The Examiner is concerned that, under Supervisor Farrell's measure, someone could win a runoff election with fewer votes than their leading opponent received in the first round, so would prefer a 50%+1 threshold to win in the first election. But even that wouldn't eliminate the Examiner's concern.For example, in the 2000 elections for Supervisor, Jake McGoldrick won in December with 6441 votes, even though Michael Yaki received 9218 votes in the November "primary". Similarly, Tony Hall (9333 December votes) beat Mabel Teng (13269 November votes), Mark Leno (9578 December votes) beat Eileen Hansen (11531 November votes), and Sophie Maxwell (5887 December votes) beat Linda Richardson (6477 December votes).The opponents of RCV are discovering that, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, ranked choice voting is the worst electoral system, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
@Stacy21: No one ever wins against incumbents? Tell that to Tony Santos, who lost his re-election bid in San Leandro in an RCV race (and who supported RCV until he lost).As for plurality, that can result in the person opposed by a majority of the voters winning, if the majority splits its votes among too many candidates. That's why communities such as San Francisco went to runoffs in the first place. RCV has the same property; someone opposed by a majority of the voters cannot win. Of course, that doesn't mean San Francisco's RCV implementation can't be improved, and Supervisors Campos and Avalos have introduced a charter amendment to do just that.Mend it, don't end it.
@Stacey21: Under Ranked Choice Voting, the real winner does win. You're just not defining the "real winner" properly. It's not the person who gets the most first choices, it's the person who has the most votes after the counting is finished.P.S. Why are you afraid to use your real name, Terry?
@Howard Epstein: You seem not to understand the concept of "one person, one vote". "One person, one vote" means each voter has the same voting power as every other voter, and ranked choice voting doesn't violate that principle. But don't take my word for it; in Dudum v. Arntz (an attempt to overthrow the City's ranked choice voting system), the lower court declared that "San Franciscoâs system satisfies the one person, one vote principle", and the 9th circuit upheld that decision.Ranked choice voting allows more voters the opportunity to participate in electing San Francisco's officials than do low-turnout December runoffs. Now that's democracy!
@Howard Epstein: That was a hotly-contested election for an open seat (no incumbent). The November election had an incumbent, and a popular one at that; those elections always have lower turnouts. So let's stop comparing apples to oranges, shall we?
@Melissa Griffin: If it does go to the ballot, why not put it on the ballot in November 2012, when turnout will be highest due to the Presidential election? In June 2012, there will be a competitive Republican Presidential primary and an uncompetitive Democratic Presidential primary, skewing the turnout to the right. Or is that the goal of Farrell and Elsbernd, to have the RCV repeal on the ballot when there are fewer voters, so that the money of the Chamber of Commerce will be more effective?
@SF415: You are limited to three rankings because of the equipment. The City's Voting Systems Task Forcehas recommended that the next system San Francisco acquires should accommodate more rankings. Inthe meantime, the Elections Department could contract out the municipal portion of the ballotto a vendor that *can* accommodate more rankings, but even the limit of three is better than thelimit of one that you used to have, that required expensive low-turnout December runoff elections.
All Comments »
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation