election-law_gl-digest Thursday, March 14 2002 Volume 01 : Number 164
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:29:16 +1000
From: "Tom Round [Griffith Univ.]" <T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: San Francisco to Drop Local Runoff Elections
Thanks for this interesting news. In Australia, preferential voting has
been used, in both single-member and multi-member electoral districts
(usually but not exclusively for lower and upper houses respectively),
almost exclusively for the past few decades. First-past-the-post survives
only for local elections in some States, and the two experiments with party
list proportional representation were quickly abandoned (although there is
the option of "voting a party ticket" in all of the multi-member PR upper
house systems).
I have two questions if anyone can provide further info:
(a) Does the San Francisco version of IRO allow the voter a maximum of
3 preferences only? (I believe Sri Lanka uses a similar three-preferences
method for Presidential elections, and the Lord Mayor of London is elected
by a two-preferences system.) I assume that after the fourth stage of the
count, a plurality would suffice to elect a winner.
(b) Will the San Francisco system be used on voting machines? Paper
ballots are the norm in Australia -- I've heard US commentators suggest
that the difficulty of adapting voting machines to preferential systems is
a serious obstacle to introduction of IRO and/or STV in the USA. Has SF got
a way around this obstacle?
Any info much appreciated. Regards, Tom Round
At 12:17 14/03/02 -0800, Dan Johnson-Weinberger wrote:
The article is not quite right -- there is no primary election in the
nonpartisan race for mayor or board of supervisors, for example. It's just
the an election and a runoff -- now consolidated into a non-partisan
instant runoff election. No American jurisdiction currently uses instant
runoff voting (our nickname of preferential voting for a single-winner).
Cambridge, Mass does use preferential voting for their proportional
representation election to the nine-member at-large city council. New York
City community school board elections use preferential voting for their
proportional representation elections. Two dozen American cities used the
same proportional representation election for their city councils in the
20th century (including New York, Cincinnati and other major places), but
they have all been repealed. So while some American elections use
preferential voting, none of them do so for single-winner elections.
For more, check out www.fairvote.org
Dan Johnson-Weinberger
National Field Director
Center for Voting and Democracy
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Mulroy
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: San Francisco to Drop Local Runoff Elections
The lead sentence of this story says that San Francisco is the first U.S.
city to allow preference voting in primary elections. Is that right? I
know Cambridge, Mass. uses preference voting now and many major Midwest
cities did earlier in the century. What is different about the Frisco
scenario? Or did the LA Times get that wrong? SJM
Rick Hasen wrote:
http://latimes.com/news/local/la-000018733mar14.story
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
LA Times (March 14, 2002)
THE STATE
"San Francisco to Drop Local Runoff Elections Ballots: Voters will rank
candidates by preference in primaries. Critics call process too complicated."
By JOHN M. GLIONNA, TIMES STAFF WRITER
SAN FRANCISCO -- This progressive city recently became the country's
first to allow voters to rank candidates by preference in local
primaries, eliminating the need for costly runoff elections.
Proposition A, approved last week by 55% of city voters, is expected to
save $2 million a year in election costs, draw more voters to the polls
and possibly become a national model that helps third-party candidates,
say its supporters.
Critics say the confusing system will be bungled by elections officials
already under investigation by the secretary of state for losing and
miscounting ballots. "This is going to be a disaster," said James
Stearns, a San Francisco political consultant who opposed the measure.
"This system is far too complex to be implemented by the San Francisco
Department of Elections, which has been trying very hard to provide
quality elections but which has consistently come up short."
But proponents say that instant runoff elections are long overdue and are
being considered in other Bay Area cities such as Oakland and Berkeley
and as far away as Vermont and Alaska.
"This is one-stop shopping, and it just makes things so much easier for
voters," said Caleb Kleppner, a San Francisco project director for the
Center for Voting and Democracy. "The way things are run now, people go
to the polls in November and then turn around and return again in another
five weeks."
Last year, for example, only 15% of registered voters turned up at the
polls in the December runoff for local district attorney. In previous
years, the December turnout dropped as much as 50% from the previous
month. "It's outrageous," Kleppner said. "That December 2000 runoff cost
the city $29 per voter--triple what it should. It's obvious things
weren't working."
The old system required the two top vote recipients in a multi-candidate
race to enter a runoff election five weeks later if no one received more
than 50% of the vote.
Under Proposition A, voters rank their first, second and third choices.
If no one gets at least 50%, the candidate with the fewest first-place
votes is eliminated. All the people who voted for that losing candidate
then see their votes recast in favor of their second choice. The
lowest-tallying candidate in each round is eliminated, and the process
repeats until a majority is won.
Rob Eshelman, a legislative aide for Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, the new
system's lead supporter, said saving money wasn't the only consideration:
"We think this system goes a long way to cut out the negative campaigning
that goes on before each runoff election."
In primary races with more than two candidates, most political
advertising deals with issues rather than personal attacks, Eshelman
said. But once the battle narrows to two hopefuls, "the gloves come off
and the voters end up losing under a barrage of nasty campaign ads," he
said. Many lesser-funded candidates also run out of money to pay for TV
ads before runoffs, which favors the better-bankrolled candidates,
advocates say.
If a runoff had been used in the 2000 presidential election, advocates
say, voters who preferred Ralph Nader could have listed George W. Bush,
Al Gore or another candidate as their second choice. "This way, people
like Ralph Nader and the Green Party won't get blamed for spoiling any
more elections," Eshelman said. "We hope this is going to be used as a
national model."
Ross Mirkarimi, a spokesman for the California Green Party, called the
new system "more considerate of a multi-party system."
"Beyond the Democrats and Republicans, third parties are often locked out
of many elections," he said. "This has been tried and tested in many
foreign countries, and it works. It's an issue of equity against machine
politics."
San Francisco City Administrator Bill Lee said the new system could be
used as early as November, depending on how quickly elections officials
can install the necessary computer software.
Stearns said the system will spell trouble for the city because it will
not be applied to statewide races on the same ballot.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Tom Round
BA (Hons), LL.B (UQ)
Research Fellow, Key Centre for Ethics,
Law, Justice and Governance (KCELJAG)
& Subject Convenor, 7021KEL ("Ethical and
Legal Regulation of Organisations")
Room 1.10, HUM[anities] Building, Nathan Campus
Griffith University, Queensland [Australia] 4111
Ph: (061 or 07) 3875 3817
Mobile: 0438 167 304
Fax: (061 or 07) 3875 6634
E-mail: T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au
Web: http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/kceljag/
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:25:19 -0800
From: "Paul Ryan" <pryan@cgs.org>
Subject: RE: San Francisco to Drop Local Runoff Elections
Tom Round asked two questions.
First, does San Francisco allow the voter a maximum of three preferences?
San Francisco's charter amendment states, "The ballot shall allow voters to
rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of
candidates for each office; provided, however, if the voting system, vote
tabulation system, or similar or related equipment used by the City and
County cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of
candidates running for each office, then the Director of Elections may limit
the number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three."
Second, will the San Francisco system be used on voting machines? It is my
understanding that San Francisco is currently using an optical scan voting
system. In an optical scan system, the voter darkens an oval on the ballot
with a pen or pencil. The darkened ovals are then read by a vote-counting
machine. According to a recent SF Chronicle article, San Francisco's voting
equipment vendor, Election Systems & Software, is currently researching
whether the instant runoff system can be implemented using the optical scan
system. The city is also considering purchasing new touch screen voting
machines to implement the instant runoff system.
********************
Paul Ryan
Project Director
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Suite 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Ph. (310) 470-6590 ext. 115
Fax (310) 475-3752
pryan@cgs.org
http://www.cgs.org
********************
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Round
[Griffith Univ.]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:29 PM
To: Dan Johnson-Weinberger; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Cc: Steven Mulroy; Rick Hasen
Subject: Re: San Francisco to Drop Local Runoff Elections
Thanks for this interesting news. In Australia, preferential voting has
been used, in both single-member and multi-member electoral districts
(usually but not exclusively for lower and upper houses respectively),
almost exclusively for the past few decades. First-past-the-post survives
only for local elections in some States, and the two experiments with party
list proportional representation were quickly abandoned (although there is
the option of "voting a party ticket" in all of the multi-member PR upper
house systems).
I have two questions if anyone can provide further info:
(a) Does the San Francisco version of IRO allow the voter a maximum of
3 preferences only? (I believe Sri Lanka uses a similar three-preferences
method for Presidential elections, and the Lord Mayor of London is elected
by a two-preferences system.) I assume that after the fourth stage of the
count, a plurality would suffice to elect a winner.
(b) Will the San Francisco system be used on voting machines? Paper
ballots are the norm in Australia -- I've heard US commentators suggest
that the difficulty of adapting voting machines to preferential systems is
a serious obstacle to introduction of IRO and/or STV in the USA. Has SF got
a way around this obstacle?
Any info much appreciated. Regards, Tom Round
At 12:17 14/03/02 -0800, Dan Johnson-Weinberger wrote:
The article is not quite right -- there is no primary election in the
nonpartisan race for mayor or board of supervisors, for example. It's just
the an election and a runoff -- now consolidated into a non-partisan
instant runoff election. No American jurisdiction currently uses instant
runoff voting (our nickname of preferential voting for a single-winner).
Cambridge, Mass does use preferential voting for their proportional
representation election to the nine-member at-large city council. New York
City community school board elections use preferential voting for their
proportional representation elections. Two dozen American cities used the
same proportional representation election for their city councils in the
20th century (including New York, Cincinnati and other major places), but
they have all been repealed. So while some American elections use
preferential voting, none of them do so for single-winner elections.
For more, check out www.fairvote.org
Dan Johnson-Weinberger
National Field Director
Center for Voting and Democracy
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Mulroy
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: San Francisco to Drop Local Runoff Elections
The lead sentence of this story says that San Francisco is the first U.S.
city to allow preference voting in primary elections. Is that right? I
know Cambridge, Mass. uses preference voting now and many major Midwest
cities did earlier in the century. What is different about the Frisco
scenario? Or did the LA Times get that wrong? SJM
Rick Hasen wrote:
http://latimes.com/news/local/la-000018733mar14.story
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
LA Times (March 14, 2002)
THE STATE
"San Francisco to Drop Local Runoff Elections Ballots: Voters will rank
candidates by preference in primaries. Critics call process too
complicated."
By JOHN M. GLIONNA, TIMES STAFF WRITER
SAN FRANCISCO -- This progressive city recently became the country's
first to allow voters to rank candidates by preference in local
primaries, eliminating the need for costly runoff elections.
Proposition A, approved last week by 55% of city voters, is expected to
save $2 million a year in election costs, draw more voters to the polls
and possibly become a national model that helps third-party candidates,
say its supporters.
Critics say the confusing system will be bungled by elections officials
already under investigation by the secretary of state for losing and
miscounting ballots. "This is going to be a disaster," said James
Stearns, a San Francisco political consultant who opposed the measure.
"This system is far too complex to be implemented by the San Francisco
Department of Elections, which has been trying very hard to provide
quality elections but which has consistently come up short."
But proponents say that instant runoff elections are long overdue and are
being considered in other Bay Area cities such as Oakland and Berkeley
and as far away as Vermont and Alaska.
"This is one-stop shopping, and it just makes things so much easier for
voters," said Caleb Kleppner, a San Francisco project director for the
Center for Voting and Democracy. "The way things are run now, people go
to the polls in November and then turn around and return again in another
five weeks."
Last year, for example, only 15% of registered voters turned up at the
polls in the December runoff for local district attorney. In previous
years, the December turnout dropped as much as 50% from the previous
month. "It's outrageous," Kleppner said. "That December 2000 runoff cost
the city $29 per voter--triple what it should. It's obvious things
weren't working."
The old system required the two top vote recipients in a multi-candidate
race to enter a runoff election five weeks later if no one received more
than 50% of the vote.
Under Proposition A, voters rank their first, second and third choices.
If no one gets at least 50%, the candidate with the fewest first-place
votes is eliminated. All the people who voted for that losing candidate
then see their votes recast in favor of their second choice. The
lowest-tallying candidate in each round is eliminated, and the process
repeats until a majority is won.
Rob Eshelman, a legislative aide for Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, the new
system's lead supporter, said saving money wasn't the only consideration:
"We think this system goes a long way to cut out the negative campaigning
that goes on before each runoff election."
In primary races with more than two candidates, most political
advertising deals with issues rather than personal attacks, Eshelman
said. But once the battle narrows to two hopefuls, "the gloves come off
and the voters end up losing under a barrage of nasty campaign ads," he
said. Many lesser-funded candidates also run out of money to pay for TV
ads before runoffs, which favors the better-bankrolled candidates,
advocates say.
If a runoff had been used in the 2000 presidential election, advocates
say, voters who preferred Ralph Nader could have listed George W. Bush,
Al Gore or another candidate as their second choice. "This way, people
like Ralph Nader and the Green Party won't get blamed for spoiling any
more elections," Eshelman said. "We hope this is going to be used as a
national model."
Ross Mirkarimi, a spokesman for the California Green Party, called the
new system "more considerate of a multi-party system."
"Beyond the Democrats and Republicans, third parties are often locked out
of many elections," he said. "This has been tried and tested in many
foreign countries, and it works. It's an issue of equity against machine
politics."
San Francisco City Administrator Bill Lee said the new system could be
used as early as November, depending on how quickly elections officials
can install the necessary computer software.
Stearns said the system will spell trouble for the city because it will
not be applied to statewide races on the same ballot.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Tom Round
BA (Hons), LL.B (UQ)
Research Fellow, Key Centre for Ethics,
Law, Justice and Governance (KCELJAG)
& Subject Convenor, 7021KEL ("Ethical and
Legal Regulation of Organisations")
Room 1.10, HUM[anities] Building, Nathan Campus
Griffith University, Queensland [Australia] 4111
Ph: (061 or 07) 3875 3817
Mobile: 0438 167 304
Fax: (061 or 07) 3875 6634
E-mail: T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au
Web: http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/kceljag/
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of election-law_gl-digest V1 #164
*************************************