Political Reform

"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.

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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."

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.

from the Sacramento Bee, www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1717487.html

A constitutional convention has been proposed by some California business leaders as a vehicle to fix the Golden State's deeply entrenched political and economic woes. While a convention offers the hope of a new beginning, it also inspires understandable fear that hard won rights may get trampled in the horse-trading. The state's leadership in recent years has hardly inspired confidence. Why should we imagine that it could match the brilliance of James Madison, George Washington and the other Founders, and chart a new course for our state?  

The first thing to recognize is that the Founders were not as brilliant as the mythmakers would have us believe. Their initial design of government -- the Articles of Confederation -- was a timid attempt at national governance, more dysfunctional than California's government today. To their credit, once they realized their design had faltered, they were bold enough not merely to tinker around the edges. They had the courage to fix their eyes on a new horizon, completely redesigning their existing governmental structures to create Version 2.0, which became an inspiration to the world.