[EL] Facts about runoffs, ranked choice voting and SF elections
Rob Richie
rr at fairvote.org
Sun Nov 13 13:21:07 PST 2011
I've seen some conjecture and a handful of isolated facts on this topic in
this threat on San Francisco. Let me just put a few more facts on the table:
1. Federal primary runoffs:
A number of states have runoff elections in their federal primaries when no
candidates wins a certain threshold (usually 50%) of the first round. We
issued our most recent comprehensive study on this topic in August, and
anyone interested in this topic really should check it out. See:
http://www.fairvote.org/federal-primary-runoff-elections-and-voter-turnout-declines-1994-201
Note that, relating to turnout:
* Of 146 regularly scheduled primary runoffs in 1994 to 2010, all but five
of them resulted in a turnout decline, on average by 31.5%.. The largest
decrease in turnout took place in the 2008 Democratic runoff for U.S House
in Texas' 32nd district, which saw a 93.88% decline in turnout from the
primary to the runoff election
* As a general matter, the longer the gap between rounds, the lower the
turnout in the runoff -- but federal law relating to he rights of military
voters / overseas voters has pushed several states to widen the gap between
rounds.
* We think some enterprising scholar should look beyond absolute numbers to
who is not participating-- from limited evidence, we think it in general is
disproportionately whiter, older and wealthier voters in low-turnout
runoffs.
2. San Francisco: RCV vs. Runoffs
* San Francisco had 14 runoff elections in 2000-2003 (2000 was the year
they moved to district elections for the Board of Supervisors). Only two
runoffs (the mayoral and district attorney races in 2003) had higher
turnout than the first round. Ten of the remaining 12 had turnouts that
fell by more than a third and the other two by a fifth. Eight of the 14
runoff winners had fewer votes in December than the leading candidate had
in November -- including races in which Asian American candidates had led
in November, but been forced into December runoffs and lost in two-turnout
races to white candidates.
* In contrast, of the 18 RCV elections going to multiple rounds of
counting, we've consistently seen a decline in participation between
rounds, but generally __much__ smaller than in runoffs. Here are some
comparisons -- both on turnout and on "engagement with the race" measures
like undervotes/nonvotes.
RUNOFFS (median, 14 runoffs, 2002--3) vs. RCV (median, 18 multi-round
races, 2004-2011)
- Participation in runoff round compared to first round : 60.5% (runoffs),
86.0% (RCV)
- Increase in runoff round's winning vote total compared to 1st round:
93.1% (runoffs), 132.0% (RCV)
- Voters at polls not casting valid vote in race: 13.0% (runoffs), 9.4%
(RCV)
* There is talk of low turnout in this year's mayoral race.It wasn't as low
as some stories initially said, as it's now over 40% of registered voters.
Although I'd certainly like to see higher turnout in general, we've see a
__lot__ of really low turnout races in candidate races this fall, including
in governor's races in West Virginia, Louisiana and Kentucky and a number
of mayoral races. It's not just San Francisco. But, that said, note that SF
turnout seems to have hit a record high for city elections for Asian
American voters.
Rob Richie
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Gaddie, Ronald K. <rkgaddie at ou.edu> wrote:
> The best indicators of continued voter mobilization in runoffs are:
> 1. Up-ticket major race
> 2. Increased spending between the primary and the runoff for the
> particular contest.
> Charles S. Bullock III, Ronald Keith Gaddie, &Anders Ferrington. 2002.
> System Structure, Campaign Stimuli, and Voter Falloff in Runoff Primaries.
> Journal of Politics, 64 (Nov.): 1210–1224, November 2002.
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2508.00170/abstract
>
> Ronald Keith Gaddie
> Professor of Political Science
> Editor, *Social Science Quarterly*
> The University of Oklahoma
> 455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
> Norman, OK 73019-2001
> Phone 405-325-4989
> Fax 405-325-0718
> E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu
> http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
> http://socialsciencequarterly.org
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Larry Levine [larrylevine at earthlink.net]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2011 12:04 PM
> *To:* richardwinger at yahoo.com; Gaddie, Ronald K.; 'David A. Holtzman';
> law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] SF excludes 28% of participating voters from runoff
>
> Yep. And turnout usually is driving by what’s at the top of the ballot.
> When L.A. has a mayoral election that is decided in the March Primary the
> turnout for the May runoffs will drop, even if there is a citywide contest
> remaining for city attorney or city controller. The same is not always true
> of city council races. Often the turnout for a city council runoff will be
> higher than the Primary turnout absent the influence of a mayoral election.
> I would suggest there are two things at work in the San Francisco
> situation. One would be the presence, or absence of a presence of a
> citywide mayoral contest in the runoff. Two would be the fact that the
> runoff is in December, a horrible time to get voters to focus. All this
> adds up to a conclusion that there are factors at work in determining
> turnout that will not be cured by IRV or ranked choice. I look at each of
> those as a gimmick that would be change without substance.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Winger [mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2011 9:46 AM
> *To:* Ronald K.''Gaddie; 'David A. Holtzman'; law-election at uci.edu; Larry
> Levine
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] SF excludes 28% of participating voters from runoff
>
>
>
> In all states, always, partisan primaries always have lower turnouts than
> general elections for important office like President, Congress, and
> Governor.
>
> But most of the discussion on this thread has concerned municipal
> elections, especially San Francisco. San Francisco virtually always had a
> higher turnout in the first round in November, than in the second round in
> December.
>
> I think that when Los Angeles has its first round for city office in
> April, and then a run-off for the offices for which no one got 50% in the
> first round in June, the April elections generally have a higher turnout
> than the June one. This generalization is certainly more true in the
> elections in the odd year before the presidential election, when city
> council is up but Mayor isn't up.
>
> If a municipality has its first round on the same ballot as a statewide
> partisan primary, and its second round on the same ballot as a statewide
> general election, obviously the turnout in the election in November will be
> higher. The city turnout is a result of what is going on with the
> statewide state election. I think San Jose follows that pattern; at least
> it did in the past.
>
> So, it all depends on the circumstances.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On *Sun, 11/13/11, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [EL] SF excludes 28% of participating voters from runoff
> To: "'Gaddie, Ronald K.'" <rkgaddie at ou.edu>, "'David A. Holtzman'" <
> David at HoltzmanLaw.com>, law-election at uci.edu
> Date: Sunday, November 13, 2011, 9:06 AM
>
> What is your source on the 30% number? In my experience the November
> runoff elections in California always have a significantly higher turnout
> than the June (or March) primary. Same is true in L.A. mayoral races and
> frequently in city council races – the runoff generates a higher turnout
> than the primary. Apparently, there are numbers of voters who look at the
> primary as not being the real election. They wait until the field is
> narrowed so they can vote in the main event.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Gaddie,
> Ronald K.
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2011 6:07 AM
> *To:* David A. Holtzman; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] SF excludes 28% of participating voters from runoff
>
>
>
> Exhausted doesn't mean they were excluded; it means that they had no
> preference for any of the remaining candidates in the sort. By not ranking
> the remaining choices, they threw a 'none of the above,' for all intents
> and purposes. Indifference can be interpreted many ways, and we can't know
> the explanation for the indifference.
>
> What's fun about this is, on average, about 30% of voters don't make it
> back for a conventional runoff. They too are indifferent, but get the
> chance to vote with their feet.
>
>
>
> Ronald Keith Gaddie
>
> Professor of Political Science
>
> Editor, *Social Science Quarterly*
>
> The University of Oklahoma
> 455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
> Norman, OK 73019-2001
> Phone 405-325-4989
> Fax 405-325-0718
>
> E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
> http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
> http://socialsciencequarterly.org
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>[
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of David A.
> Holtzman [David at HoltzmanLaw.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:49 PM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] SF excludes 28% of participating voters from runoff
>
> As I’ve written here before, if you really want an RCV/instant runoff
> jurisdiction go back to having elections with more than one (1) election
> day, there is no good reason to narrow the final field to two (2)
> candidates. With the certified equipment that allows choosing and ranking
> up to three (3), voters can fully express their ordered preferences among
> up to *four (4)*.
>
> I think some people, especially news people, just miss the blood sport - I
> mean “competition” - of head-to-head contests.
>
> - dah
>
>
> On 11/11/2011 2:32 PM, Larry Levine wrote:
>
> Yep. That would work. Until it didn't. What's wrong with a runoff between
>
> the two top finishers. Let them discuss and debate the issues and let
>
> those
>
> voters who wish to participate pick the one for whom they want to vote. Oh,
>
> yeah, that's not reform.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>] On Behalf Of Dan
>
> Johnson
>
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:51 AM
>
> To: Douglas Johnson
>
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] SF excludes 28% of participating voters from runoff
>
>
>
> That would suggest the proper response is to drop the limit of three
>
> rankings from the SF ballot. Then the number of exhausted ballots would
>
> fall.
>
>
>
> And then again, some voters really didn't have any preference
>
> between the
>
> two of them and prefer to exhaust their ballot.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Douglas Johnson <djohnson at ndcresearch.com> <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
> wrote:
>
> A different view on whether the of ranked-choice voting in San
>
> Francisco was
>
> "effective":
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> According to the November
>
> 10 numbers from the Department of Elections,
>
> the final round tally in the San Francisco Mayoral election was 79,147
>
> votes for Ed Lee, 51,788 for John Avalos, and 48,983 "exhausted" ballots.
>
> "Exhausted"
>
> means the ballot did not contain a vote for either Lee or Avalos, thus
>
> the voter was excluded from sharing his/her preference in the final
>
> runoff.
>
> Percentage-wise, Ed Lee won the vote of 43.4% of voters participating
>
> in the Mayoral election. John Avalos received the
>
> final vote of 28.4%
>
> of voters participating in the election. And 28.2% of voters casting
>
> ballots in the Mayoral primary were blocked from expressing their
>
> preference in the final runoff (26.9% were exhausted and 1.3% were
>
> over/under votes).
>
> In fact, less than half of those not voting for Lee or Avalos in the
>
> first round listed either of them as their #2 or #3 choices. In the
>
> first round,
>
> 89,681 voters cast ballots for Lee and Avalos, while 90,431 voters
>
> preferred other candidates as their
>
> first choice. As those other
>
> candidates were eliminated, 41,254 additional votes were added to Lee
>
> and/or Avalos. But
>
> 48,983 ballots were "exhausted" and dropped from the counts.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> By a 48,983 to 41,254 margin, San Francisco's ranked-choice runoff
>
> system excluded the views of more participating voters than it added.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No system is perfect: without any runoff, Lee would have won 31% to
>
> 19%, with 50% of the voters participating not casting a vote for
>
> either of the top two. With a traditional runoff, the lower turnout
>
> that sometimes occurs would also mean some of the primary voters would
>
> not cast ballots in the runoff, though I would argue that is different
>
> because that would be by their choice, not by the design of the
>
> election system (and note that in some local CA elections, runoff
>
> turnout is higher than primary turnout). In SF, it is the election
>
> system that dictates the exclusion of some voters from the final decision
>
> whenever the counting goes more than three rounds.
>
> [I should acknowledge what's surely going through Larry Levine's mind
>
> right
>
> now: the election system in place influences campaign decisions, so
>
> this paragraph's comparisons to alternative systems are imperfect
>
> because candidates made decisions knowing they were in a RCV system.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Amidst the cheerleading for ranked-choice voting, I believe it is
>
> important to remember
>
> that the RCV system has substantial drawbacks
>
> too. I welcome the discussion of whether the drawbacks of RCV are less
>
> than the drawbacks of traditional no-runoff or later-runoff elections,
>
> but I would encourage all debaters to acknowledge that RCV is also far
>
> from perfect.
>
> - Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas Johnson
>
>
>
> Fellow
>
>
>
> Rose Institute of State and Local Government
>
>
>
> m 310-200-2058
>
>
>
> o 909-621-8159
>
>
>
> douglas.johnson at cmc.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>] On Behalf Of
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 8:52 AM
>
> To: law-election at UCI.EDU <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/11/11
>
>
>
> "San Francisco Voters Effectively Used Rank Choice Voting"
>
>
>
> Posted on November 11, 2011 9:33 am by Rick Hasen
>
>
>
> FairVote has issued this press release.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan Johnson
>
>
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> 111 West Washington, Suite 1920
>
> Chicago, Illinois 60602
>
>
>
> 312.867.5377 (office)
>
> 312.933.4890 (mobile)
>
> 312.794.7064 (fax)
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <http://UrlBlockedError.aspx>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111113/5fdab3f9/attachment.html>
View list directory