on the desk of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The California Legislature recently approved AB 30, a bill that would lower the voter registration age to 17. Lowering the registration age, not the voting age, would allow students to get involved in the democratic process at an earlier point in their lives and a critical stage in their development. It would also allow high schools to become more actively engaged in the real world process of civic education.

"Good Government" groups appear to be unanimous in their support of this concept. Some members of the public, though, have misunderstood this proposal and equate it with lowering the voting age. One person contacted New America with this comment:

"Eighteen is too young to vote period! We should go back to 21. Eighteen year olds are profoundly immature and are easily seduced by any politician promising anything that sounds like fun. No one who has never held a full time job should be allowed to vote!"

Perhaps 18 year olds would not be so "easily seduced by any politician promising anything" if they had some civic education under their belts and not only studied the political process but actually had experience participating in it before they took their turns at the ballot box.

And the Winner Is...

Blair Bobier — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:17:00 -0400

Yesterday, hundreds of newspapers around the world announced that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will award its coveted Oscar for Best Picture by using a voting method commonly known as Instant Runoff Voting. This is probably the most attention that news outlets have paid to voting methodology since the topsy-turvy 2000 presidential election.

"Instead of just marking an ‘X' to indicate which one picture they believe to be the best, members will indicate their second, third and further preferences as well," Academy President Tom Sherak said. "PricewaterhouseCoopers will then be able to establish the Best Picture recipient with the strongest support of a majority of our electorate."

With ten nominees vying for Best Picture, the Academy wisely decided to avoid vote-splitting and chose a voting method that would pick a flick with majority support. The Academy's executive director, Bruce Davis, said they were concerned about "certain mathematical dangers" of a winner emerging with scant support from a crowded field. This is a concern that many political scientists share about the "top two" primary (often mistakenly referred to as an "open primary"), which will make its way to the ballot in California as a result of the state's dysfunctional legislative process.

The Academy already uses another form of ranked choice, or preferential, voting to select the Oscar nominees in a majority of its award categories. Voting geeks are having a field day with the expansion of ranked choice voting to the Academy's top prize.

IRV Advances in Long Beach City Hall

Gautam Dutta — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:33:00 -0400

Yesterday, Long Beach's Budget Oversight Committee took the first step to recommend Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to the full city council.

Please attend and testify at the next committee meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 8th, at 3:30 pm (City Hall Chambers, 333 W Ocean Blvd, Long Beach 90802).

The Press-Telegram just published an article about yesterday's meeting:

Instant runoff voting

City Clerk Larry Herrera outlined for the committee several ways that his department plans to cut election expenses - saving $160,000 by having fewer polling places, reducing the size of sample ballots and having vote-by-mail voters pay for their own stamps.

However, the biggest systemic change to save money would come from the use of instant runoff voting, which Herrera said would save $3.72 million over an eight-year election cycle.

In instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates starting with their first choice to win. If no candidate gets the majority of the votes, then the candidate who received the fewest number of first-choice votes is eliminated, and voters who chose that person have their second-choice votes count toward the other candidates.

The process continues until one of the candidates has a majority of the votes to win the election.

Two committee members, DeLong and Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, voted to bring the issue back to the committee next week to recommend that the full council approve the idea. The voting system would require a City Charter change approved by voters.

Councilman Patrick O'Donnell said next week is too soon and that more information is needed before moving ahead on such a major change.

"I don't want to go down this path to save money," O'Donnell said. "I want to go down this path because it helps democracy."

paul.eakins@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1278

The full article can be found here. Please leave a comment here to show your support for IRV.

IRV Gets Long Beach Hearing

Gautam Dutta — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:13:00 -0400

In a welcome development, Long Beach City Hall has scheduled a committee hearing to discuss the merits of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

The Council's Budget Oversight Committee will discuss IRV during its next meeting, which will be held on Aug. 31, 5 pm, in City Hall Chambers (333 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach CA 90802).

If you can attend the hearing, please let us know at 213.480.0994 or dutta AT newamerica.net.

The agenda for the Aug. 31 hearing can be accessed here (IRV is Item # 8).

By eliminating separate runoff elections, IRV will not only relieve voter fatigue, but will save up to $1.2 million in taxpayer dollars per election (source: Long Beach City Clerk). Already, Councilmembers Suja Lowenthal, Gary DeLong, Robert Garcia and Val Lerch have joined the Los Angeles League in supporting IRV.  

Currently, Long Beach holds costly, two-round elections that fatigue voters and waste millions of dollars. In April 2008, only 12 percent of registered voters participated in the municipal election, which cost Long Beach taxpayers nearly $700,000 -- a whopping $60 per voter.  

Currently, IRV is being studied by Los Angeles County and the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Pasadena. IRV has already been adopted by San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, Memphis, Burlington VT, and Santa Fe. At a time of fiscal and economic crisis, IRV saves San Francisco taxpayers about $3 million every year.  

In a nutshell, IRV allows voters to rank their top 3 choices (1-2-3). This way, if your top choice cannot win, there's no need to vote again. Instead, your vote will automatically go to your second choice. More detailed information about IRV is available at IRVforLongBeach.org.

To bring IRV to Long Beach, voters need to approve an amendment to the City Charter. For this to happen, a majority of the nine-person City Council must first approve legislation to put IRV on the ballot.