The URL can be used to link to this page

20130314_Public_CommentPlease provide the attach-cmtints to the commission members for their March 14th meeting Page I of 1 1 Reply Reolv M = orvwrd AMN e, E! LA j I 01 AS 10 th El CCO r M, 5 S 0 rTI ED 171 EI as 0 1 ei� - Terry Reilly [tw,-eiIIy@gmaiI,conn Amadiments (2! Lnd (2.'.'- PwQ N9 €nn"00ho AC, .M SyMou- hpA 000 M. Op e r� q S lid V r.! Please provide to We cmumMon members for their Manh Adi meeting. Theso ardAvy concern cost of elections and uxperirnenta( election systems. Best Regards, Terry Data on how Poriked Choice Voting Hurts Mlinoritie cost Of Rank(--d choice, voting: h-ttps://cityofanalicii,n,il'-t/owa/?ae=lteEa8L,a-, ,Open&t--IPNI,NoteL,id.- R ,,E,)AAAACIVPPZ%2.,. 3/14/2013 StarTrIbune Minneapofis shod $385,000 for 201 elections Article by Steve Brandt Star Tribune February 27 2013 - 7:33 PM Receyved. 3/13/2013 zo cacelecc_onsCanaheim.net Attachment 2 oL 2 With still flesh memories of long voting lines in November and slow vote tallies from the last Minneapolis elections in 2009, the city took steps Wednesday aimed at irnproving voting this fall.. But it may have aimed short on the money to get the job done, City Clerk Casey Carl told the Cit Councif's ESec €ions Committee on Wednesday that he's short $335,000 of the nearly $1.7 million that's needed to properly run the more expensive rank est - choce voting method the city uses fo: municipal elections. Election costs will run even higher this year than last year, when the city had a massive 62 percent presidential election turnout, he said. 'That's despite an expected smaller turnout for the 22 races and a probabie charter referendum. Ranked-choice balloting debuted in 2009 but cost the city five tunes more than traditional voting. This year the city also has to train workers on expected new vot equipment. Carl said that he can cover the still - needed funds if he's allowed to shift $385, 000 that his office saved last year by keeping four positions vaunt. But the council deferred that request to a late Kfiarch budget session. Meanwhile, the cornmittee, which consists of all 13 council members — although only nine attended ---- gave the go -ahead to a number of efforts to improve voting after 2012 problems that left lines that toots hours and caused confusion in some precincts. A panel of outsiders will help the city devise standards to measure the suitability of polling place,, the clerk's office. will review the number and locations of polling {daces, and plans will be developed tc target voter outreach to areas with force turnout, high minority populations or more ranked choice voting errors. But the big question looming over municipal voting this year is whether the city can shorten how long it takes to count ballots. it took 15 days in 2009 to hand -count beffots and allocate second- and third-choice votes where required to determine a winner. Casey said one berg way to simplify counting is to eliminate the requirement for counting all voter choices in races where it's clear that a candidate von on first - choice votes alone, as Mayor R.T. Rybak did with 74 percent in 2049. Another big improvement would be getting new tirg_tinc� enuirrment that could automate much of the counting process. Hennepin County has set a deadline of r=riday for proposals for replacing its voting equipment, which Minneapolis and other cities will use. Such equipment is awaiting state certification that it meets requirements of state election laves, but the state has said iG's up to the city to test the equipment to make sure it works properly for ranked - choice voting. The committee voted to Seek Ciarlfication of what that means. Carl said he asked last year for an extra $250,000 to cover 2013 election costs but got just $100,000 more from the mayor and City Council. He said he's upping the request because it's now olear that workers will need more training now that there will be new equipment and because he expects that the mayoral race to succeed the rebring Rybak wM draw more voters. R anked-c ho ice Article by: DEVIN RICE March 5, 2013 - 9:30 PM Steve Brandt's' eb. 28 article ( "Funds for election come up short ") addressed only one of the serious shortcomings of Minneapolis' ranked- choice voting system (RCV). Brandt pointed out that Minneapolis will need $1.7 million to "properly run" the system, which costs five times more per vote than traditional voting, according to the article. Received 3/13/201.3 c cacelect.yorisCanahe? m. net What is more important is the potential disenfranchisement the 111u raricr: Baflot box. RCV systern inflicts on minority and less - affluent voters. Fred mara €noros, MC T INevv Tribune According to official' Minneapolis election reports from its first RCV election in 2009, 6.4 percent of all ballots cast contained an error. Even more alarming, 27 percent of the ballots cast in the predominantly East African /Somali precinct in the Cedar- Riverside neighborhood contained ballot errors. In the Fifth Ward, an area of north Minneapoiis with an African - American adult population of more than 50 percent, the voter error rate was more than 14 percent. In other predominately African - American, (Latino /Hispanic and Native American voting precincts, the incidence of error was nearly 20 percent. Yet in the most affluent areas around the chain of lakes in south Minneapolis, the ballot error rate was 2 percent. Affluent areas had a proportionally higher voter turnout and lower ballot error rates than other parts of the city. As a result, precincts with large low - income and minority populations counted less than whitelaffiuent voting precincts. That's not a fair vote al' all. This pattern merits the full attention of legislators, City Councit members, city election officials and all people concerned with voting rights. RCV advocates are now attempting to pass state legislation to permit any city, county, school district or township to adopt RCV by referendum or by unanimous vote of their elected governing bodies. RCV advocates argue it should simply be a matter of local choice. Sounds simple? Wrong! The claims of these proponents merit strict scrutiny and are highly suspect, based on Minneapolis' 2009 election. Our state Supreme Court ruled that RCV was constitutional on its face, but reserved judgment as to its constitutionality as applied," The court's decision cited seven arguments that the city of Minneapolis and FairVote, the organization promoting RCV, made to justify the decision to Permit the method. Four of those arguments proved to be false based on the 2009 election results The city and proponents of RCV said: RCV would save money because of the need for only one election. Brandt s article proves otherwise. RCV would increase voter turnout. There were 46,000 votes cast in 2009, the lowest turnout in a city election since 1913 (seven years before women were allowed to vote), Voter turnout fell by 34 percent in 2009. RCV would eliminate plurality winners and ensure majority winners. This claim also proved untrue. In the Park and Recreation Board's Fifth District, the incumbent won with just 46.1 percent. RCV would promote minority representation. This was perhaps the most serious failure. Census data from 2010 reflect a (attachment 1 o�L 2 city that is 40 percent ethnic/racial minorities. The number of minority office holders in city municipal offices decreased in the 2009 election. to the Park Board "at large" race. an incumbent African - American female, the top vote - getter in the 2005 e#ection, lost the 2009 RCV election. Using traditional election methods, 27 percent of the legislators from Minneapolis are minority and 44 percent of Minneapolis school board members are minority. Of Minneapolis' 25 municipal elected officials, only two (or 8 percent) are minority. You be the judge of which election method works best in this state for minority groups. It would be extremely unwise to open the entire state up to such a suspect method of voting. Certainly no one shauid accept the stated reasons for using RCV as true. They simply have not been proven. Minneapolis voters adopted RCV after being told that it would save money, increase turnout, efiminate plurality winners and increase mr nority representation. All tour claims were false. Voting ought to be clear and simple. RCV is neither, Voting should give each citizen an equal chance to be beard. The great American experiment. was and still is our democracy_ By my measure, the 2009 election was a failed experiment. Let's see what RCV does in 2013 and then determine if it has a role in our precious democracy. €0evin Rice is a member of the Minneapolis Charter Commission. 020^1 SiarTdbune Material for Cifiz.-ns Advisory Committee ou Elections Page I of I Reply Re,-Iv AH Fcrora� ze im Arnryknee an E le c i ton s ns Advisory C Terry Reilly [twreHIy@SjmaH.cornj ,-�±tachmenm Dnwrvoad j� at, d. . I -- I May SUoym Uwd Ann&! pd U% KB) [Ono as Wep Pap",: vm ncj 1943 KBI fooen as web Paph SF Sune"ims Cr ads Re -Lpdf 98 KE) jqwn as Wnh ANU sk rMiev chwe mas Qw-I Q! (91 KI [Wo aq W Pall Please confirm you have received this e-snail. lifter Watching Prof. KirnbaLl's presentation, you should know about the most recent developments in RCV. He notes a 2003 survey that showed voters understood RCV. More resents studies have shown otherwise, Here's the most recent developments in San Francisco. Please provide to commission me tiers. https.Ilcit)7ofanaheim. 3/14/2013 RG ane.Zved 5/13/2013 Attachment I A Third of S.F. Chinese Voters Unaware of Ranked Choice Nevvi Repo,'.. tI_iyian "n 93R . 3�itc;:llnef ca3s� +edia. arcs / c €sfr;a'IVt_��Fa�r� .. posted: Cot 14, 2nl i One of the Bay Area's largest Chinese - language dailies conducted a survey of Can ;=rancisco's Chinese voters in the run an to the citv's mayoral elections In early November Among the more surpriSing results, the paper found trial some o!re third of respondents said they were not aware that ranked choice voting would be used. The survey by the Sing Tao Daily (E3l hfup:1JSirsg 01411 f5IW ,PhPj Polled a random sainpltng of 326 Chinese American voters on their flrst choice for mayor, as well as on their understanding of ranked choice, whict; asks voters of list their tap three choices for mayor, This year`s race promises to bring the Chinese community out in fu €f force come election day, given that tour of the }offdinq candidates are at Chlne9e background. Aceordiny to the Sing Tao. some K percent of respondents said they would 'absolutely' vote in November. Whether or not they understand the new System, f owever, is a key question. The results showed that 32 percent of respondents said they were unaware that ranked rhoice would be used, while another 16 percent said they were contused by the system. This is the first year that San Francisco wit! be implementing ranked choice voting in the city's mayoral race. Nearby Cakdand used the system in its lust mayoral race in 2010, helping to se21 the win by the city's new and first - ever Chfneeo American mayor, Jean Men. A cosi-�;avfng measure aimed at availing expensive runoft elections, under ranked choice, if no one candidate secures. a 61 percent rnajority, then the fast place finisher in the first round is eiiminated, with voles for the second choice candidates tieing doled out accordingly. Election experts told the Sing Tao that the contusion and ignorance stems horn the lack of an effective CIVIC campaign to educate the electorate on tee new system. Mould Les, head of the Chinese American Voter Education Committee (CAVEC %, told Sing Tao that the surrey results worry him. 'We are only two weeks away from the elections, and there are still many voters who are confused by the system, of are unaware of ii. This is the biggest problem revealed by the survey." Lee urged candidates to do more to ensure voters understand She system, adding that CAVEC sent out 50,000 bilingual brochures in Chinese and English infnnning local residents on the rules of ranked choice voting, He also noted the nafential for frustration with the system, which =o drive away voters. On election day, voters will be asked to till in the names of their top three choices. If voters leave spaces blank, or fill in the same name in al; three slots, then a red ilght will signal on the ballot machine asking them to verity their choices. Lee says this may drive those confronting language harriers away from the ballot boy.. As torwho their top candidates are, almost one- ttsircf o4 respondents said they have yet to decide. Among those who have derided, incurnbert trayor Ed Lee came out on top with 61,3 percent, With State Senator Leland Yee at 31 percent and Supervisor David Chlr with 1.6 oercenf. Phil 7 .ing, Jeff Adac:N and John Avalas all carne in under # percent. Among the three top choices of Lee, Yee and Chiu, the latter =mes in as the votkngest, at 41, and with the least amount of experience in clty politics, havil been elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2008. He is also the only one out the five Chinese candidates in this year's elections who isn't mauled According to the Chinese - language Wend Journal [URL: 6045165}, however, Chiu may be looking to pumish his image as a iamfly man by making public his relationship with long -time friend and colleague Carmace Chen, Cl a third generation Chinese American, is a civil rights and immigration attorney. She met Chiu several years ago when he served as the president of the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area. The couple's relationship was announced to the press two weeks ago amid talk of Chiu ;s bachelor status. A slew of negative attack ads appeared last month in the Chinese media and sponsored by the Ed Lee and Letand Yee campaigns. Asked whether such ads were eftective in intuencing their preferences some 40 percent of respondents to the survey answered they were not. The Slna Tad, meanwhfle, is the only Chinese paper in the Flay Area that end0rmx; hotin candidates and propositions. For the November ballot, the paper endorsed Ed Lee as their first choice for San Francisco mayor, with David Chiu coming in second, and Bevan Duffy tnirci. Received 3/13/2013 attachment 2 V(;iUMe. ^ Issue 12 i Celebrating our 25thyear!l ( marinatimes.com I December 20zk. MAIN I NEWS C7QM7DY'C17tM. 1 C2PIMON i T'FAT'L1I S I ATHOME, BUSU+eL''SS I SPORTS I m'i"ITS ! St}v�I�".�.'�!I � =,! I ArC.F11€VrS j CONTACr time t end r d-choice volbngi San F_ rancisco n fsari( r - �arPelf in Zoo , San. Fram-iscans approved a new voting system called "ranked choice voting." If you have voted in a San Francisco election sinee then., you are li'Kely well aware of our current systexn that allows voters to rank Three candidates in each election. Ranked- choice voting was originally conceived in San Francisco as a remedy to the perceived problems of our city traditional run-off voting system. After witnessing ranked- choice voting in action for neariy a decade, I feel it has failed to deliver on its many promises and has fostered numerous unintended consequences. Simply stated, I believe it is time. to put an end to the ranked- choice voting experiment in onr city. The promises of ranked voting Ranked- choice voting was passed by San Francisco voters in 2oo2 without mach. supporting data but with a number of potential benefits; less negative campaigning, cheaper elections, and higher voter turnout. The promise of less negative campaigning certainly has not materialized. If anyone paid attention to this year's mayor's race, the majority of the campaigning that happened was negative (especially in the last six weeks)_ As much as we don t like it, negative canspaigning happens in almost every election, and the voting system. doesn't affect the volume of voters. Furthermore, ranked - choice voting fosters a situation where candidates literally spend tune asking for second a,nd third place votes. Personally, I prefer candidates for elected office in San Francisco, in particular for mayor, to stand up as leaders, articulate a vision zor our great city, and ask residents for ffieir vote --- plain and simple. Running around asking for second and third place votes, in my mind, diminishes the leadership trait necessary for effectively serving in elected office, A cheaper election cycle was also touted as a reason for ranked - choice voting. Intuitively, if San Francisco can eliminate a runoff election, it should yield significant cost savings, Ilowever, the reality is much more blurred. With ranked- choice, our Department of Elections is forced to hire additional staff to review much more complicated ballots, and they work much longer. last year whan I was elected, our Departm,ent of Elections had additional staff present well over two weeks after Election Day. Not to mention that the Department of Elections spends a significant ainotunt of money; each election Cycle "educating " voters about the ranked- choice voting, process. Supervisor Elsbernd and I have asked our internal financial analyst at the Board of Supervisors to conduct a true annual cost estimate for ranked choice voting, and we estimate this study will be released later in December. Ultimately, I believe it is going to reveal ranked - choice voting as a surprisingly expensive endeavor. Similarly, the promise of higher voter turnout has not materialized. our eon November election saw an appro)dmate 42 percent voter turnout — a staggeringly Low number..Ls a contrast, the runoff for mayor in San Francisco between Gavin Newsom and Matt Gonzalez in 2003 saw over 54 percent voter turnout -- meaning that over 70,000 more San Franciscans voted in the 2o03 runoff election than in the tot mayoral race. If you look at the data, other mayoral elections in San Francisco over years have produced lower voter turnout, but the point is that ranked- choice voting„ in and of itself, clearly and factually does not produce higiuer voter turr out. most would agree that. it has more to do with time excitement around certain candidates — and their ability to inspire San Franciscans — tbat promotes higher voter turnout than the voting system itself. TB te - r61.( Voter confusion. perhaps my biggest objection to ranked - choice voting is the fact that massive numbers of San Francisco voters remain totally confused about how it works. One part of this is factual each election cycle, a certain percentage of mail -in ballots are immediately tossed out because they are marked incorrectly ('these are called "overvotes "). A quick look at the 2010 supervisor races and the 2011- mayor's race snows hundreds of ballots in each election getting tossed as overvoted -- more important, the percentage of overvotes increased dramatically (three to five times) in economically disadvantaged parts of San Prancisco, which have significant minority populations_ This is simply unacceptable, and actively disenfranchises communities that have a rich and rightfully successful history of fighting for the right to vote in the United States, The other part regarding voter confusion is anecdotal. Tads past Mection Day, Chanslel 7 interviewed four Sans Franciscarm who had just voted at City Hall and asked, ther3 to explain ranked- choice voting, Not only did the interviews produce four different answers, but they were alt wrong. A recent moll asked San Francisco voters a simple ques tion: What happens to a ballot if the three candidates chosen on the ballot are eliminated in the final ranked - choice votin count? A full "� percent, answered the: question wrong and ,2 percent of tae respondents answered `not sure." We have to ask ourselves -- how much contusion is acceptable? Row many ballots getting tossed is acceptable and to what. end? In my opinion, our residents should be spending their time deciding who and what: to vote for, not how to vote. The principal of majority vote I believe politicians should be elected with a majority vote — plain and simple. Ranked - choice voting does not deliver on this premise, and allows candidates with a distinct minority of the vote to win their elections. Many drastic examples exist, including a recent supennsor race in Sal Francisco where the winner received less than zw percent of the first place votes, ultimately appeared on less than 25 percent of the ballots in the election (when counting second and third place votes), but nevertheless won, the election. Perhaps the most prominent example is from the 2o:Lo mayor's race in Oakland, when Jean Quan won just 24 percent of the first place votes and ended up winning the eleclior despite appearing on less than 45 percent of the ballots (when including second and third glace votes). As we have witnessed in Oakland this year — in particular with the Occupy Oakland movement and the recall petitions -- not only does this undermine an elected official's ability to govern moving, forward but leaves voters rightfully frustrated and bewildered. V4 halt's nom? Can Nov. 8, with Supervisor Sean Elsbernd as co- sponsor, I introduced an amendment to our San Francisco Charter that would eliminate rankcd- choice voting and return San Francisco elections to our traditional runoff voting system. Our goal, is to have this charter amendment on the June 2012 ballot in San. Francisco, where voters will decide its fate. However, to qualifyfor th.e June 20x2 ballot, it will take six supervisors to sign the charter amendtu.eut, so we will be debating the issue at the Board of Supervisors over the next two months. Given the timing of the June 2oi2 hallo', the ultimate vote at the Board of Supervisors will take plane in early February at the latest. As I mentioned to my colleagues and various members ofthe media, SupervisorElsbernd and I are not dogmatic about the details of our current legislation (some supervisors have openly stated a preference for a September primary and November runoff, whirls we are very open to discussing) — the only part we are dogmatic about is the necessity to end ranked - choice voting in San Francisco. Ultimately, it has failed to deliver on its Promises created massive voter confusion, and violated the principal of a maority Vote — all the while disenfranchising demographic groups that deserve our support. Voting is a fundamental right, and I believe any systekn or ideology that infringes on the exercise of that right is bad. policy. It is time for San Francisco to end its ranked- choice voting experiment. 1(wkk.kf'. k ;< iro�RStt?d�I,, rc�nrdst ^ :ris t)istritr anrk cEttt 112' mflclaz'c3 +:i: �1 A.? or mark- farreili�Ni' ° Y'a :3Lsrr f.�5S11a1 dt:.c ,E ;�slafn�da r G4cS i,£a,cg:.ry KUiiy i_fy:2 �;avtx.l2�3iy �� f�c <.oc`�) an.:9 Ca. *�e3 1-K^ Sl'eTNri (aaizmzrit�e,ci� i,�rr. tPr:�'go�' orb) ii' Gmr 1v,vve rnt� iriersiiac, cnrrtinrr�: or a ?iu•.earag nag uny m�nzi :r, � 3 p I bursday, Decf -- bcr 1, 2011 Received 3/13/20 13 Attachment 3 Many SF Voters Use d Ranked-Choice Vot ,.correctly ,,nalysis fords voting patterns break down by neighborhood boundaries By: Shane Shlffjetf Updated Dec. ?, 2011 at 12:09,p. m. The results are in: San Francisco voters have trouble with ranked - choice elections. Despite a $ 3;x€1,000 educational. campaign leadirig up to last month.'s elections, including a nCV smiley -facc mascot, publicity everts, and advertising on bases and in newspapers, only one - third of voters on N ov. 8 filled out all three choices in all thre' races, according to ar analysis released this week by th.e University of Sang Francisco. U nder the czty 's system, voters were askod to nank their top three choices for mayor, sheriff and district attorn e, Perhaps the analysis' most iToubling finding, is that 9 percent ofvoters mostly in Chinatown and southeastern neighborhoods like the BayviCW marked only one choice for each offzce, Wcely either because they considered only one candidate sui bie or because they did not know how to fill out their ballot correctly- "Some people Just prefer to rank one, said Corey Cook a political science professor at the university who wrote t1he report with David Latterrman. "But the geographic component suggests it's Tore systematic. " '/',,related"/(, Cook and Lattennan plan to do -f rther research info the question of why some vottirs consistently chose only one candidate. Althouah Ed Lee did not receive a ma$ority of first -place votes., he became tl.e city's first efected Chinese - American mayor based on the ranked- choioc system, which was first used in San rancisco in 2004. Latterr at associate director: of the L--o T. MicCarthy Center for Public Se= and the Common mood at U Sly, said voters in neighborlhoods vvzth large black or Asian populations tended to vote for different candidates than residents in other parts of the city. But, tl , Nov. 8 election was the first tune researchers saw a geographic or perhaps ethnic difference in how people used ranked- choic€: voting. the findiiiLs i idicate one of nvo things, L atteri an said: Hither campaigns - ft�ed to manipulatR- the results by focusing on speeific groups of peopic or there is not a clear understandi of how to use the system. recez a�� Citizen az�aJvsis rcv a cc that 16 percent of ballots ire the mayoral. race — those of more than 31,540 people -- - were filled out correctly but were discarded when all of their chosen candidates were eliminated fron). the race. San. Francisco does not allow voters to rand, all the cazdidates on the ballot. In June, a voting tide force created by the Board of Supervisors t-c amzx onde(i tat ffie Departnign o f Elections consider aliowina vote -s to rank ali the. candidates t.c ravOid this issta " The panel urged the department to word: with city supervisors to iricrcasc water education. Hence die mascot. "We made the conscious decision to have an image of a correctly marked ballet and to have a smiley face to draw people's attention., ' said John Arnt?., ffie director of the Department of elections. When asked whether ranked - choice voting has worked -well for Sao. Francisco, Amtz sail, "l guess it depends if your candidate wins or, not." This article also appears in the day Area edition oT The Neiv York Times. air >. P ,tTi, ide Back to Artide S.F. ranked - choice mess looms for mayor's race C.W. Nevius Thursday, March 10, 2011 W e may be beaded for a ballot box train. wreck:. N ovember's election will technically be the idr mayoral election to be decided by controversial raniced -- choice Noting. (Gasdn Newsom was essentially unopposed when he was re- elected rn.ayorj Today's Chamber of Commerce survey shows that RSV7�t, voters find ranked- choice c,onfus�g and unsettling and would prefer a traditional two - candidate runoff. T here's even been talk of repealing ranked - choice voting at the ballet box.. Good luck with that. Voters approved ranked- choice voting in 2002. It eliminates a runoff by allowing voters to list their top three choices. III no candidate wins more than half of the votes, last -- ;dace candidates are eliminated and. them second- and third -place votes are redistributed until someone vans a z ajorit . While confusing, the system has stuck so far and it will almost certainly take a ballot box meltdown to galvanize voters - a crazy, unexpected outcome that leaves voters feeling bewildered and disenfranchised.. If that's what you want, the goad yews is all the factors - huge un Aieldy field, no clear favorite, and lots of recognizable names with strong core support - are in place for that to happen. The Oakland mayoral election used ranked- choice voting and. jean Quan defeated former state Sera. Don Perata even though Perata had more first - place votes. The last District j superviso race, in which it tools more than 20 rounds to award, the seat to Malia Cohen, who was back in the pack when the counting started, seemed odd. But November's election for a new mayor could. be a much bigger deal. "It's going to be District ro on steroids," said political analyst David Latterman, who is advising mayoral candidate David Chiu. "There were really only three candidates in C>alcland. This will be a race of severaj . major candidates, maybe as many as 2o, and at least io are legit conten. dens." A. landslide of candidates may be the new winning metric for ranked-choice voting. Candidates round up as many choices as possible, build. coalitions, and then gang up against the from runners. Received 3I 3/20y3 Attachmen.i, 4 advertisement ! vour ad here cad of Buainess app Prof- essionat Studies C ome to n: "I'm not sure € would want to be in first place going into the election," said political consultant Mark. Mosher, who is working with candidate Dennis Herrera. "You're going to get absolutely shelled." Admittedly, Mosher has an ax to grind because his firm, Barnes, Mosher, er, zitehurst, Lauter & 1'a: tners, advised Perata`s mayoral 'bid. "One of the things t don't litre is you have people putting together teams to eliminate the front - runners," he said. "is this a ballot or a beard garner Steven Hill, the writer and political thinker, has been called the architect of ranked- choice votiDg zn California. His support hasn't wavered.. "Ira every election there ai•e losers," Hill said. "And. rather tbhar. look in the mirror, thCy say it was this crazy system Gnat kept them from whining." Hill sees a stately. orderly process iz; November that will save the city millions by avoiding, a runoff election. Hill does caution those who thins- they can sneak into the mayor's office -v \dth a lot of second.- and third - place votes. "T thinly there are several candidates who are going to experience a real exercise in humility," Hill said. "Vyhilc the winner is going to need broad. - based. support, he or she is also going to need.. strong core support." in fact, be says, lie caiculates that ranked choice has been used in 47 elections and in all but three of there - Lh e Oakland mayor's ra -ce and San Pr°ancisco super asor races in District io and District Two - the person who was initially in fi rst place ended up wi ning. "Being first is really important," he said. So wiry do we need the system? C.W. Neviu,s' column appears Tuesdays, Thursday and Saturday. E -mail Mir at c sft:i'ronic;sc-.c—.n;. ht'tp: / /sfgate.com /cgi -¢ yin/ articEe.cgi'?r"= /c /a /2a1i /G3 /1D /SAL -P1 7I)CV.D W This article appeared or. page C - I of the San Francisco Chronicle t; @UrSt: Cati3mu i[ :nCi+. ns inc. I f vacy PciiCy 1 Fe�?dbacV � RS_q z , _ , eds 1 F AQ I Sa tc' lndicM Ccntac7 Received 3/ 13/2013 Y New rank ballotsh'affle many San Francisco voters a.: Amu C" wfrfc. 1 Despite an ad campaign explaining the nuances of ranked. choice voting, many v {oterg were confnseR . Tuesday. Although citTvVide figures were not available, Jeff Olsen, a poll - worker trainer with the Department of Elections, noted the abOUt 20 percent cif voters at one BeTnal Heights polling place made errors. Olsen said that the machines that read lballots spit out an error riiessage if voters choose the same candidate three times. Voters are ilen giver, the option; of revoting, "Even if we tell. them, `Don't mark the sarIte person they do ," said ar Beth uffiwan, an inspector at fl hat polling pace. "They're just putting the sane person all the way across. They thin'K. they're giving fh.eir guy naore poi is.'; Under ra ked cholcse voting, voters should, choose different carrclidates for their first, second and third chances. The second and third choices become r elevant onh if one, candidate does not weza outright arid. the voter's first choice is eliminated from the contest. Early reports suggested "Gnat turnout was 'low, officials sand. The depa.r t mailed nut 21,,456 ballet; as of oarday and had received only 6g,749 back. Voters had uzrtll 8 p.m. to cast ballots at their assigned precincts or return Ynailed ballots. Turnout usually hosiers ar€aund 50 percent for San Francisco elections involvh g a - ayor, i race. Ville lo varno w as, a relief to worker'.S at 31 H..ovvth St.. a g °arag listed on about ll o0 , voter information packets. "Thank od they didn't all show up at 7 this morning," said Theresa Yluelhlbauer, an elections deputy dispatched to the polling place to handle any misdirected riot She said fe wer than. half the 100 V oters who cams- to the garage dy raid - afternoon vwer°e misdirected. These voters were then rredirecied ©r cast provlsior?al ballots. Some venters - rumbled vvhen they realized. they had c nine miles our of their way, € nlJy to v6nd Lip at the wrong polling place. "I've got better tii gs to dc,," said Michael Gemignani, 59, of P€ trero Hil L "Yrr? supposed ,.o be at wom., Officials received_ more than:. 20 Complaints about srzpporter ;s of Mayor Ed Ise, Sen. Leland 1 azid to errrrsor ohr car as electioneering b tiro close to polling places. Rules forbid suWn activity less than ioo f from a Precinct entrance. - v[� � �x�E'3; °�; r��r We _�., - .c . h} Si. €;a�� u.�3,� �, �r Y.• k,ecexved 3,/J-3/2013 attachmeW 6 f R eked cholee isn't democratic choice for voter b!' Sr -Xr neT E dkurias ?'?'145'1 i 7:3 rrt 5F For the past nine years, San Francisco has experimented 'cl+ritb ranked-choice: voting as can alternative to fiie traditional method — voting for rune candidate and holding a ranoff between the top two vote- getters if nobody wius a majoriity, Rauiced- choice vo was entered into with the best oi. i:ltentions, but it hasn lived r_1p to its promises. Instead, it has undermined democracy by creating, voter confusion, potentialh yikewing election results and reducing voter choices. Fortunately, San Franciscans wriff have; the opportunity on the e une. ballot to rcverrt back to runoff elections. You might think that after nine years voters would un erstand. how the ra.nke -d- choice, v06'719 SVsi.em works. But its a complicated process that has easily led to voter confusion„ About one out of ever' five bal - lots at a. polling place in the. Nov. S election was miscast — v, the gauze candidate being selected in all three; columns it the mistaken belief it would strengtilen that, candidate's chances, or with more than one candidate being selected l - )er column. Fifty-five percent of San Francisco voters are unsure whether or not their votes axe counted when fheir first -, second- and third - choice candidates are all cli- ninated, accord-ing to a. Chamber of C " onimerce survey- conducted in February, Those who vote legs often or are lower incorne or minority residents aro more 1icely to bave a love -r understanding of rank d choice voting, according to the San Francisco Voting Taslti Force, Nearly one third. of Chinese voters were Unaware that ranked choice voting was in effect in the .�ovembe= election, and half of them Said they were. c on used by the cyst -ern, according to a poll conducted by Sing Tao Da1iv. Am e ven rnorre troubling problem with ranked - choice voting is that, by Simi ing; voters to j st three chit ices, it has the potential to skew election results. This may have occurred in the November ->oio District ro supervisor electioni. The winner, Malia Cohen, actuOy placed third after- the first -choi ce votes were tallied. There was on a i8=. -vote spread between the ton five first candidates (oiat of a field of }A }. meter 2-o rounds of winnow - M g, Cohen finally wort by 0111.7 442 votes — but there were 4,631 voters whose ballets were ehniinated by their who "cobs very well have changed fire outcome of the election"' if they had beef allowed to vote for more than three candidates, concluded the Votizlg Task Force. Allowing, voters, to vote for as many candidates as the 'd I would: help fix this problem, Unfortunately, it wo,ald also add to the complexity of tine ballot for many alrca€s7 c:onfused voter.S. A runoff election prov ides the enormous benefit €1f ensuring that the winner has the support of a mr Jer o . voters when choosingbetween the two raost popular -candidates. There is nothing n - iore basic, democratic. and easy to understa d than that. in the c arnber survey, 5a percent said they prefer r1anofi' elections, while 4.2 percent prefer ranked choice Nroting. Hopefully, the majoarity will turn out ire June to restore sanity and simplicity to '1 e City's electoral process. RL �; ttp ;; � ��runh _ sie< �rrai��ez.corza /tt� i� in�� /��1zitzrz zis% C�a'/ .Iraq Iced- c?�c�ice- isr�- t- €i.emc��.r t:i , 'h is e� Teter received 3/13/203 r1 f r -� '' S5�{. eta:. '�{ iTY'" -. �Ft ', i , '�+ 3 '{. 6r«•�" k a t z �.^.hTTt °�l � 7 ` I MAS AND AC IFOR, A BIETT Pubiimliorns i Policy Paper Library r Article A° ICL This article appears in December 2011 Issue of the Urbanist Ranked Choice Voting The deeper questions about the reiative effects of ranked - choice voting are difficult to answer. WHAT HAPPENED San Francisco's first competitive mayoral election using ranked - choice voting is on the books, and by most objective measures the system held up rather well: The election results were clear and uncontroversial, individual ballots contained fewer errors than in past contests and most voters chose to participate fully by ranking their first -, se cond- and third - choice candidates. WHAT IT MEANS Respite these results, it's still unclear whether ranked - choice voting accurately reflects popular opinion. While 73.2 percent of voters ranked three different candidates in the mayoral election, only 52.4 percent (lid so to the five- candidate race for district attorney and 42.6 percent to the four - candidate race for sheriff- Bullet voting (voting only for one candidate) remains prevalent: In the mayoral election 1 6 percent of voters indicated a preference for only one candidate, as did 27 percent in the DA's race and 38 percent in the sheriff's race. It's not clear if a sizable block of voters sincerely preferred only one candidate or whether they were unsure what to make of a ranked- choice ballet Meanwhile, 1 -2 perceni of voters marked more than one candidate as their first choice. This figure is higher than in standard "vote far one" candidate races, and it invalidated a c©uple thousand votes overall. The deeper questions about the relative effects of ranked - choice voting are difficult to answer- In =addition to the voting system;, the context of the election included generous public financing, an incredibly deep pool of serious contenders and a popular acting mayor who entered the race at the last minute. It's impossible to disentangle the Independent effects of ranked- choice voting. But it's easy to see the deep flaws in this election. The clear results from Novennber's election included abysmal turnout — right around 42 percent -- the lowest in a contested mayoral election since at (east the 196Os. Only Mayor Gavin Newsom's 20017 landslide re- election was lower. Voters are rational. They weigh the costs and benefits of casting a ballot in determining whether or not to participate in an election. And this was a costly election: Sorting through the relative strengths and weaknesses of twelve serious candidates and ranking cane's three choices takes quite a bit of information. Ana it was not clear what the Benefits of voting wou d be to an individua, voter. Aside from the fact that the twelve candidates operated within the relatively narrow ideological spectrum of San Francisco politics and might have appeared simhar to voters, polls indicated (correctly as It turners out) that acting mayor Ed Lee was well ahead. This signals to voters that their vote is unlikely to matter in the outcome. The mayoral race, generally uneventful for the better part of a year, became exceptionally nasty to the final month. While ranked` - choice vefi3ng has been said to discourage negative campaigning, it only really discourages negative hits an those lower m the standings, whose ballots are likely to be redistributed. The froni.-runner is still fair game because her or his votes are urniikely to be transferred to another candidate -- whtan means there is no need to worry about offending the frontrunner's supporters. Whether by chance or design, as the relative pasitioning of the candidates became clear in the month or so before the election, the race turned decidedky ugly. b' Y E3 f G41 4 "' ` 5+9M1�:�E?- lkfw"Y _ P yf ' � MMM , F. 0 ei (- And while the election produced no surprise upsets like the one in Oakland's 2010 mayoral contest, the seeming clarity of the margins of victory in the three contests hides another face: In 15 of the 18 ranked-choice contests held so far in San Francisco, the winning candidate did not receive a ma;ority of the votes cast. Mayor Ed Lee only appeared on 43.9 percent of ballots. Sherlff -elect Ross Mirkarimi appeared on 48.9 percent- Their "majorities" were secured n relation to their nearest competitors and rested upon on tens of thousands of aaliats that were efimincaieC early in the counting, rounds because they did not include second or third choices. These elections did not simulate a majority runoff. Only als1hot Attorney -elect George Gascon won an acluai mayori of votes, an outcame that kargcly rested on his good fortune to compete in the final round against David Onek rather than Sharmin Bock. While Sock's votes were split in Gascon's favor, had she receiver a couple thousand more votes and leapfrogged Onek, the race wouid have been exceptionaliy close, its Onek voters preferred Back to Gascor by a wide margin. The critical question is whether this impacts elected officials' ability to govern effectively. The concept of a "mandate" is a highly contested one In poflticaf science. All of the winners can election night received the legal mandate to govern. And it is likely, given the margin of victory, tha; the vast majority of voiers will see these outcomes as legitimate (unlike what appears to have happened in Oakland, where a mayor who did not win a rnaiority now faces a lath of support). And there is no evidence that any of the city supe visors who were elected without a mafority have had to convince their constituents that they iegitimateiy won. Still, particular'' €y for a mayor, there is are advantage to securing a majorhy electoral coalition when it comes time to govern. And a city facing significant economic, institutional„ fiscal and social challenges needs effective leadership. The jury remains out on whether rarsked- choice voting facilitates this ABOUT THE AUTF OPS Corey Cook w _/: `. nyy �--- r.-- nn ..- ...- .- ne- , .'--- .- n...+..ew�. ...:.: u._..-.. ....ww....- .�.-- ..emm- .- .r_.__.. _1�•1Y":, �� ^ Y'' °�' Vi And while the election produced no surprise upsets like the one in Oakland's 2010 mayoral contest, the seeming clarity of the margins of victory in the three contests hides another face: In 15 of the 18 ranked-choice contests held so far in San Francisco, the winning candidate did not receive a ma;ority of the votes cast. Mayor Ed Lee only appeared on 43.9 percent of ballots. Sherlff -elect Ross Mirkarimi appeared on 48.9 percent- Their "majorities" were secured n relation to their nearest competitors and rested upon on tens of thousands of aaliats that were efimincaieC early in the counting, rounds because they did not include second or third choices. These elections did not simulate a majority runoff. Only als1hot Attorney -elect George Gascon won an acluai mayori of votes, an outcame that kargcly rested on his good fortune to compete in the final round against David Onek rather than Sharmin Bock. While Sock's votes were split in Gascon's favor, had she receiver a couple thousand more votes and leapfrogged Onek, the race wouid have been exceptionaliy close, its Onek voters preferred Back to Gascor by a wide margin. The critical question is whether this impacts elected officials' ability to govern effectively. The concept of a "mandate" is a highly contested one In poflticaf science. All of the winners can election night received the legal mandate to govern. And it is likely, given the margin of victory, tha; the vast majority of voiers will see these outcomes as legitimate (unlike what appears to have happened in Oakland, where a mayor who did not win a rnaiority now faces a lath of support). And there is no evidence that any of the city supe visors who were elected without a mafority have had to convince their constituents that they iegitimateiy won. Still, particular'' €y for a mayor, there is are advantage to securing a majorhy electoral coalition when it comes time to govern. And a city facing significant economic, institutional„ fiscal and social challenges needs effective leadership. The jury remains out on whether rarsked- choice voting facilitates this ABOUT THE AUTF OPS Corey Cook Received 3/13/2E3 aU r.achmeri 8 Ken Garcia 61 0 i `�Linl entail Vo ting an c nightmare By. Ken Garcia . Examiner Staff Writer November 11 g 2 P N '' Share 11's Thursdag nine days after the general election. Do you knew who your supervisor is:` Probably not in at least two districts in San Francisco, thanks to the joyous mysteries of ranked choice voting. And there's a good chance that none of tht people you selected are still in the running, since under this exercise in statistics, our elections aren't decided as much as they are awarded. tinder ranked- choice voting, a. candidate can get the most voles in an election and still lose, law's that for democracy in action? And here we thought the Electoral College was passe, I can give you myriad reasons why we should dump ranked- choice voting in San Francisco. but for 3iow, one will suffice: Ed dew. You remember Ed, the person hardly anybody knew but who somehow got nameed on enough ballets ire. 2006 that, after the multiple ehrnination process that knocks out other candidates, be ended up winning the supervisor's seat in The City's Sunset district. Jew was like the lucky loser in a tennis tournament — a guy who has already lost, but then the person that qualified over lt.i.m pulis up lame, and the loser ends up winning. But in Jew case, the loser ended up losing, because he was actually living; in Burlingame. at the time, and then slowed flow a bad Unix of arroga - Dce. ar. cynicism can lead to breaking the law and landing in prison. Ranked- choice voting doesn't destrve a jail term — it needs a relocation program. It should be taken out behind. City Hall and hit with a three -.hole punch until it desists. 1 don't know who the courageous politician will be to push the reform back to normal elections, but my guess here is that dint Really, the consuhant:- turned - real estate baron., will fund the campaign if wife Janet loses the District 2 race because of this tricky ballot engineering. This election joke was played on us by ?Matt Gonzales., a former supervisor - turned-Ralph. Nader acolyte who believed that it would give third -party candidates a better chance to win elections. Voters were told back in 2002 that the new system would save as time and money from extended runoff elections. Are you seeing anything quick about this? "'tie made a. decision long ago not to call it instant runoff voting," said John Arntz, chief of The City's Elections Department, "because obviously there is no instant runoff." And as for saving money: "Ranked- choice voting adds xnoney in a general election, especially because the departmetnt has to put rriore work in." 5o it's not fast, it's costly and, oh- yeah, Ft's not very democratic. In this system, when none of your three Choices receive enough votes to stay in the race youzr vote is " exhausted." They were up to 19 rounds in the District 1 0 race Tuesday, and the 21 candidates were moving like bingo cards. That's exhausting. A federal judge recently upheld the legality of ranked- choice voting, but just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good. Forme -r supervisor candidate Ron Dudum filed the lawsuit after he lost his last racW to .lee, even though he was the clear winner in the first election returns. Dud€ m says that in a real runoff, he "would have beaten the guy from Burlingame." But he never got the chancre. "The rear problem with the system is that it is technically blind," he said. "The voters have to decide who the final three are in order for their vote to count in every round or else: their vote is exhausted." The judge who ruled that ranked- choice voting was legal acknowledged that the system placed a burden on voters, but said that the ability of The City to count ballots wweighed more than the convenience of voters in selecting candidates. So essentially, either you pick the right candidates, or your vote ultimately gets thrown out. Maybe we should install roulette wheels at polling places. But that's how voters are going to decide San Francisco's newest supervisors, school board rri-em :ers as well as the next mayor of Oakland. This system of lucky losers does provide for some drama. But 1 prefer to save my exacta bets for the race track. Kerr Garcia appears Thursdays and Sundays in The Examiner. E- rnrzil him at More from Ken Garcia * Garcia: ortnre is nothin e w for Giants fans * Lost we forL:et, how ch city came to loS�ni? Gia,'1ts * Garc W hv I'd make a 1' ewer Ma'vor than quy Qt, ,,, flail Cl,f ?S+n * Garcia. W ho's our next rnavor? Alin r - who wo uld , want the. lC)b? w Garcia: aijkcd-cZ ozc evoting an u_ den ocratzc nightm. are Topics 111V/12 Ranked - Choice Voting: Does Anyone Really Understand It? - Page I - News - San Francesca - 5F We.., Deceived 3/13/2013 attar- ment 5 i I , r r 5 F .... , ..., .... ._ ,.. .. .,.... .... .. -.., ...,_...,�.. _..._, _.. _. NEIj�r� FfOME ; nr S(f1T €'H SLOC ASK A MEXICAN i ARCMViv, SEARCH i WD,'YLY!NE'W'FSLE -rT rt u ice.,_ €� vk Map's Katt Witiierrzs Srzooting Viatim Mrsiher S.E. c -Fez iWet�rs Thtnks Sued Giver _ °'' r Wake- From ®eRct7t Ev�rycxte in S.i=. Onstage Coma For ! %acsirg Grimine@ ,,� Is Naked Might ,c ..r . +-... mofricown Thar %ks,, #WM " , 0harges n Now 5, Erin ON�h rl qty 1� Diem", B :, t 9v 1 , r 1, .. ili<e;'r tieric €. - rvme"';Gi an ed- Cho -ce Nogg; Dees Anyone Really Understand It? Ef Chris. Roberts AAetll;Nsd -Tyr, Nov ZA 2012 COr31!Y:eS1f5 (SJ Ever localelectiOR since 2044lxasaIiawedvoters til eoa tionofranking :ireir top three Choices far office. If a. voter's top choice is eliminated from contention, they cacti at 1 easy rest aasurcdttseir- support went to a .sirnilar unididate. A cominou coinp:aint is that this systeni !, nfiz<ses voters. Turns out it ;also flummoxes candidates, who are losing elections for not adopting a rehired - choice s4naYeg}r Barred frcttn Freedom: How Pretrial Detenfirsrr Rums uves Remembering Harvey Milk and Gearge EYtnscone . Here's Now to Prepare for' he - TorrentAnl Rains That W1 Hii, Saii Frsnciscc This Week T7iS year, outgoing supervisor Sean Flsberncl and his chosen successor, businessman Mike. Garet a, approached the other znadesrztefroutruz zterin Disirict 7, labor ieader F.X. Crowley. Neither candidate wa nled progressive school board President Norman Yea, the clear outl i er amcni; the three, to loin, But Uo wlevrefused to issue a ranked eudonenzezrt on tile. grounds that Garcia's lagging eanxpaign • just wanted labor's help. Both camps watchc;l Yoe neighborhood P progrwsivv,_ as Yee won by the razor -thin inar of zgo votes. Garcia'svotes. caber. distributed to the oftler y l y ��q µMgr, Y� V k 'w.� ,yV r 5 F .... , ..., .... ._ ,.. .. .,.... .... .. -.., ...,_...,�.. _..._, _.. _. NEIj�r� FfOME ; nr S(f1T €'H SLOC ASK A MEXICAN i ARCMViv, SEARCH i WD,'YLY!NE'W'FSLE -rT rt u ice.,_ €� vk Map's Katt Witiierrzs Srzooting Viatim Mrsiher S.E. c -Fez iWet�rs Thtnks Sued Giver _ °'' r Wake- From ®eRct7t Ev�rycxte in S.i=. Onstage Coma For ! %acsirg Grimine@ ,,� Is Naked Might ,c ..r . +-... mofricown Thar %ks,, #WM " , 0harges n Now 5, Erin ON�h rl qty 1� Diem", B :, t 9v 1 , r 1, .. ili<e;'r tieric €. - rvme"';Gi an ed- Cho -ce Nogg; Dees Anyone Really Understand It? Ef Chris. Roberts AAetll;Nsd -Tyr, Nov ZA 2012 COr31!Y:eS1f5 (SJ Ever localelectiOR since 2044lxasaIiawedvoters til eoa tionofranking :ireir top three Choices far office. If a. voter's top choice is eliminated from contention, they cacti at 1 easy rest aasurcdttseir- support went to a .sirnilar unididate. A cominou coinp:aint is that this systeni !, nfiz<ses voters. Turns out it ;also flummoxes candidates, who are losing elections for not adopting a rehired - choice s4naYeg}r Barred frcttn Freedom: How Pretrial Detenfirsrr Rums uves Remembering Harvey Milk and Gearge EYtnscone . Here's Now to Prepare for' he - TorrentAnl Rains That W1 Hii, Saii Frsnciscc This Week T7iS year, outgoing supervisor Sean Flsberncl and his chosen successor, businessman Mike. Garet a, approached the other znadesrztefroutruz zterin Disirict 7, labor ieader F.X. Crowley. Neither candidate wa nled progressive school board President Norman Yea, the clear outl i er amcni; the three, to loin, But Uo wlevrefused to issue a ranked eudonenzezrt on tile. grounds that Garcia's lagging eanxpaign • just wanted labor's help. Both camps watchc;l Yoe neighborhood P progrwsivv,_ as Yee won by the razor -thin inar of zgo votes. Garcia'svotes. caber. distributed to the oftler candidates after hewas eliminated., went to t,:xvwie by a 2�to -i nxa irz, 'f?7It not ei #Oi1 11 Of S rK g Sign: up for the weekk Nmvs�atler Our , feature srarie„ rttoVxl reviews, calendar Garcia' shallots had GYowlecrrankedto makethe m[n • minus the newsprint and sent dh your irR�ax. final uitfhser ce. Had Crowley agreed to a raniced- e ch oicestrategy, "I believe he'd be supenisor," ' Tn progressive hotbed Districc,y, voters l:ad three promirxent le{t -wing cacrdidaie_� to olio was an ugly campaigii— ouste(1incux% foent Christina 0lague was blasted for hermoteto Sb eriff Ross Mi rl ari to , and groping allegations sank prcr €mssive Julian Do vis — and o nn.cir coordination, of ranked- choice voting. That tzelped Loudon Breed win. in C 2se You ; lsse - df 1: _mow i e Crastro 6 wu 4 , !Mlsslor iPiep:3 foy Aubsrn Goes rAvL ry end a r..ate'ry 3^ oil F:: T! to Sine �7t AudsgealwigotMirkaxinii, die citymi„ iczthawbeerasparrc1muchofeixedraxnaoftbelastyea Azad .....,. ranked- choicevoting been in the playbooks of candidates Claris C�tnnie or Paul Alivarnotc, either of 2 ')12 Fu, 7 ree, Fri day ... Witin whom might have beat W5rkarimiwithb 1pfrr :zxtheuther.Instead,thetWomost: similar } R -�� Zombies caneudatcs --i23 this instance, career law enforcement officers — fin ishedsecond and. third hchind „. the outlier. Many Cannievotes had no second- or third -place candidates marked. These scenarios are soznet�mes used taarnuetisatrank: cichoia °vaeiugsl7auldbescranPedinfavor Alb The '= op 21 Bay Area Metaf www.sfweekly.com /ZO12 - 11 -2 8/news /no- one - in-san- fraridsco -gets- ran €red- choice- voting/ 1 /4 11/27/12 Ranked - Choice Noting: goes Anyone Really understand I:'? - Page 1 - News - San Francisco - SF We... of tine old Decernber runoff election- Mostly, it needs =ef ement: Voters h rre wn pick or iy therr. choices; other,iurisdictians chow them as many r�mkings as there are candidates. Nearly 4,000 votes in Disimet 7 were thrown orrt t>ec fuse they iii none o; the renaalning candidates nnfarked; in Mstyear's mayvn'll cleetion, 52.00o imllots were so "exhausted. " As long as San Prancisco's Dections Deparmzent lacks the teeitatologyto weight votes based on. ranit, eiccled officials — like Lau yn "till a: N ps in Oakia n d Yee, acrd lzke Mayor Ed Let — will win with only a ;3iuralin. I spec ally if their opponents let them .. tL °.t,r� S4sefr�sfaovfs �: r _ N W a I , 1 � t " Hrre s Hovv t<+ Prepvre fcr the Torrenv 1 Rains That Vit�ll Hitt Sar. Fr ±ncisc: - 1'h Week - < ; r s 2 racebook: The Tp riole Somai -Media Srarv;ce We'rG Stack �)Vith - -ro, NImAr Red L;ghtIG cvi t_igiv Fpcicgliz:; ker = ;atToEtc, FHnh sk.ep' Eroisr. hscis' S�UVee {y Wo"d, £ay;. S!0reva !ar Weekyj 3Cck for kitiVs t. .Nord Pr3k&' {SF weekly} Kati Sued ter (U3 asLatires) - Chaliendna Fans to i ci.�t During Onstage P�e;itdawr; l91 -= rc r More News Stories > Our weeldy feature stories, movie revioars, calenda' pies and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox: - �# n ,E kvst ,0 3 r Best cievator : ,.,_ „v z �r�• vt . ,,,Er.ru; The Westin St. Francis Beat Building ¢ UIR in IgD7 ? comment Y Swedsh F :merican Hal] Transfer 1 person fiate x n More �-aople & Pl=r., Awarde SF Weekly .._. tsi:.Cu -,xrr anz . Sort- N�4 wn.A. Hrank�-d Votinry is a rno darr¢ day i €iesa es #tar �'ot�rs. :_r "in ?r>rrr_.1 la! Gown' are (uet :ter, hiytt far ttr ov a e vr�c - ex :el.; for fihersc trot are ? €v trry l act and it rve lend 1h Ramie -d Voting. i'i��ay uE�dc�rs� and i� , and c anno: mthDm r cave Others "Jcx't: 7h_st's their prol7tcai7 - 1 ,N-y ii: ^t nannot people. an; ,not as - srsiajt as tqc.srr. Aral if you ay FCV ir, ea3r u5inc, vet: errs ati« iECG as `e ?cY: givinc VC "'er a�1cu t of edit u "::a { {i3rq ra r°_urrat articEe entiE. #rid THE -, R CUB LEr V -VrH HANIKEF) Cl VOTING ,rut wrote "Ar«o!I vain cite rs aryl! �irfg shat "r vt f' =I' f :heneteri 3r ctiot't: ( r Gtri is isr�ncicw rr riti �r w cfis3trrssecS with nisri racri:ior,e� tone ad norn nern arfu fmi =ntc." Hs �riso hae parAc'd Dist tl r. it his vnalysis tk w upwards o' G4 /a of b ;lieu had an or_, on ti t-) n, par:_- tJEedp mirror les, and ldertiv vokprs. Here s Py, EneS: En artidl - s tiia : °f; wwvve.M+#�ux. arglhstc�}l2b" � -IDS _C�; to rfuhs;�r�ta.�cl- ; tea? i> ;�, Ot2rer :studin.s have. sivnwr that avar: th , e 1h I '*a� `a2y understn.nr F1 N. do nr ac :E;u3'afely riescri¢3e F:C`v - 1—nearing, filmy realky aonil Know how A quick search a? "RF1 EA C io!ue VUN Ccm +uPi,.tr;" ost Yrnal` s Goy °erat s a whole list MN 'a: ohxv video viewced 1s this oiie frnrr, tno UK, rHr Y it -Ia +ionai gore or: Rcv Ecaac . V, Min mcraly 30O " drnlGxo- ?fJr 6 H r:<;:rc -: Eritta : /Ty�ut�.z.s; 6�:Gnr^.rySiieY - mnrw.sfweek< y_com/2Q12 -I1 -28 /revs /no- one- in -sar -; ranciszo- gets -ran ked- choice- votinru J 2/4 Received 3/13/2013 at' 10 Sf; rnj n er.co San Fran disco must joint chties discarding ranked-choice vothTILF za i� K cn5 Garcia 01,, - 1 P?<'; I8. you got news that San. Francisco is budrdrtga L L national -1 rend, it's ge a good, idea to find asafe hiding place. And that avoidance tendency, at least for the tine I being, is stididing iviffi a. grand experimerit kiioi4q as ranked - choice voting, which cities across the Count. 0 rY are dumping or outright rejecting for the simple reason that it has failed to live up to any of its promises. it does, however, provide soiree provocative surprises, none of which you'll want to see in the outcome of our November elections. And.. 4 ffi at's what happens when your precious votes are thrown out, a roost updernocratic way to decide who the vrinnt-,rs are in a political campaign. In the past few years, ahost of cities — which had been lobbied spy the group that has beer trying to in ranked-choice voting on. municipalities across the count.7; — have decided to toss, out fh�� system. A number of others have seen the results and opted not to change election standards. Burlington, Vt., repealed, RCV in 2010. Cary, N.C., dumped it after a two-year adventure. Glendale, Aniz., rejected it in 2oo& San Jose studied it for two years an6then decided to keep its majority- voti system, noting that chan-in- It would be too costly and that it would unnecessarily complicate 6 0 the election process, Honolull- gave it a. thumbs -down. Tin list goes on. VVhy the. big tUrnaround? Because as one voting expert once said: "Ranked-choice votingis like asbestos — it seernedlAke a good idea at the tirne-" We were told that it would. increase voter turn.out. Backers of RO said it would lie cheaper and faster. Voters were ever. told that it would reduce the amount of negative campaigning- instead, none of these things have cOrne true. Our o ivn elections chief, John ArntZ, has been open about the fact that. ranked-choice voting "hasn't made easier to administer or led. to increased turnout." But it has confused people — and bow', in the last election for supervisor, 40 percent of the people who voted in District io did not list three choices on their ballots, a.. race in which the ballots of the majority of voters were disqualified in the final count that saw Malia Cohen ellected with less than a qu arter of all the votes cast in the race. I n close races wiffi multiple candidates — not unlik-e fhe current mayoral campaign -- it can tape ki= d-ckdne v o-king Pmpone I s 9RiJ I , he vv ou I o rocs rnni;ni oL rv , , , mneirm;� a ' -- hea, a�lte". Nou of thc-�� ihirTa"i hnv�' tiU(�� G81tV "An"L. ' weeks to exhaust all. the ballots, one of the reasons Arntz lade the decision some years agcy never to refer to the system as instant runoff voting, San Francisco remains tile biggest city in the countr' still using ranked choice votirig, and also raises the priman question abou ranked-choice voting, Do we really want our ayor, tour district attorney and our sheriff elected. E 1,1 less than a. majority of votes? ' hafs the l= kely result we'11 get this year, and if we're smart, this year sari I be the last. One week af the No'4r;' i.be: election, supez - iso : Sean El`.3bernci plans to I 3trodhic ;e�` a rnei sure to ene, The City s political laboraiory experinient wieh RCV. T'raere's a good cl"iance theft some of ills fellow card. i'n.embers, may bald. at the move ---- fhey'll say they goo elec to urlder the old system and that it wouldn't be fair Lo change it for the Xt `�Kc group of can didates. But iairness isnr L an issue in this. Any system that both. confuses, and. disenfr anchises vaters is cic:Ir�y undemocratic, and here in the most Democratic of cities that should be reason. enough to throw it out, the p,ople who have been selling RCV around five county, FairVote, also matte ra one , providing, "technical assistance" to those cities unforbanate enough to buy into it. Many of these towns are. =. now sellers, and San Francisco is the last m , or, _stocL , -Ader. The City- doesn't need. a technically challenging system t:) elect its leaders, anymore so than we need to put roulette wheel in the polling booths, Under RCV, either you pick the right candidates or your vote ultimately gets thrown out. Perhaps I'm old - fashioned, but l stili wait m y votes to count. lie City is always full of sur prises, bi-i l That's not a trait that should extend to its newt niayoir. UIR : $Y' :��W J .S eSa T]z7T� (�I i��(3C "rz��2E7i�123�" 2F.3'IitdT1C1SCD - II1tI i - )fl1Zk -L1 �5` u.SCc€I'EII2l_ °I eG 'G' .(3ICL- Yf3LI<1 SFGate PrtntThis'Artid '' Back to ,4,tide S .F. ranked - choice m ass lo oses f or mayor's r ace C.W. Nevi's Thursday; March 10, 2011 We may be headed for a ballot box train wreck. November's election will technically be the first mayoral election to be decided by controversial ranked - choice voting. (C n in 1�ewsona was essentially unopposed when he was re- elected mayor. Today's Charnber of Commerce survey shows that Rece'_ved 3/13/20 attachment 11 advertisement I vour ad' here choui cfBus:iness, and PWfbsiionaLftudies CO to art ore O F Open Hou event near OU, San. Prancis o ` 'ie-agiant: i A S ar , whose i. voters find ranked choice confusing and unsettling and would prefer a traditional two - candidate runoff. "Where's even been talk of repealing ranked - choice voting at the ballet box.. Good luck with that. Voters approved ranked- choice voting in 2002.. It eliminates a runoff' by allowing; voters to list their top three choices. If no candidate wins more than half of the votes, last -place candidates are eliminated and their second- and third - place votes are redistributed until someone wins, a maji r�ity. While confusing, the system has stuck so far and it will almost certainly take a ballot box meltdown to galvanize voters - a crazy, unexpected outcome teat leaves voters feeling bewildered and disenfranchised. If that's what you want, the good news is all the factors - huge unwieldy field, no clear favorite, and lots of recognizable names with strong core support - are in place for that to happen. The Oakland mayoral election used ranked - choice voting and dean Quan deffea.ted former state Sen. Dori. Perata even though Perata had more first -place votes. The last District ja supervisor's race, in which it took more than 20 rounds to award the seat to Malia Cohen., who was back in the pack when the counting started, seemed odd. But November's election for a new mayor could be a ranch bigger deal. "It's going to be District i.o on steroids," said political analyst David Latterman, who is advising mayoral candidate David Chiu. "There were really only threw candidates in Qaldand. This will be a race of several major candidates, maybe as many as 20, and at least io are legit contexiders. A landslide of candidates may be the new winning metric for ranked -- choice voting. Candidates round up as maDy choices as passible, build coalitions, and then gang up against the front runners. "I'm not sure a would want to be ir, first place going into the election," said political consultant Ivlark Mosher, who is working with candidate Dennis Herrera. "You're going to get absolutely shelled." Admittedly, Mosher has an ax to grind because his firm, Barnes, Mosher, Whitehurst, Lauter & Partners, advised Perata`s mayoral bid. "One of the things i don't like is you have people putting together teams to eliminate the front - runuers," he said. "is this a ballot or a board. game ? <' Steven Hill, the writer and political thinker, has been called the architect of ranked- choice voting in California. His support hasr "L wavereo.. "In, every election there are Losers, " Hill. said. "And rather than look in the mirror, thhey sayr it was this crazy system that kept them from winning." Hili sees a stately, orderly process in November that well save to city millions by avoiding a 'runoff election. Hill does caution these who think they can sneak into the mayor's office with- a lot of second- and third - place votes. "I think there are several candidates who are going to experience a real exercise in humility," Hill said. "While the winner is going to need broad-based support. he or she is also going to need. strong core support." In fact, he says, he calculates that ranked choice has beer, used in 47 elections and in all but three of there - the Oakland mavor's race and Sari Francisco supervisor races in District io and District Two - the person who was initially in first place ended up winning. "Being first is really important," he said. So why do we need the system? C.W. appears Tuesday, Thursday and ,Saturday. E -mail hire at http' / /stgate.cc m /cgi- bin /az ticie.cgi ?' = /c /a /2011 /03 /10lBALEI 17DCV.DTL This article appeared on page c - I o, the Sari Francisco Chronicle ;c; 20!Y Hearer :nc. 1 Privacy Policy I Feedbaa:k 1 RMS Feeds I F /AQ I Site lndcr 1 '— ftntact csr Print Tb Are cfe "' ua _k I / rticiF S.F. ranked-choice voting confusing, poll says Jahn Cate, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, March 10, 2011 San Francisco is heading into its first competitive mayor's race using ranked- choice voting with a ma�}ority of voters who don't understand how the system works, according to a poll to be released today rece -veu 3/13% 2513 advertisement i VOL' , Q I W. in TWO r - s r , i tvv role, jac Despite ranked - choice voting being introduced for Board of Supervisors races in 2004 and used in every city election since, 55 percent of respondents to a recent poll commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce said they didn't know whether their vote counted once their first -, second- or third - choice candidate had been eliminated. in that scenario, their vote would not affect the outcome: of the race, altaoagh 29 percent of respondents thought that their vote would be, counted, Only 15 percent of the respondents said that their vote would not be counted, according to the poll, which was conducted by David Bidder Research and has a rnargir7 of error of plus or minus 4.4. percentage points_ „ It's clear that San Francisco voters understand ranked- choice voting e bout as well as they understand tluantain physics," said Nathan Mallard, a Democratic strategist who was a spokesrrran for Lt. Gov. Gavin INewsorn when he was mayor. "It's cloaked in mystery to the degree that most voters find it indecipherable, and. ,Aill have no idea of t'rae impact of their votes on election day," Ballard said. Steven Hill, a consultant who helped draft ranked - choice voting systems for San Francisco and Oakland, said the poll, which. surveyed 500 registered voters in the city from Feb. 16 to 20, was inconclusive. He also said the poll's questions were skewed to elicit responses unfavorably, to ranked.- choice voting to lay the groundwork for a repeal of the system. "Most people don't understand how your car works, or how your computer works or how your phone works," Hill said. "But they know how to use it, and the. `re comfortable with it." Under ranked- choice voting, voters list their first, second and tr?ird choices. if no candidate whis more, than half the vote, last -place candidates are eliminated and second - and third -place votes from those ballots are redistributed. until someone 'wins a. majority. The system didn't factor into the 2007 mayor's race because - Newsom had no serious challenger, Determining strategy Political camps are closely watching how ranked- choice voting plays out in this year's mayor's race, particularly after Oakland Mayor Jean Q�jan surprised the May Area in November with her victory over foraner state Sen. Don Perata, Who had an n percentage point lead in first -place votes. Business interests are considering a challenge to the system, although Chamber of Cornmerce Arice President ,aim. Lazarus said his organization does not have a position on the matter. A real estat(: group is bankrolling a separate lega challenge to the city's ranked - choice system, and the case is now before the Ninth LT.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling could come by summer. Backers say ranked- choice voting allows for greater democratic involvement while eliminating the need for costly runoff' elections that often Dave low voter turnout, it also has led to coalition building and less negative campaigning, they say. Critics contend it allows candidates to g(:t elected with are extremely low number of votes anal doesn't allow voters to hear directly from the top two vote - getters in a runoff. Mialia Cohen emerged as the victor in November's race for District t.o supervisor after 20 rounds of counting. She received iust i_r.8 percent of first - place votes - two candidates had more first - place votes. bill said Coven's race was an anomaly, and that using it as ar (- maniple is "cherry - picking data." Voters unsure The new Chamber of Con nierce poll suggests that. a substantial nunlber of voters may not use their ranked - choice options. When asked who their second. choice for manor would be or the Novembe. ballot, ?8 percent of those polled did riot pick anyone, with - percent undecided. A rnaiority of respondents - 534 percent - did not list a third choice. Corey Cools, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco, said that was not necessarily an indication ranked- choice voting wasn't working,, "it`s really early it the race, and voters are used to only casting one vote," gook said. "But if voters are confused, and think second and third choices dilute their chance of electing the person they most prefer, then it's a. huge problem," Using the System Data from recent elections shows that most voters make use; of the options in a ranked- choice system. In the last Oakland mayor`s race, 78 percent of voters grade three choices, rc percent made two and 8 percent made one, according to the Alameda Coun Registrar of Voters, In San Francisco, 62 percent of voters ranked three candidates in the last District So race, almost 15 percent ranked two candidates and 23 percent ranked ,just one. But the chamber poll shows support for ranked - choice voting cooling, with voters evenly split can whether they prefer the current system or a runoff. Zn zoog, voters overwhelmingly preferred ranked choice voting, 62 tO 28 percent, the poll found. "A lest of voters don't understand ranked. - choice votin -," said chamber President Steve Falk, "out they're beginning to get concerned." E-mail John Cote at, jc oteCQ`sfclxs.sl7icle.Eo n. http: / /sfgate.com /cgi- bi /article.cgi7C = /c!a /203 1/03/16 /MNV ,11I6QN0.DTL This article appeared on page A - '2. or .he. San Francisco Chroniche 20 H a rst Comrnumcacs ons irc. I Privacy flnfl Feeemack , RS= Het r±ds 1 FACE 1 SIV bloex ! Contact Home I SP simp"VkOrs considi�, PeJ)eW 01 is 7..:. San More frum 'K Lcc-al Francis o v San Francisco PcUr s Arrest 7U In Ma vllarrant sweep e do --upervisors Corsi er Revamo ReDea' Of Rank Chok,-e Voting Former Satz Ramon Officer Pleads Guilty T a 1 15 ^&S Luca - San, T"ranEisc6-2 SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS; San Francisco's ranked- ohoice voting system is being ftushecl out before- the Board of Supervisors. Thursday, the board's rules committee - look a first look at dueling proposals that have submitted as amendments to the city's charter one would repeal ranked-choice voting anti return the city's eiecbons to a simple runoff process. Another proposal would keep and perhaps even expand the process, Currently, San 5rancisca elections are governed by ranked choice voting — meaning voters "rank" thoir top three ch oices — 1r, Order of preference. T he lovves(, vote-getters are eliminated and the votes recounted until one candidate mage� have been resized )N�`nats at ,4� secures a majority. a systern that has plenty of support - and Plenty of critics, too. KGB.S' Barbara Taylor Reports: Sar. Francisco Supewlsors, Consider Dueling Rank Choice Votiflo Measures "Ranked-choice voting has brought strong benefits to the city and I just worder what are the probiems?" one woman declared her support for ranked-choice voting during the public comments period of the hearing. '1 am strongly, strongly against the current system of ranked-choice voting," a mar said emPhafic;ally, :'I prefer the old system." Crites also are citing the November 2011 eiection as reason enougi to eliminate ranked-choice voting, ciairn ng the mayoral contes', was confusing and suffered from low turnout specifically because of the system, (Copyright 20 by CBS San Francisco. All Rights Reserved This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.} This ;jj)PR; 7Vd in l,00si -Bar, r BUSINESS DIRECTORY . . .. . .... ... ... . . .. .... ... ........ ... in 1 Mountain View, CA Search AuWMotive �aovervtment & cammunity Raarg 51s7r ai Services Dn,nisrs, Repair & Service, `rucks Disablod St;r%ficoi, - amlly cejioe Rel' €,qion P, L-rnuiovmeryl. Anirr4s & Pels, Storau�-. S nmrituo lity Business to C-cimpLivers & Electronic I 1;onsultifg, internel services, L;L'Friputer Software hoalthe & aeawy Day Srtac, DentFL, DC)Ctor & - jir , , Apartmerls, Property Managernent, Rc-,Fi F. Agar is Hom e & Garden ke�_rsatioo I. snortin, A Good!� Educafiwn CI�7,pnin(i Cnn3truntor, Ran.& EP),qfirig, Camping, � )bhies Co i i e g e Y. Liniversilj K- 12 Impovc L�wvn & Gardcn rietaii $hoppin, -eceived 3 /13/2013 a -+- achrren4 14 S PU v B L 1 JLG « Ai1 posts Friday, January 6, 2012 The `rouble With Ranked- Choice Voting BY COREY CDCDK" .. .... .............. ........................ . In the "December Issue of The Urbanist, we ptrbirsherf an article by University of San Fancisco Associate Professor Corey Cook that pueshorted tale impact of ranked - choice voting on San Francisco elections, Recentiy, San Francisco State Professor Ementus Rich UeLeon asked us i- he come present another point of view.. His reply appears in the previous post, and Professor Cook has in turn responded with a follow -up, beiow. I very mt:ch appreciate madine Professor Rich DeLeon's response to my article on the recent municipal elections in Scan Francisco. Thank you to SPUR for encouraging this dialogue — I think the "author meets critic" format is a good one for instigating a reasoned and analytic debate. Unfortunately, in this case, I think Professor DeLeon's critique rests on a host of flawed assumptions and tortured interpretations of my analvsis of the election that border on the disingenuous and eludes the substantive issues. The purpose rat my piece was simply to offer a short appraisal of the mayoral election and the use of ranked choice voting in the November contests. Space and time fimitations precluded the type of rigorous analysis Professor DeLeon would have preferred (ths article was written the weekend after the election and limited to 800 words) and t am pleased to respond here to his critique with both greater specificity and clarity because I think Processor DeLeon disagree to a far lesser extent than he imagines At the outsat, and in the interests of tuil disclosure, l should state that 1 ash neither a proponent nor an opponent of ranked choice voting, despite Professor DeLeon's efforts to label me a "critic ". Noy own view is that there are no perlact voting systems and that there are tradeoffs inherent in each. 1 provided testimony in defense of ranked choice voting in the recent iawsoit brought against the city because 1 thought the data were clearly supportive of the city's position, and my research on the recent elections in San Francisco, San Leandro, Oakland, and Berkeley suggests both substantial advantages to ranked choice voting and remaining challenges in the intplernentation of this voting systerr:. i an. not a partisan of either the "pro" or "anti" camps (apparently to the dismay of both). To quote Professor DeLeon from his 2005 white pa "it is important for both advocates and critics of this elecioral reform to study w whether iRV actually works in practice the way some have predicted it would 'based mainly on theory." Unfortunately, it appears the., to those who helped "initiate the national movement for ranked choice voting, anyone who offers anything short of full - throated support is branded a critic and dismissed with misdirections ono ad hominem arguments. This has the unfortunate consequence of Limiting the discussion to the more extreme voices on both sides -- those for repeal and those for maintaining RCV. As i stated at the beginning of the piece. "by most objective measures" ranked choice voting held up quite well in November. The results in all three citywide races were clear, there were proportionally less invalidated ballots than in previous elections, and a higher percentage of voters fully used the three rankings. This is indeed worthy of praise, though f don't know about "breaking out the champagne" as Professor DeLeon suggests. The Department of .9ectfans was wise to begin reporting the ranked choice counts the day after the election and, as Professor DeLeon states in his conclusion, some candidates and political and non - political groups in town did their pail to inform voters about ranked choice voting. it seems that Professor 7eLeor would have me stop vdth that statement. instead, L express my perspective that the 207? election, particularly the mayerai contest, was deeply flawed. The fiaws, in my view, included iow voter interest and participation and a rather tedious summer of interminable debates and candidate forums which largely yietded minima( substance succeeded by an ugly final month. 1 do not attempt to make assertions about the independent effects of rankers choice voting and repeatedly state (as the subtitle captures) that the relative effects of ranked choice voting in retation to these matters is "d' €#ficutt to answer." I think it is impossittie to reach any definitive conclusions based on a single election. But f think that it is important to study whether ranked choice voting is indeed "a necessary reform for repairing our broken democracy' as Professor DeLeon, Chris Jerdonek, and Steven HO write in their 2006 editorial in his letter to the Berkeley City Council urging adoption of Instant Runoff Voting, Protessor DeLeon echoes the arguments proffered in favor of adoption in San Francisco: "IRV will insure that elected representativos have maiority voter suppott, lRV will reward positive, issue -based campaigns, discourage negative campaigning, and promote coalition- buiiding. IRV will require only one election rather than two thus maximizing turnout (runoff elections typically draw fewer voters) and minimizing costs," He then goes on to affer four additional arguments, one of which is that " IRV will help to expand vote; choice, activate voter interest, encourage greater (out hinder & gentler) political competition, and restore legitimacy to a political system..." 1 am unsure how else to "study whether IRV actually works in practice the way some have predicted it" without looking at the overall election, I respond here to each of Professor DeLeon's five criticisms of my article. 't. Ranked choice voting anti popular opinion. First, I ask whether ranked choice voting accurately captures individual voters' preferences. This should be our primary concern about any voting system (a voting system is simpty a method of aggregating individual preferences), As Professor DeLeon states, there are many possible ways of analyzing this IDEAS S AND CTIO FOR A BETTER OTY critical question, including "an assessment of how accurately the observed voting patterns reflected the city's diverse and complex demography." l agree with him that this would be a worthwhile study, but not one that i could execute in 800 words or in the four days after an election as Professor DeLeon states he "might reasonably expect." Thank goodness he wasn't on my tenure committee. Instead, I chase to analyze the nearly 200,000 ballots in the race to look at two types of voting behaviors_ overvotes (ballots in which voters make errors that might invalidate their vote) and the numbers of rankings used by voters. The reason I look at these two measures is fairly straightforward. If voters' ballots are invalidated at relatively high rates or disproporfionatciy across groups, and /or if voters are riot fully expressing their sincere preferences by exploiting the tuff €ea *, potential of the ballot this might suggest that the current system of implementing rankco choice voting is not accurately tallying individual voters` sincere preferences. This methodology is a direct replication of a 2008 study by Neely and Gook that is, to my understanding, the only peer reviewed academic publication on ranked choice voting in San Francisco. The data from the 20 11 election reveal that 1.2% of vcters cast an overvote in one of the three citywide Contests. This rate is lower than in the past, and yet stiff! higher than in typical "vote for one" candidate contests. Professor DeLeon wonders "how much lower_ can it p:assfbly be?" According to a study by Kimball and Kropf (2005), the mean overvcte rate in gubernatorial races in their study vaAs 0,17%. These scn6ars find that "overvotes are airmost entirely a function•, of ballot features and voting technology" and are riot related to demography. Overvotes are higher in counties using 'connect the arrow" systems used in San Francisco, and yet they are "substantially less common in counties using the error correciicrl feature" used in San Francisco (Kimball and Kropf, 2005:526). So we don't have.an appies- apples comparison and reasonable people can disagree about whether 1,2% is substantially higher than 0,17 %. For comparison sake, rates of overvotes in 2010 were I.2 in San Francisco, 0.9% in Oakland, and 0.4% in 5ar, Leandro. This strii(es me as signific.am and worthy of discussion about how to mitigate voter error. But unlike overvotes in the races studied by Kimball and Kropp (2005), we do find that errors have been correlated with demographic characteristics of the population (see Neely and Cool;, 2008), So it seems reasonable to discern whether there are things San Francisco can do to reduce their occurrence and ensure that some voters are riot systematically Tess likely to cast valid ballots and perhaps learn from across the bay. My concern with the number of rankings expressed by voters is similarly straightforward and is directly a test of the proposition that ranked cheioe voting expand(s) voter choice" in practice as well as in theory. The number of fully- ranked ballots in this election was 73°% i n the Mayo rat, and b2°% in the DA race and 43% in the Sheriff race. It this accurately reflects voters' preferences, the system is working well. If not then less so, What do the data tell us? The proportion of voters only voting for only one candidate in the mayoral race was 1E %, compared with 27% in the DR's race and 38% in the Sheriff's race. 9% of voters ranked Only one candidate in ill three contests. Now, there are many explanations tar this — that voters did not have enough information about other candidates, that voters found no other candidates acceptable, that voters were unaware about the option to rank three candidates, that voters were persuaded by a "vote for one" endorsement (like that of the city's largest newspaper) or that they were confused by the various poflticai actors spouting inaccuracies about ranked choice voting, among other explanations. I presume. based on previous studies, that it's a bi3. of each. but do not hazard a guess beyond that. 1 would note that, as v,nth overvotes, the inwdence of ranking fewer than three chokes is mot randomly distributed. DMa show that voters in the southeastern neighborhoods were more Iikeiy to rank only one candidate. But as Professor DeLeon rightly notes, more research on this is needed and I make no conclusions about why this is the case, oniy to state that it is both important and "difficuit to answer". For what it's worth, in the 2005 exit poll conducted by Neely, Blash, and Gook that Professor DeLeon cites 31 °% of voters who ranked less than three state that they didn't know enough about the other candidates, 21°% say that no others were acceptable, and 3% say they didn't know they could rank three. Just a note about terminology, Professor DeLeon twice nails "mis'teadir " my use of the term `bullet- voting" to characterize voters who vole only for one candidate "because political scientists and campaign managers typically use the term to mean a form of tactical voting in which a voter is encouraged to vote only for his or her preferred candidate." This is not consistent with my reading of the political science literature which does not distinguish, as i do not, between tactical and sincere votes for a single candidate. Richard Nierni tin his semina! paper) calls buiiet voting "voting for only ode's most preierred candidate" (Niemi, 1954). Similarly Bullock and Mac Manus define bullet voting as "Voting for only one candidate out of a list of candidates" (Bullock and MacManus 1993). in more recent years, scholars have used bullet voting and 'single shot voting" interchangeably (see Bowler and Ycshinaka, 2407; Bowyer and Farrell, 2001; Zimmerman, 1994). And to appease any students who might be reading this, good old Wikipedia also does not distinguish between sincere and tactical votes for a single candidate in its description o; buiiel voting. 2. Ranked choice voting and turnout Professor DeLeon and I agree that turnout in 2011 was tower than in previous mayorat contests, save 2007. He takes issue with my use of the terry; "abysmal ", which is certainly fair. He is right that turnout in 2011 was only 3.2% lower than in 2003 and 2-5% iower than in i 999 and higher than in Gavin Newsom's largely uncontested rc election in 2007. 1 might mention, however, that observers in 1995 and 20 03 complained about low turnout and that in both December runoffs. turnout increased. in 2 003, turnout went from 45.7 in November to 54.5% in December. In 1999, turnout wen, from 45.0 °% tc 48.8°%, l suppose € used the tenn 'abysmal" because 1 was particularly impressed by this group of candidates -- the acting mayor, three oitywide eleoteds, and six current and former members of the Board of Supervisors, inciuding its president. And of course the tap seven finishers would a!1 have been "firsts ": first elected Chinese American, Japanese�American, Latino, or openly gay mayor. ff that's not enough, the ballot propositions included two competing pension reform measures and a statement on school assignment policy. I might have expected more voter interest. I thought it was abysmal. Professor DeLeon seemingty takes issue with why l compare 201' to past mayoral contests, and yet "dismiss as anomalous" the 2007 race which he deems "truly abysmal by San Francisco standards ". Here's wily I exclude 2007, in 2007, there were three candidate races and 11 propositions The closest of the three candidate races was won by 47.5 %. Gavin Newsom`s nearest competitor scored 6.3% of the vote. District Attorney Kamaia Harris ran completely unopposed. Sheriff Michael Hennessy awn with just under 3 /A of the votes cast. As tar as t can tell, there was no significant money spent by any of these challengers nor had any held prior elective office. The ballot propositions were even less interesting than these essentially uncontested races. The most controversial -vas Proposition B, which would have required the Mayor to participate in question time before the Board of Supervisors. in fact, voters W carne to the polls were less likely to stick around and participate on the ballot propositions in that year (93.4% of voters who cast ballots, on average, voted on the propositions in 2007 compared with 93.8 who did so in 201 suggesting that ballot measures were even tens of a draw). So I don't regard 2007 as "abysmal' turnout relative to what was on the ballot. My own judgment, for Meat it is worth, is that 201 was a much more interesting election and that 42% turnout is far more problematic given the nature of the. aces. In an August editorial, Professor DeLeon writes, `This election, as I see it, is al7aut choosing haw San Francisco will be governed as a progressive city through economic hard times. It is about making the transition from a strident politics of ideology to a more traditional politics of interest and identity. And it is about the capacity of iocal government tc take care of business and the capacity of business to take care of San Francisco." Given these high stakes, it would appear that 42% turnout would be considered "abysmal ". But, 1 suppcse, reasonable people can disagree about this point, More significantly, i did not mean to imply that ranked choice voting is "the cu €grit behind" the law turnout. As i explicitly state in the piece, turncut was low because the casts of voting were high (owing to ft large field of most liberal Democrats), and the race was perceived as not particularly dose. 1 would add to that the general sense of voters that things in San Francisco were headed in the right direction. Processor DeLeon dismisses my usr; of a ratienat voter framewor€r to expiam voter turnout due to the existence of „ habitual voters." € don't doubt that Professor DeLeon knows this voting behavior literature tar better than i so I defer to his ludgment an this, but in my reading, habitual voters can be ;understood using reasonable assumptions of vote, rationality (see G3cys, 2006 for a review of the literature). In any case, in their strategic planning, the campaigns had estimated that tumout would approach 50 percent. It was tar lower and I think tt is an interesting empirical question for future research. But the overall effects of RCS' or, tumour are not empirically discernible from my perspective positive, negative, or otherwise. Actually, a piece that Professor Francis Neely and I published several years age shows that the rate of "undervotes" in Board of Supervisorial electrons is iovder using ranked choice voting. That is to say that voters participating in the election were less like[! to leave those contests blank than in simitar elections, Again, it's unclear whether this brought people to the polls or merely encouraged them to continue to the downballot races once there, but is interesting nonetheless. The impression i intended to give in regards to turnout was not that rankod choice voting is the culprit, but rather that the race was a laraely undifferentiated contest involving huge amounts of money and incredible amounts of inforrnatlon, and yet votots seemed not to respond to the historic election= in the wav I might have expected. 8, Ranked choice voting and Information casts I do think it is the case that ranked choice voting imposes greater informational costs or voters. Ranking three choices takes a lot of information:, it seems that Professor DeLeon would agree. As he wrote in the August editorial, "under the city's ranted- choice voting system, the voters will need to do more politicai homework much earlier than in the past, because this election will be a one -day sale without the option of a later runoff election s €mplifying choice, fo° good or ill by whittling the 16 down to two." As noted above, the single greatest explanation for why voters did not rank all three candidates in 2005 was that the voter "did not know enough" about the other candidates. And that study shows a strong, statistically - significant relationship between the number of rankings voters express and their perceptions of the ease of the ranking task. In this section Professor DeLeon raises the issue of whether the limit on articulating three rankings is too stringent; and links to the judicial decision an the matter. As noted above, i provided exper, testimony on precisely this issue, so the statement that "Professor Cook doesn't consider this side of the debate in his assessment" is somewhat amusing as I spent several months and dozens of hours working pro Bono for the city to empirically defend precisely that side of the debatei In that case, I examined past eieciicn results in San Francisco to investigate the plaintiff's assertions that voters were "disenfranchised" by the limit on three choices. I did not agree then, and do hat agree now, that voters were "disenfranchised" and that the consequence of adding rankings would include a more complay, and vonfusirg ballot. I think the judge's decision in that case was exactly righi. However. the empirica argument I made rested on the evidence that relatively few voters ranked three choices and of those, relatively few had their ballots discontinued. In the 2011 mayurai race, 72.7 1 / of voters ranked three choices and 22.5 percent of those ballots were exhausted (meaning that they did not include Ed twee or John Avaios (the two final candidates). These data do not change my opinion about the "disentmnchisement" argument. But these data do suggest that perhaps in this particular contest some voters might have taken advantage of the opOortunity to rank more candidates had that been an option and thus, RCV might have more precisely reflected voter preferences. 4. Ranked choice voting and negative campaigning i am disappointed about Professcr Del-eon's characterization of my writing in this section because i think that he and I arwail_y do not disagree at all on this point. € argue that the 2011 mayoral election was "generally uneventful for the better part of a year (and) became exceptionally nasty in the final month." ; do not state, as he would have me, that `negative campaigning reached nevi heights of vituperative meanness under RCV. (nachos mine). Rather. I state that this campaign got uncommonly nasty dcwn the home stretch in comparison to earlier In the campaign. I did not mean to suggest a comparison; to ail other Fares but to the earlier period. My point was to simply state, as Professor DeLeon does in his analysis of the exit poll results in 2005, that there is no evidence that, at least as it reiates to the top `tier candidates, ACV reduces negative campaigning. The 2002 ballot argument states the, "Previous runoff elections have seen excessive negative campaigning and `hit' pieces. Such mudslinging is common when the field is reduced to two candidates, and candidates can win by attacking their lone opponent rather than attracting voters" The point i make about ranked choice voting is simply that despite the promises of its proponents, RCV only appears to discourage negativity against those louder in the rankings andlor before the candidate ordering becomes more clear. If Professor DeLeon wants to count this as "at least halt a point" in favor of RCV, far whatever reason, great. I was sumnsed to find myself characterized as "regretful" about the negativity of the campaign. The political science literature on negative campaigns is mixed — some scholars argue that voters get better information through attack ads, others that negativity turns oft voters and dampens turnout. I leave that to folks far smaller than me to sort out — I'm agnastic on how to "score" this. 5. Rankad choice voting and "Majority rule" in the final section of my piece, 1 write about the complicated political mandates that might emerge from close ranked choice elections. C make tour statements: "In 15 of the 18 ranked - choice contests held so far in San Francisco, the wr nning candidate did not receive a majority of the votes cast, Mayor Ed Lee only appeared on 43.9 percent of baliats. Sheriff -elect Ross Mirkarimi appeared on 46.9 percent. Their "majorities" were secured in relation to their nearest competitors and rested upon on tens of thousands of ballots That were eliminated early in the counting rounds because they did not include second or third choices. These elections did not simulate a. majority rurroff." o "All of the winners on election night received the Legal mandate to govern." "It is likely, given the margin of victory, that the vast majority of voters will see these outcomes as legitimate (unlike what appears to have happened in Oakland, where a mayor who did not v�r a majority now faces a lack of support)." * Anti, 'particularly for a mayor, there is an advantage to securing a majority electoral coalition when it comes time to govern... The juny remains out on whether ranked- choice voting facilitates this ." i had to reread my own piece alter reading Professoe DeLeon's astonishingly lntamperate and wildly inaccurate interpretations of what 1 actually wrote. There was insufficient space to fully develop each of these points in print so I appreciate the opportunity to explain them further arid clear up any confusion, but I am surprisarl by Professor DeLeon's caricature of those four statements and concluding ad hominem argument. He first claims that I do not "accept the charier language defining a ` majority' winner under R('V as the candidate receiving a majority of continuing votes.° Presumably my first statement that "all of the winners on election night received the legal mandate to govern" suggests my acceptance of the charter language. every one of the 56 winners & ranked choice elections in the bay area legitimately wars their races. Every ogre, Then, Professor DeLeon repeats the meme that "For Conk, a ` majorty' (in so many words) is at least 50 percent plus one of total votes cast in a coven election, and that is that, no ,natter how many more votes might be cast for the winner in the typically high - tumout November RGV elections than in the typically low - turnout December runoff elections,° Actually, t am just referring again to the proponents' ballot argument, which reads that it "fulfill(s) the goal of eiecting maiarity winners without the inconvenience of a second election. The 'instant' runoff works much like December's 'delayed' runoff. Voters indicate their favorite candidate, just iikE now doing it in one erection, we produce winners who have a majority of the vote and save millions of tax dollars" {italics mine) I was making the quite simple mathematical point that in the majority of cases, the winners do not "have a,majority of vote ", but rather have the majority of continuing baiiots. I make no predictions about whether ca Lee George Gascen. or Floss Niirkarimi would have received more or less votes in December had there been a runoff in place, as I don't presume to know whether this year would I)e tike the sever times that turnout declined between November and December orthe three that it increased during the past 35 years. But I do know that Ed Lee received the least votes of any elected mayor at ieast since 1975. He was a too three choice of less than 100,000 voters. No other mayor in 35 years, elected by RGV or two stage nrnaif, won with less than 100,000 votes. Next he accuses me of "(denying) governing legitimacy to majority winners under current RCV ", and taking a "gratuitous swipe at Oakland's new mayor, Jean Quan, challenging the legitimacy of her election." Despite the intentionally explosive language, i most certainly do not deny the iegitimacy of chose elected under RCV or challenge the legitimacy of Jean Quan's election. I was in fact arguing the opposite, Jean Quan was legitimately elected mayor of Oakland, Sne won the election because she was preferred by those who voted in the election. icy analysis of ballot image data. she. that stye was the Condomst winner in the race: she was preferred one- on-one to every candidate in the race. I have repeated this time and again over the past year in many different contexts and media, In a Nag post for SPUR before the election, I wrote `Though (Don Perata) led the first place tally by J percentage points, he appeared on 8 percent fewer ballots than Jean Quan. Head to head, she was preferred to him. it wasn't a fluke, she wasn't lucky. She was preferred by voters. Rather, the point that i made was that it is my sense that a not insignificant number of Oakland residents ao not view her election as having been legitimate. The misconception that her victory was somehow tainted or the result of superior gamesmanship of the voting system, is, in my opinion startlingly common. To be fair. my analysis rests on purely qualitative rather than quantitative data. But even a cursory review of newspaper articles, local volitical blogs, the statements of those collecting signatures for the recafl effort, or even simple conversations with my neighbors in Oakland convinces me that a segment of the population does not agree with Professor DeLeon and me about the iegttirnacy of her election. Heck, just a couple of weeks age, an article in the Laney College paper says 'Many peapie feel that Ewan was not elected fairly." Partly, 1 think that was the result at the long delay between the announcement of first place votes orr T uesday night and the ranked choice tally on Friday. In fact, Mayor Quan made this exact point in a panel we were on together a few weeks ago, Unfortunately, Professor DeLeon does not address t he central argument I am making in this section that "the fury remains out" whether ranked choice contests are more or less effective in conferring a wronging governing mandate than other vo €ing systems. I Mould argue that Mayor Quan would have been belie, off politically had she scored a victory ir. a head -to -head matchup with Perata. But that's not unique to RCV. When Oakland Mayor Ron Deliums won the June 2006 primary election wt 50.2% of the veto (thus ending the race and precluding a typical November runoff between the tap vote getters) a narrative emerged that he had "narruWy won'. In lace, he was 18 points ahead of his nearest competitor. He would have been better off winning 60-40 in the runoff and building more political capital, in my estimation. As E wrote, particularly for a mayor, there is an advantage to securing a maonty electoral coalition when it comes time to govern, and the digger the better. Mayers vR undoubtedly engage the electorate again -- whether in contesting charier amendments, nand measures, and statutory propositions, endorsing sympathetic candidates, or in her or his re- election. I suspect that at leas! in some cases, victorious candidates would have been better served had they achieve a majority of support of those corning to the polls rather than a majority of continuing ballots. 1 regard this as an open empirical question and have discussed precisely this issue with several colleagues over the years Wlh no simple resolution, thus my safe conclusion that 'the jury remains out." Disappointingly, Professor DeLeon concludes his critique with his judgment that my "assessment of RCV would be more credible as a fair and objective analysis if (l) had actually acknowledgeb and engaged those who offer other perspectives on these issue." This is both a specious and wildly inaccurate claim. Professor DeLeon is certainly correct that as my article was a short opinion piece, i did not explicitly include the perspectives at activists on either side of the electoral reform debate and find them very capable of articuiating their Dorn v=iews. Rather, my intent was to offer my nuanced perspective that raised questions rather than answered them. I look fmiard to a robust and objective discussion of these important issues in keeping with Professor DeLeon's previous call for such analysis. Read Carey Cook's original article in The tlrbanlsts�* Leask Rich DeLeon's rebuttal» Carey Cook is an associate protessor at the University of San Francisco, where he teaches American, politics and conducts research cm election results and political geography in California. Received 3/13/2013 attachment 15 Time to admift faflure of eked- di voting Mam, intermaggio 2107/1 9x00 Pit Ranked-choice- voting is rank. This exotic electoral. experiment utterly failed to fulfill the most Is mndamental purpose of democracy — rmkjorhy rule, effort to prevent c., qtiy ru, - 10 ff, prod u c ed t 1 e unintended consequeiice of diserdrancn�sirng ten-, of thousands of local voters — and. discouraging even ;par ticipating in the complex process. very small num.ber of San F-anc' more. from part r iscans ended up electing our municipal officiahc, and deciding imponant m easures, in November's election. �t Nether you are libendi, progressive, moderate or conservattive, you. should be alarmed at the IDSS Of MajoritT rule- This Is the most time-honored Principle of Western. civilizatior., going back to the Greeks and Romans, and is the rock apon which our owp republic was foand.ed. vdhen the rest offthe worrid was ruled by monarchs. Majority rule is also very practical. When a niajority is for -somefning, ye' may not like it, but the matter is sett),ed and you nnove forward. When a minority of people elects a. leader, that leader is easily challenged, and the paliticalVstem is "kept in turmoil, It opens the door to recall elections and. constant challenges at Cih7 Hall. Cunsider this: Z�� - When offered the choice of vast field of mayoral candidates, m 3 Percent first cast their f r ranked- choice; ballots for candidate Ed Lee, - who eventually won after t, complex rounds (Mring whi others' votes were 'assigned" to him by a cram- enter model. (The Building DIATIlerS rand. Ma Association liked. the outcome of the ma-vor's race, but not the method.) `l ire line is that 59,66 registered. voters indicated a first-choice preference for Lee, out of a. total Sar. Francisco Population of slightily more than 8o5,000. s OnlY 1 97, 2 4 2 Of 464.38 registered Ranked-choice voting -gas uppo sed to boc)st via ter turn out ', but 0 voters cast ballots — an embarrassing 42 percent turnout by one of the most educnted. engaged citizenries on the planet. o Only one - third of the voters filled out the three choices in the races for mayor, district attorney aTic sheriff, disto-r results Ynore. Q Only one choice for each office was reamed by a percent of voters, Sixteen percent of the ballots for mayor votes" were discarded when all of their chosen candidates were eliminated in the multirmind balloting. The San Francisco Examiner reports that throughout the country, numerous munlCiralities tried ranked- choice voting and dumped it as costly and too complicated. I - Two Sara Francisco supervisors are readying legislation to end We encourage this return, to electoral sanity. A return to major rule is something a majority of as, can surely agree on. Marc. Interyurlygio is executive vice _presiden! of SOMA, Su77 Francisco's Building 01Uners and Man agers Association, Received 3/13/2013 Un derstand ranked-choice voti or risk losing Your vote S : Robert S4arzet '. '10 `, 6 ?i t r :"Xi 94 S pu 'a; To Pw. = Ktt7�hE R,aiik£ed- choice votln- simuhane' usiv provide,,, voter, a fir,Rt election an a L` inoff counted 7 y a co. m uten of W1P.., a candidate e II .LISt get a majorit C5o !." i"r cnt plus ane rote,) of the votes counted. Bu not elll votes count — Here's how to make: sure vnurj; do. This vear, n candidates for mayor will vie for First choice among ap e)rpected 2A , vO-ILIS, this ignores foi.~ other candidates whose: voles could noF reach ! percent, Lt's assume hypothetically that the brea,cd.ovm. of first choice votes m6ll look like thou: Top vote-getter. 2& percent S econd: 2 permnt Next three: 20 percent Bottom six, 3o percent 'nhe com - palter counts the vote,, finds no one, with a majorit� and discard's the votes o the lowest vote - getter. It rcpoats this, examinin.- the vote cacti tsrne it drops Li-e lowest ranked to we if Vocre is a inajority. By the time it -ets tUrc.rugl, the bottoin six, lea -,ing aside second choices, the top hits increased Fran: 2S perC(Mt to 40 perMilt Der-a.uS€3 the 30 percent cast for the bottom s3� nas been erased, as II they were nev, cast. The next three rill be dropped one by one and 22 percent more firms- Choitse Votes will 6sappear_ At ti?at point the top vote - getter has 56 percent out of chc 48 percent first- choice votes COUnted and would be declared the v,dn.ner. Ntrllat about second choic s? TheE) do court. Let's say voters for the hottom six gavE the top V'(1te- gefTCr 7 T)Qj'co� t ancl tbe second i2 percent (the remair,iIlh 11 perCeD.t siarzplt' fa;led to select a see€a7ld eITQZCe]. "[he t7wa at the tarp are in [t Close rate — 35 pf_TeP -11t to 34 PercEMl- .P stun . that in the Next three, the bottom. two are eliminated with each receiving G Percent first choice votes. If their voters give a percent tG the tap and 5 percent to the second, neither leas a majority but the race is now really tight at 43 Pe;rcellt tai 43 Percent—The third iti the race has 7 percent, bet's assume, 2 percent go to the tors anti ,3 percent to fhe secoiid the top candidate loses b ,V45 l)ercel t.10 47 percen,. ' 1ae remaining votes will not count toward selecting a mayor and t! o.se voter's V61 no! be in the game, So what to do to have a vote in the rlavoral election? First, select the pelsoil you. thinit would be the best for the joh. But second, T'ecognize, who thc, leaders have beer in the polls, and select one of them- You a3'C not gtlaranteed to choose the -Mnner — that is al the case in elections. But you will h.av °, beers. a planer in the ru i.o 1, RobertStar7er is 1 171 Cattor7ie!/ iri Sac l =irst round Second round T op 5,2 00 (28%) 'second. 31,"200 (22Y.) hard 5 s ,600 (8 %) 2% t0p, 3% 2nd Fourth 14.00o (G %) 4% top, 5% 2nd Fifth 34,000 (656) 4 %top,, -)%2nd Bottom 6 70,01�)O (30 %) Total votes 70,000 (10 %" 232,800 (100 %) .P stun . that in the Next three, the bottom. two are eliminated with each receiving G Percent first choice votes. If their voters give a percent tG the tap and 5 percent to the second, neither leas a majority but the race is now really tight at 43 Pe;rcellt tai 43 Percent—The third iti the race has 7 percent, bet's assume, 2 percent go to the tors anti ,3 percent to fhe secoiid the top candidate loses b ,V45 l)ercel t.10 47 percen,. ' 1ae remaining votes will not count toward selecting a mayor and t! o.se voter's V61 no! be in the game, So what to do to have a vote in the rlavoral election? First, select the pelsoil you. thinit would be the best for the joh. But second, T'ecognize, who thc, leaders have beer in the polls, and select one of them- You a3'C not gtlaranteed to choose the -Mnner — that is al the case in elections. But you will h.av °, beers. a planer in the ru i.o 1, RobertStar7er is 1 171 Cattor7ie!/ iri Sac l