Elections

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 N.J. Governor’s Race: Comparing the Candidates

Maggie Severns — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:49:00 -0400

This November, only two states will be electing new governors: New Jersey and Virginia. Political commentators frequently view these two off year races as harbingers of political winds to come, so we at Early Ed Watch are keeping a close eye to see what implications these races may have for early education.

There is a lot at stake for early education in New Jersey: As Early Ed Watch has discussed, New Jersey has made significant investments in preschool and PreK-3rd as a strategy to narrow achievement gaps between students from high-income and low-income families, and the state is seeing some successful results in several school districts.

Since Jon Corzine was elected Governor in 2005, he has made pre-K a pillar in his education policy . Last year's School Funding Reform Act, included plans to phase in state-funded full day preschool for all low-income 3- and 4- year olds in the state over the next eight years, and to expand universal pre-K from 31 Abbott districts to an additional 84 districts statewide, with the goal of providing preschool for an additional 30,000 children by the 2013 school year.

School construction was a major part of Corzine's economic recovery plan. As part of a July 2008 law, the School Development Authority is spending $3.9 billion constructing and expanding New Jersey schools, the largest state school construction program in the country.

Chris Christie, the Republican nominee, entered the race after spending six years as New Jersey's U.S. Attorney, the chief federal law enforcement officer in the state. During a heated campaign, Christie has criticized Corzine's education spending, saying in official statements last month that the governor has a "blind eye to waste" with a "failed record when it comes to promoting successful school alternatives," a reference to the fact that Corzine-appointed Commissioner of Education Lucille Davey approved only one new charter school in 2008.

Christie has specifically attacked Corzine's record on early education spending, referring to preschool as "babysitting" in an October 6 interview with New Jersey pundit Steve Adubato. Corzine is using the clip as part of an escalating cycle of attack advertisements between the two camps. Christie says he did not intend to use the word "babysitting" pejoratively.

Christie's stance on education emphasizes the need for improved job readiness and more choices in New Jersey's public school system. He is in favor of authorizing more charter schools and establishing a private school voucher system, both of which Christie says would give parents the choice to send their children to more successful schools.

Last week, the New Jersey Education Association's political action committee unanimously endorsed Corzine. The NJEA, which has over 200,000 members from New Jersey's education community, says that Corzine "made significant progress in implementing the progressive, pro-public education agenda he ran on in 2005," and praised him for increasing education funding despite the harsh economic climate during his term as governor.

The race itself has been close, with Christie and Corzine usually falling within a few points of each other in the polls. Chris Daggett, the Independent candidate, has had a recent increase in support, but still trails significantly behind the other two candidates.

Early Ed Watch will continue monitoring the New Jersey race in the coming weeks. Watch later this week for our rundown of the Virginia gubernatorial race as well.

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.

Long Beach Chamber Supports Instant Runoff Voting Proposal

Gautam Dutta — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:08:00 -0400

August 26, 2009
For Immediate Release

Contact:
Randy Gordon
President/CEO
(562) 843-0945

The Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce announces its support of the proposed Instant Runoff Voting proposal to be considered by the Long Beach City Council.

Instant Runoff Voting elects officeholders with a majority of the vote in a single election thereby eliminating the need for a second-round runoff election or primary election. Voters rank the candidates in order of their
preference -- first choice, second choice, third choice -- and if their first choice cannot win, their vote goes to their second choice candidate as their "runoff" choice. Voters are liberated to vote for the candidates they
really like, instead of worrying about "spoilers" or having to choose the "lesser of two evils."

"In 2006, Long Beach taxpayers paid a total of $2.5 million for an April primary election and a June runoff election," stated Randy Gordon, President and CEO of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. "If IRV had been used then, over $1.3 million of precious tax dollars would have been saved," continued Gordon.

"I believe Instant Runoff Voting represents a more effective way to make every citizen's vote count and at the same time reduce the fiscal impact of costly elections on Long Beach," stated Second District City Councilmember Suja Lowenthal. "I thank the Long Beach Chamber for joining me in supporting a proposal that brings election reform to our great City," continued Councilmember Lowenthal.

"Instant Runoff Voting is an innovative idea that saves taxpayer dollars and has been tested in other cities," stated Councilmember Gary DeLong. "I too welcome the Long Beach Chamber's support and look forward to working with the business community and City Clerk Larry Herrera to save over $1 million in the 2012 elections alone," continued Councilmember DeLong.

Councilmembers Suja Lowenthal, Gary DeLong Robert Garcia, and Val Lerch have already endorsed IRV, along with Long Beach City College Trustee Mark Bowen.

"We are thrilled to have the support of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce," said Gautam Dutta of New America Foundation. "We thank the board for their thoughtful consideration," he added. The New America Foundation is the major proponent of the IRV proposal and responsible for educating communities across California of the impacts of such a proposal.

The Chamber also urges all interested people to attend the Long Beach Town Hall on Instant Runoff Voting hosted by Councilmember Suja Lowenthal and the New America Foundation from 5:30pm to 7:00pm on September 29, 2009 in the Long Beach City Council Chambers, 333 West Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA
90802.

###

Top Civic Leader Endorses IRV

Gautam Dutta — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:05:00 -0400

Larry Kosmont, President and CEO of Kosmont Companies, has endorsed Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

Mr. Kosmont has assisted hundreds of local government agencies in land development policy decisions ranging from large-scale economic development to site-specific real estate strategies and projects. He has guided over 1,000 private sector projects in obtaining public approvals, structuring deal terms, and securing public/private financing.

"We are pleased to have the support of a top civic leader like Mr. Kosmont," said Gautam Dutta of New America Foundation. "We salute his years of service to the community," he added.

Mr. Kosmont has also served as a State Commissioner on the California Economic Development Commission, and until December 2007, as a Los Angeles City Commissioner on the Industrial Development Authority.

A Beachhead for IRV

Gautam Dutta — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:49:00 -0400

On September 29, we invite you to join Long Beach Councilmember Suja Lowenthal for a Town Hall discussion about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which might soon be placed on the Apr. 2010 Long Beach ballot.

IRV has already been endorsed by an influential, diverse group of leaders, including: the Los Angeles Area League of Women Voters, CM Suja Lowenthal, CM Gary DeLong, CM Robert Garcia, CM Val Lerch, Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, Alamitos Beach Neighborhood Association, LA Area Chamber of Commerce, CA Controller John Chiang, Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, Assemblymember Warren Furutani, LA County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, LA County Federation of Labor, California Common Cause, and Congressmember Judy Chu. A full list of endorsers is available at IRVforLongBeach.org.

Come learn more about IRV! Please join CM Suja Lowenthal and many other civic leaders at Long Beach City Hall, City Hall Chambers, Sept. 29, 5:30 pm, 333 W. Ocean Blvd, Long Beach.

IRV: an idea whose time has come.

Instant Runoffs Would Reduce Election Costs

Gautam Dutta — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:24:00 -0400

Political Reform Deputy Director Gautam Dutta and CA Assemblymember Ted W. Lieu wrote an article for the Daily Breeze about how Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) would reduce election costs:

California faces a crater-size, $24 billion deficit - and we're about to throw away millions more on three elections we don't need. But here's the good news: If we adopt Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV, for special elections, we can save that amount and more.

With IRV, taxpayers could save nearly $2 million July 14 (fittingly, Bastille Day).

The full article can be found here.

Study shows "top two" could elect more extremists, not moderates

Steven Hill — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:00 -0400

Here is some brand new analysis from Washington state results that might shed light on the efficacy of the top two primary, which many are promoting as a good thing for CA. It is especially directed at whether the top two would elect more moderates -- or more extremists? This evidence below suggests it's a bit of a crapshoot, the top two primary could as easily elect more extremists as elect more moderates.

In taking a look at official WA state election results at http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx? for last year's primary, you can see there are basically four categories of results for the 98 house races and 25 senate races.

In the first category, which has by far the vast majority of races, one candidate (usually an incumbent) is either uncontested or is so far in the lead with anywhere from 53 percent to over 70 percent of the vote and a huge enough lead that it's obvious they will win in the general (November) election as well. That includes 24 races uncontested in the primary, and 3 with only token write-in opposition. The practical impact in those races is no different from what we have now in CA, as I outlined recently in my Los Angeles Times oped.

In the second category, there were FIVE primaries that were extremely close with only two candidates (one D, one R) in both the primary and general elections. Not a huge number of close races for 123 races.

In the third category, there were TEN primaries with 3-5 candidates, where the front runner had between 40-50 percent of the vote, and in 7 of those races the expected thing happens -- the front runner has a fairly solid lead and wins by picking up votes from the supporters of those eliminated, since most of those districts have a pretty clear partisan tilt. In two of those races the second place candidate comes from behind and wins, but that's completely expected since the third place candidate is from the same party in a district that is tilted toward their party. And in one race, a clear swing district in which the frontrunning Dem has 50.4 percent to 37.5 percent for the frontrunning Rep, with another Rep in third with 12 percent, the Rep eventually wins with 51.6 percent (beating a conservative Dem). A little sizzle there, but that's only one race in a swing district. And in all of the races, these results also would not be any different than what we have now in CA.

It's in the fourth category where things perhaps are most interesting. These races illustrate why a split field may result in EXTREME candidates advancing to the top two, not moderates. In this category, there are 5 primary races -- out of 123 races -- where there are multicandidate fields of 4-7 candidates where the front runner has less than 40 percent in a pretty split field.

For example, if you look at District 7, Position 1 you see there were 5 candidates, ALL REPUBLICANS, and the top two in the primary had 26.7 percent and 26.4 percent. In such a situation, with the top two having such a low percent of the vote, it's very possible that one or both of those candidates may not be moderate at all, they could be extremist. Yet one of them will win in the general election, since it was a heavily GOP district.

In the District 40 Senate race, there are 7 candidates, 6 Dems and 1 Rep. The Rep finishes first with 37.8 percent and a Dem is second with 28.3 percent. That Dem could easily be non-moderate, could be a far left Dem with such a low percent of the vote. But in the Nov election the Dem wins with 58.6 percent of the vote, since most Dem voters of course fall in line and vote for the "brand," i.e. the Democrat.

Here's another, District 14, Position 1: seven candidates, 6 Reps and 1 Dem, Dem finishes first with 30 percent with the highest Rep having 22 percent -- with such a low percent, that Rep could easily be an extreme candidate. Then that Rep went on to win in November, since it's a Rep district, with 53 percent of the vote.

District 8, Position 1: 5 candidates, one Dem and 4 Reps, Dem finishes first with 38.2 percent, the top Rep has only 19percent -- extremist or moderate? Then the Rep wins in Nov with 53percent.

This kind of "split vote" dynamic is reminiscent of the strategy Tom DeLay followed for years, providing enough money and firepower to help his extreme Rep candidates win a low plurality victory in the primary over more moderate Reps. And then that candidate would easily win the November election in a heavily Rep district.

It's also a reminder of how David Duke, a former top Ku Klux Klan leader, got into the top two in the 1991 Louisiana race for governor with only 32 percent of the vote. It's also how Jean-Marie Le Pen, a far right politician in France, got into the top two in a recent French presidential election with only 18 percent of the vote. Split votes are a common occurence in plurality elections, and the top two uses a plurality election to determine the top two finishers.

So when I look at these results, I don't see that very much was gained in WA from use of the top two. First, most races are still vastly noncompetitive and predictable, as they were before WA had the top two (and like CA has now). And second, in the five races where you have some real voter "choice" going on, with multiple candidates and a wide open field, the final results are a crapshoot with candidates getting into the top two with low plurality vote totals that can just as easily be reached by extreme candidates as by moderates.

Salam: Left-Right Lieberman

Reihan Salam — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:36:00 -0500

A quick note on Lieberman’s political vulnerability, and how he might have played his hand differently from 2004 on.

Just as Democratic AG Joe Lieberman brought down an idiosyncratic incumbent, Lowell Weicker, in 1988, it looks as though Democratic AG Richard Blumenthal could easily bring down the idiosyncratic Lieberman in 2012...