[EL] (Not Really) ranked-choice voting in SF

[David A. Holtzman]

With instant runoff, ranked-choice voting, a "majority" is more than 
half of the valid votes in the election.It is recalculated every round.

The runoff rounds in San Francisco's previous election method had very 
low turnout due to scheduling (see Rob Richie's post).Many voters 
expressed choices in old-style SF elections without having their ballots 
counted in the determinative round. So I think the winning "majorities" 
back then, percentage-wise, were much smaller pluralities than the 
"majorities" currently built by top-three-ranking IRV/RCV.

*San Francisco's hardware limitation of three rankings is a function of 
the availability of equipment and the unwillingness of elections 
officials to administer ballot counts conducted by hand.Those problems, 
in turn, are related to political unwillingness to invest public funds 
in upgrading the actual machinery of democracy, compounded by regulatory 
barriers to private sector entry into the election equipment market.

Ironically, the Help America Vote Act may have hindered electoral reform.
*
Here in Los Angeles County (a very large elections jurisdiction), the 
elections office is engaged in a Voting Systems Assessment Project 
(VSAP) with an eye towards getting improved election equipment, and the 
League of Women Voters has a seat at the table.The Leagues of Women 
Voters in L.A. County advocate using IRV for all single-winner elections.

L.A. city elections use county voting machines, and as president of the 
city League of Women Voters, I have requested that the new equipment be 
able to let voters choose and rank at least ten (and preferably all) 
candidates in each single-winner contest.

- dah


p.s. For anyone advocating that San Francisco go back to elections with 
two election days: note that there is no good reason to let only two 
candidates advance to the second election day.With equipment that allows 
choosing and ranking up to three candidates, voters can fully express 
their ordered preferences among four.




On 11/7/2011 8:58 AM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
>
> In San Francisco voters rank only their top three choices, not all of 
> the candidates. As a result many voters do not participate in the 
> final "run off," because all three of their choices have been 
> eliminated in previous rounds.
>
> Unlike those voters who choose not to turn out in a traditional runoff 
> election, these SF voters have no way to know that their choices will 
> be eliminated, and they have no way to register their preference among 
> the final runoff candidates.
>
> I have not personally confirmed this, but I saw one study that found 
> none of the winners using SF's system have ever won with a majority of 
> voters supporting them. In every case, drop-off from all three choices 
> losing led to wins by plurality. I'd be interested to know if that 
> study's been confirmed or disproven.
>
> - Doug
>
> Douglas Johnson
>
> Fellow
>
> Rose Institute of State and Local Government
>
> m 310-200-2058
>
> o 909-621-8159
>
> douglas.johnson at cmc.edu
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Monday, November 07, 2011 7:46 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.EDU
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/7/11
>
>  []
>
>
>     *"Ranked Choice Put To The Test In S.F. Mayor Race"
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25111> *
>
> Posted on November 7, 2011 8:21 am 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25111> by Rick Hasen 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NPR reports 
> <http://www.npr.org/2011/11/07/142080926/ranked-choice-put-to-the-test-in-s-f-mayor-race>.
>
> Share 
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25111&title=%E2%80%9CRanked%20Choice%20Put%20To%20The%20Test%20In%20S.F.%20Mayor%20Race%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inalternative voting systems 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63> | Comments Off
>
> []
> -- 
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be 
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an 
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email 
> to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email 
> in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or 
> copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
> this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard 
> all copies.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111107/cbd316bc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111107/cbd316bc/attachment.png>