CAC 20121118_Presentation_Elections_PrimerLOCAL ELECTIONS PRIMER
un 1k, PhD
Center for Public Policy
Ca lifor nia to n - � F ullerto n
syboi
LOca - ecTO'ra *
• All electoral systems have multiple components that
interact with each other.
• Basic components and questions
Membership of Council
At -Large or Districts
Voting methods
Mayor
a More than anything else, rules determine outcomes
Membership of Council
a Size of council
Fewer seats
• Theory - increase efficiency in decision making
• Example: Regardless of population, most cities in OC have 5 member
city councils (91 %), but this is less common outside of OC and
California
More seats
Theory - increase participation and expand diversity
Example: Indianapolis is a consolidated city that retained the previous
county and city elected positions and incorporated them into the new
governance structure. This resulted in an extremely large city council
with 29 members (25 from districts, 4 at large)
At -Large elections
• Also called multiple member, single district elections
• History — Began to increase in popularity in US cities
during the 1950's often to reduce the impact of party
bosses and political machines.*
1965 Voting Rights Act, aimed at a variety of practices
including at -large districting in ethnically diverse cities.
Many at -large election systems have been forced out of
existence through court action.
Intent to discriminate not required: outcomes as evidence
At -Large elections
o
Officials appeal to the
interest of the entire city
e Citizens have access to
multiple members
Reduced the influence of
political machines in cities
where they existed
Potential to increase council
cohesiveness
Potential to limit geographic
Cons
Potential suppression of
minority interests
Academic literature
Court findings
Less representative of
citizenry broadly
a Affluent areas are more
likely to generate winning
candidates
fights over resources
Mu Hue D-s - --
• The jurisdiction is divided into multiple sub -units or
districts
• Each district elects at least one representative
Possible to elect more than one representative, but most commonly
it is just one.
Almost without exception, the representative must be a resident
from within the district.
Theoretically possible to remove residency requirement's from
districts, but not much is known about how those districts would
function.
Mu Hue D-s--ir-c - ib n
The historic way in the US to elect city councils.
Often many very small districts and very large city councils
• Movement away from districts to prevent influence of
'political machines' and patronage in some parts of the
Us.
• Most larger cities kept the multiple district model while
smaller, suburban cities adopted at -large elections.
Less than 9% (3 of the 34) OC cities have some form of district
nomination or election.
Mu Hue D-s � -_
• Suburban homogeneity of the population tended to
remove some of the inherent problems of at -large
elections
• Heterogeneous (diverse) populations have accentuated
the problems of at -large systems and encouraged a return
to the district system model
snge memoeir
Mu - aek Ds
o
Increased diversity in
representation
Geographically
Racial / Ethnic
• More representation of
neighborhood issues
• Increased legitimacy of
council actions
Moves conflict away from
extra - electoral settings
into a formal setting
Cons
Narrower interests from
elected officials
They are beholden to a
specific district rather than the
entire city
Potential for less consensus
because of increased
diversity
Concerns over district
boundaries
• Gerrymandering
• Who draws them?
_S
Cons-aewma - - - ons foym d C
a District boundaries
How are they drawn?
• Historic neighborhoods
• Geographic features
Meeting VRA requirements
compactness, existing political boundaries, 'communities of interest,'
population variations, majority- minority, partisanship imbalances
Who draws them?
• Outside consultants
• Council membership
• Appointed board of citizens
• Elected board of citizens
-yopp sys
Developed to integrate the two types of elections (at -large
and districts)
Expectation that you get the best of both systems
a Many options
A portion of the seats elected at large, with a portion elected from
districts
Runoff elections with candidates nominated by district who face
each other in an at -large election
V oting me hoas
• There are a variety of ways to "count' votes
• No method is without flaw
• Most common in the US
Plurality systems
• First past the post (single member with the most votes)
• Cumulative voting (the candidates with the most votes get the available
seats)
Majority systems
Runoff elections
P uppa i - _-
o
a Can be done with single
member and multi-
member districts
(cumulative voting)
Top vote getters are
elected
Easy to understand for
voters
Cons
Do not necessarily
produce a "majority'
winner
Candidates can win elections
without a majority of
support from their district
A larger number of
candidates can dilute
voting coalitions
Ma 41 TY 0 Runoff --- ec - - - ons
0
Pros
• Always produces a
majority winner
• Unlimited access to the
first round for all
candidates
Cons
More expensive to
administer because of
multiple elections and
dates
• Probable effect on turnout
• May decrease diversity in
outcomes
Popular candidates can be
eliminated by vote
dilution (i.e. not the
voter's first choice)
Election oir choice of Mayor
a At Large public election
Responsiveness to entire citizenry rather than localized interests
a Chosen each term from council membership
Stable leadership, but may be beholden to localized interests
a Rotating office within the council membership
Distribute agenda setting function between all members
Tenure as mayor may be short or ineffectual
Independence of choices
• None of these choices are independent of each other
• Each bundle of choices will produce different outcomes
• Many cities in OC have a similar set of combinations, but
there exist a wide range of combinations throughout the
us.
Anaheim
ce Population ~ 340,000
we Demographics
52.7% White
27.5% White, not Hispanic
52.8% Hispanic
14.8 % Asian
2.8 % Black
ce Council
a 4 members
Elected At -Large
ce Mayor
Elected At -Large
CITY OF ANAH
,I o 4 T
t `F�\
�'
Comoapp son OC C -_ es
-
a Santa Ana
a Irvine
Population 330,000
Demographics
45.9% White
9.2% White, not Hispanic
78.2% Hispanic
10.5% Asian
1.5% Black
a Council
6 members
• Nominated from wards
(districts)
• Elected At -Large
Mayor
Elected At -Large
Population 215,000
Demographics
50.5% White
45.1% White, not Hispanic
9.2% Hispanic
39.2% Asian
1.8% Black
a Council
4 members
Elected At -Large
Mayor
Elected At -Large
41 Comoapp son x_41
- - Ca
a Riverside
a Oakland
Population 310,000
Demographics
56.5% White
34.0% White, not Hispanic
49.0% Hispanic
9 7.4% Asian
7.0% Black
a Council
7 members
9 Elected from wards (districts)
Mayor
Elected At -Large
Population 390,000
Demographics
34.5% White
25.9% White, not Hispanic
25.4% Hispanic
9 16.8% Asian
28.0% Black
a Council
8 members
7 Elected from wards (districts)
1 Elected At -Large
Mayor
Elected At -Large
41 Comoapp son x_41
- - Ca
a Stockton
a Bakersfield
Population 290,000 Population 350,000
Demographics Demographics
37.0% White - 56.8% White
22.9% White, not Hispanic 37.8% White, not Hispanic
40.3% Hispanic - 45.5% Hispanic
21.5% Asian - 6.2% Asian
12.2% Black - 8.2% Black
a Council
a Council
6 members
• Nominated from wards
(districts)
• Elected At -Large
Mayor
Elected At -Large
7 members
Elected from wards (districts)
Mayor
Elected At -Large
Comoarson - - -
as Orlando, Fl Arlington, TX
Population 240,000 -- Population 365,000
Demographics
57.6% White
41.3% White, not Hispanic
25.4% Hispanic
3.8% Asian
28.1% Black
Demographics
59.0% White
44.9% White, not Hispanic
27.4% Hispanic
6.8% Asian
18.8% Black
Council
6 'Commissioners'
Elected from districts
Mayor
Elected At -Large
Council
8 members
5 Elected from districts
3 Elected At -Large
Mayor
Elected At -Large
Components of systems
• Number of seats on the council
Maintain 5 or expand?
• At -Large or Multiple Districts
How many districts? 1 or more?
Multi- member district(s) or single member districts?
Some hybrid system?
a Election system
Plurality
Simple
Cumulative
Majority
Runoff
a Choice of Mayor
Resolution 2012 -090
Potential changes in the City's election systems, including election by
district, residency- required districts, continuing with an at -large
elected mayor or resuming Anaheim's historic system of having the
mayor appointed by the council, the number of districts, if any;
cumulative voting; traditional voting; and the date of elections;
I How to encourage voter registration;
�e
How to identify and engage community groups that can assist the City
with encouraging resident participation in elections and in local
government decision- making;
What language assistance programs would be cost effective to
encourage resident participation in city elections and local government
decision making; and
Other techniques, approaches, methods, or alternatives that, in the
estimation of the Committee, should be considered by the City Council
or recommended to groups or agencies with the ability to act to
promote the participation of racial and ethnic minorities in the
electoral process.
o a a m a o
November - Elections Systems Primer and overview of a process for the
Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections and Community
involvement (CAC).
December - Discussion of the CA Voting Rights Act; Study of local
demographics and historical trends by Demographer.
January — Discussion and decisions on potential electoral designs.
January- Continued discussions and decisions on potential electoral
designs.
February- How to identify and encourage citizen engagement in
elections.
March- Tools to encourage voter registration; Language assistance
programs; other techniques to promote participation.
April- Discussion and approval of CAC Recommendations report.
May- Presentation of CAC Recommendations to City Council.