Political Reform

LA Spends $1 Million on Low Turnout Election

Gautam Dutta — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:57:00 -0500

In last night's special runoff election to fill the vacant seat in City Council's 2nd District, Paul Krekorian prevailed over fellow Instant Runoff Voter (IRV) supporter Christine Essel.

With only 15% of registered voters turning out, this special election cost nearly $50 per voter. If IRV had been used, Los Angeles taxpayers would have saved almost $1 million.

Once Krekorian is sworn into office, IRV will have the support of a record six LA Councilmembers.

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.

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.

State Senate Majority Leader Endorses Constitutional Convention

Joe Mathews — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:41:00 -0400

Just not the current leader of California's state senate. Micah Weinberg explains in a terrific post on the Political Reform Blog.

California Senate Majority Leader Endorses Constitutional Convention

Micah Weinberg — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:03:00 -0400

"If Madison was right about the need for well-functioning legislative bodies, and if society is losing them, then we would expect to see signs of the twin threats of which Madison warned - chaos and tyranny. Disturbingly, we do see those signs today."

These words were written by the Majority Leader of the California State Senate in a paper entitled, "The Dangers of Government Gridlock and the Need for a Constitutional Convention."

The Senate Majority Leader in question was Barry Keene and the year was 1992.

But this warning could easily grace the editorial pages of today as the state's leaders quaver on the edge of an even wider budget chasm and as the tide of discontent with the political status quo rises ever higher.

The familiarity of Keene's concerns - and he wasn't alone - belies the notion that our current problem are due to a recent rise in political polarization or a uniquely venal set of public officials. In fact, a constitutional revision commission was convened in the mid 1990s, though its sensible bipartisan recommendations were ignored by a state that was able to coast through a few more years of denial fueled by the tech and housing booms.

But after these gold rushes, we find ourselves in even more dire straits because the root causes of our problems will not go away for all of our wishing. In Keene's words:

"Some people argue that the problems of government are personal rather than structural. They say that our leaders do not lead, do not care or are crooks. But those charges beg the question - why do even the best people in government accomplish to little? The reasons are partly societal, as mentioned, partly attitudinal, as I will note, but mainly structural."

Some of the problems he identifies are endemic to the U.S. Constitutional system as a whole:

"The U.S. and California constitutions invite voters to elect legislative majorities of one philosophy and chief executives of another philosophy. The voters accept the invitation regularly. Enacting policy that moves in one direction, while implementing it in the opposite, virtually guarantees stalemate."

Conventional wisdom would suggest that our political problems primarily result from California-specific policy straitjackets we have buckled ourselves into - such as Propositions 13 and 98. But the current budget standoff between a Republican governor and Democratic legislature is just politics as usual in the checked and balanced American system.

Thad Kousser, Professor of Political Science at the University of California at San Diego made this exact point about divided government and gridlock in his presentation at a forum that the New America Foundation hosted on constitutional reform. It is also echoed within a paper from last fall by Eric McGhee of the Public Policy Institute of California on "Redistricting and Legislative Partisanship."

But as Keene saw then - and as many are observing now - some of our structural problems, if not entirely unique, are magnified dramatically in California. An excellent example is our extraordinary abuse initiative process. As Keene explain, the sentiments that have lead Californians to develop these patterns are understandable but these actions are ultimately self-defeating:

"The public sees that the state government is stalemated. People turn to initiatives that, with all of their failings, have the one apparent virtue the Governor and the Legislature often lack - they at least accomplish something. But in doing so, they drive the regular policymakers from the decisionmaking field; the initiatives' special-interest sponsors lock them into the constitution, or into initiative statutes that the Governor and Legislature generally cannot change in response to new circumstances or new public demands. Government becomes even more stalemated."

Many of solutions to this stalemate advanced by Keene would also look very familiar to the reformers of today. He advocates for better campaign finance laws, a streamlined and simplified constitution, and an end to incumbent-oriented redistricting.

California did managed to constructively address the last of these issues through the success of Proposition 11 last year. The campaign finance system, though, has become even more embarrassingly perverse since then; the constitution even more bloated and trivialized.

Perhaps, therefore, we will put in place some of the more fundamental changes Keene recommends including the restoration of political parties, perhaps even within a parliamentary system of government. My colleague Mark Paul and I have also recommended sweeping reforms such as the implementation of full representation within legislative elections. And we're not afraid of parties.

But beyond endorsing specific reforms both incremental and radical, the punchline of Keene's piece is his call for a constitutional convention:

"The structural roadblocks to legislative decisionmaking also prevent the Legislature from enacting most constitutional reform. This is why we need a constitutional convention in California and perhaps in other states."

Over the course of the past year, the Bay Area Council, a group of 500 CEOs, has issued another clarion call for constitutional reform. Some have expressed concern that the convention would get caught up in debates about social issues. Keene spoke to these concerns compellingly saying:

"The risk of a runaway state convention is minor, compared with the near-certainty of continued paralysis without one."

Californians are waking up to the need for fundamental structural reform. But there is no guarantee that they will have the right leadership to make these vitally necessary changes or the wherewithal to see the process through to its conclusion. Some still dither, worried about sacred cows that artificially distort tax rates or perpetually lock in funding for specific programs. But until we all let go of our policy prejudices, take a leap of faith with each other, and fix the structural problems that ail the state, things will continue to get worse. Barry Keene saw it in 1992; organizations like the Bay Area Council, the New America Foundation, California Forward and the William C. Velasquez Institute see it today.

Or, on the other hand, we may live in denial for a few more years; after all, our once great state, was once very, very great and has not yet completely rotted to the core.

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.