[EL] RCV in San Francisco

[Thomas J. Cares]

Think of it as simulated runoffs. If you don’t rank one of the 2 final
contenders to-be, you’ve sat out the potential runoff between them, albeit
being as convenient as possible for you.

No one will take into account the number of primary voters, who abstained
from the general, when they report Newsom’s percentage of votes in
November.

-Tom Cares




On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:40 PM Kogan, Vladimir <kogan.18 at osu.edu> wrote:

> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the highlighted section below is
> clearly incorrect:
>
>
> “SF Elections are Working — and Getting Even Better”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861>
>
> Posted on June 28, 2018 3:53 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Oped <http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-elections-working-getting-even-better/> from By
> SF election commissioners *Charlotte Hill*
> <http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/charlotte-hill/>, *Christopher Jerdonek*
> <http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/christopher-jerdonek/> and *Viva Mo*
> <http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/viva-mogi/>gi:
>
> *The current RCV system also facilitated higher voter participation than
> the previous December runoff system, which San Francisco used until 2004.
> Under that system, the first election occurred in November, followed by a
> second race in December if no candidate won an initial majority. Voter
> turnout often plummeted in the December runoff, on average by 31 percent.
> In the 2001 runoff for city attorney, less than 17% of registered voters
> participated. In the 1995 mayoral election, the number of voters declined
> by nearly 10 percentage points from November to December.*
>
> *Some have asked why San Francisco does not use the “plurality” voting
> method, in which the highest vote-getter wins. Plurality voting is used to
> elect many governors, senators, and the president. But if plurality had
> been used in our mayoral election, the winner would have been elected with
> less than 37% of the vote, with more than 60% of voters casting a ballot
> for another candidate. The goal of any runoff system is to ensure that the
> winner has a majority (50% + 1) of the vote and is the candidate preferred
> by the most voters. San Francisco’s “instant runoff” elections fulfill both
> goals, but without the expense—both for taxpayers and candidates—of a
> separate runoff election. San Francisco saves approximately $3.5 million by
> not holding a second citywide election.*
>
> Due to high rates of ballot exhaustion
> <http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/files/2014/12/ElectoralStudies-2fupfhd.pdf>,
> the winner often does not get “a majority (50%+1) of the vote and is the
> candidate preferred by the most voters.” The most recent mayoral election
> is Exhibit 1: London Breed won with 45.6 of the vote.
>
>
>
> Vlad Kogan
>
>
>
> [image: The Ohio State University]
> *Vladimir Kogan*, Associate Professor
> *Department of Political Science*
>
> 2004 Derby Hall | 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1373
> 510/415-4074 Mobile
>
> 614/292-9498 Office
>
> 614/292-1146 Fax
>
> http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/
> kogan.18 at osu.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180629/89dea8ea/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3605 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180629/89dea8ea/attachment.png>