[EL] SF excludes 28% of participating voters from runoff

Sun Nov 13 13:38:39 PST 2011

Doug is correct that due to current limitations of its voting equipment,
San Francisco allows three rankings. A majority of ballots exhausted in the
mayor's race (e.g., of the ballot not counting in the final round) were
counted for candidates who had been eliminated before the final rounds. The
9th circuit unanimously rejected this as a legal issue, rightly making the
comparison to a usual "vote-for-1" race where far more voters may vote for
someone not in the top two, but it's something we'd like to see improved --
the ballot used in Portland Maine had no restriction in rankings, and was
also easier to use.

That said, the great majority of SF voters with preference in the SF
mayoral race made a valid choice (and even higher percentages in the
citywide races with fewer ballots, including 99.83% of voters in the
sheriff's race with 4 candidates). Relatively few ballots had any bungled
rankings - and of those that did, the percentage counting in the final
round wasn't drastically lower than those validly ranking three candidates.

Portland did allow unlimited rankings and a lot of people indicated them.
But in a race where the two frontrunners had 27% and 22% of first choices,
a certain percentage didn't rank either of the final two -- so the winner
had a very comfortable win, but not with a majority of all ballots in the
first round. Bu would he have won in a "same day runoff" with his top
opponent? Everyone says he would, as would have been true in SF as well.
The only way you'd have had different winners if voters changed their minds
or those casting votes changed. True, that might have happened in a runoff,
as attempts to polarize the electorate and likely racially charged tactics
kicked in.

For those who didn't click on the Portland Press Herald editorial that Rick
included in his update yesterday, I'd urge you to read it. Below is a link
to it, and a key excerpt that I think suggests there is more value to RCV
than some of its critics might say. (And note, the Press Herald was
skeptical about ranked choice voting last year -- so this is an insight
that came from observed experience)

- Rob Richie

##########
EXCERPT <<Without ranked-choice voting this would have been a very
different campaign.If they were just seeking to have the most votes on
Election Night, the candidates would have targeted a number of voters,
identified their supporters and made sure they turned out to the polls. In
this case, about 5,000 votes from nearly 20,000 cast would have been
enough. A candidate with a hot-button neighborhood issue could have run
away with the election without ever meeting a voter from another part of
town. Under the ranked-choice system, candidates were forced to engage with
each other and talk to each others' voters.The result was an interesting
conversation about Portland and its future that would not have happened in
a "turn-out-your-base" election. That debate helped clarify the job
description for Portland's mayor, and it will make life easier for Brennan
when he shows up for work.>>

FULL
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/brennan-ranked-choice-voting-both-winners_2011-11-12.html

Posted: November 12
Updated: Today at 8:38 PM
Our View: Brennan, ranked-choice voting both
winners<http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/brennan-ranked-choice-voting-both-winners_2011-11-12.html>Portland
can have confidence in its new mayor and the system used to count the votes.

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Douglas Johnson
<djohnson at ndcresearch.com>wrote:

> Sorry, but that's simply factually incorrect. The SF ballot only allows 3
> choices.
> - Doug
>
> Sent from my Blackberry
>
> Douglas Johnson
> djohnson at NDCresearch.com
> 310-200-2058
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Gaddie, Ronald K." <rkgaddie at ou.edu>
> Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:06:46
> To: David A. Holtzman<David at HoltzmanLaw.com>; law-election at uci.edu<
> law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] SF excludes 28% of participating voters from runoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> 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/d9879ea4/attachment.html>