E-mail Archives7/2/98 To: CV&D Core List Fr: Rob Richie, Director Re: Transferable Ballots w/Instant Runoff and Choice Voting: Not "all-or-nothing" in Northern Ireland and Santa Clara, Calif.
As we head into the fireworks of July 4th, let us take a moment to reflect upon the value of a modest, but very significant reform -- the transferable ballot. It's been some 140 years since Great Britain's Thomas Hare published his famous book on the "single transferable vote" and John Stuart Mill become an enthusiastic and eloquent supporter. Electoral reformers in the English- speaking world have been put much energy into advocating transferable ballots in the years hence. They have had significant successes along with their great disappointments. Note that the transferable ballot can be used as a proportional representation system in multi-seat districts (what we call "choice voting") and in one-winner elections (what we call "instant runoff voting"). I believe both changes provide significant and similar improvements, perhaps pointing to a distinction to make between transferable ballot systems and non-transferable ballots ones. Just as plurality and majority systems can be lumped together as "winner-take-all" systems, non-transferable ballot systems can be lumped together as "all-or-nothing." All-or- nothing systems with proportional representation of course give a good more "all" than "nothing", but they generally do force the voter into a "vote for one" choice that has an impact on the psychology behind campaigns and elections. Following are a few items on transferable ballot systems. Note that instant runoff voting is getting a dramatic increase in attention in the US -- more news on that shortly, but for those following this year's elections, Alabama's runoff in the Republican gubernatorial primary this week and New Mexico's special congressional election won last week with 45% are just the latest examples of IRV's relevance in the United States. Several items relate to Northern Ireland's elections last week -- a triumph for both the concept of PR and transferable ballots. 1. Instant runoff voting: - An analysis of the costs of runoff elections for candidates in Santa Clara by Steve Chessin of Northern California Citizens for PR -- part of the effort to persuade the commission to recommend instant runoff voting. (Steve has been busy -- in June he gave several well-attended, well-received presentations at the League of Women Voters national conference.) 2. Northern Ireland - Irish Times editorials - Steve Chessin's letter protesting AP's "complexity" # # # 1. IRV -- Santa Clara (Here is the draft of a possible ballot argument for instant runoff voting in Santa Clara County, California, where a charter commission likely will recommend that instant runoff voting be made an official option to traditional runoff elections.) Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) combines the best features of our runoff system and traditional plurality elections. It produces a majority result in a single election, just as if a runoff had been held, by allowing voters to indicate their second (and additional) choices in case their first choice fails to win. IRV is a proven system. It has been used for decades, inthe Republic of Ireland to elect their President, and in Australia to elect their House of Representatives. Many US organizations use it as well. IRV shortens the election cycle. Candidates only have to campaign once, and voters only have to pay attention once. The current system puts five months between the primary and therunoff. With IRV the result is known after one election. IRV reduces the cost of campaigns. Candidates only have to raise funds once, and the county only has to pay for one election. Most elections for open seats have resulted in runoffs -- take the current Sheriff's race as an example. With IRV the public gets a majority winner with only one trip to the polls. IRV reduces negative campaigning. Since each candidate has to appeal to the supporters of other candidates for their second choice votes, there is less incentive to sling mud. The current system discourages many good people from running for office, because of the high probability of having to raise funds twice and campaign twice. IRV spares candidates (and their families, and the voters!) the pain and agony of two elections for a single office. We strongly urge a Yes vote on Measure ___. We are the home of cutting edge technology. Let's be the home of cutting edge democracy. * * * (Below is a May 26, 1998 memo to the Santa Clara County Charter Review Committee prepared by Steve Chessin -- a Board member of Northern California Citizens for Proportional Representation -- that details the costs to candidates of having to compete in runoff elections. Instant runoff voting is an obviously sensible alternative to traditional runoff elections.) The following is a compilation of the amount of money spent on various Board of Supervisor elections by candidates, compiled from the reports filed with the Registrar of Voters. 1997 District 1 Special Election Candidate 2/4 Primary 3/18 Runoff vote spent vote spent Don Gage 28.4 $64,535 55.2 $87,236 Rosemary Kamei 18.0 $113,212 44.9 $91,890 Keith Honda 15.6 $82,299 x John Redding 15.6 $46,229 x Tom Kruse 9.9 (*) x Steve Blanton 9.4 $30,713 x Linn Dao 3.1 $1,000 x (* Campaign finance reports not found.) 1996 District 2 (Appointed Incumbent) Candidate 3/26 Primary Nov 5th General vote spent vote spent Blanca Alvarado (AI) 52.1 $170,578 x Scott Mathieson 47.9 $68,861 x
1996 District 3 (Open Seat) Candidate Mar 26th Primary Nov 5th General vote $ spent % vote $spent Pete McHugh 45.8 $254,112 51.0 $124,536 Patricia Sausedo 32.9 $274,153 49.0 $242,203 Jim Canova 10.8 $6,745 x Brian Brunner 10.5 <$1,000 x
1996 District 5 (Open Seat) Candidate 3/26 Primary Nov 5th General % vote $ spent % vote $spent Joe Simitian 39.9 $220,076 57.3 $183,853 Barbara Koeppel 46.5 $166,692 42.7 $105,149 Mark O'Conner 13.6 $51,343 x
1994 District 1 (Elected Incumbent) Candidate 6/7 Primary Nov 8th General % vote $ spent % vote $ spent Mike Honda (I) 60.7 $314,250 x Joe Martucci 15.6 $16,518 x John Sorci 13.5 $39,394 x Charles Moore 10.2 $3,486 x
1994 District 4 (Open Seat) Candidate 6/7 Primary Nov 8th General % vote $ spent % vote $ spent Jim Beall 54.4 $217,121 x Everett Souza 29.2 $43,246 x Ted McElhone 16.4 <$1,000 x
1992 District 2 (Elected Incumbent) Candidate 6/2 Primary Nov 3rd General % vote $ spent % vote $ spent Zoe Lofgren (I) 66.3 $224,235 x Joe Czosek 33.7 (*) x (* Campaign finance reports not found.)
1992 District 3 (Elected Incumbent) Candidate 6/2 Primary Nov 3rd General % vote $ spent % vote $ spent
Ron Gonzales (I) 66.2 $222,565 x R. Dale Detwiler 33.8 (*) x (* Campaign finance reports not found.)
1992 District 5 (Elected Incumbent) Candidate 6/2 Primary Nov 3rd General % vote $ spent % vote $ spent Diane McKenna (I) 100.0 33,022 x * * * 2. NORTHERN IRELAND:Although some American news stories emphasized the "complicated" and "complex" nature of the choice voting / single transferable vote system of PR, most stories in the end found that the elections were a real success. Note that soon we will put the actual results of the elections in different constituencies on our web site, but here is an overall summary -- even the small parties tended to win their proportional share of seats despite the 14% threshold in each constituency. The Irish Times had several good news stories and editorials. After the results are a few examples.
the election for 108 members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The first figure shows number of seats won, with the total percentage of first-preference votes in parentheses. The Catholic and cross-community parties all support the Belfast peace agreement. Among Protestants, the Ulster Unionists and Progressive Unionists form a pro-agreement bloc of 30, while the 28 others oppose the agreement.
British Protestant Ulster Unionists: 28 (21.3 percent) Progressive Unionists: 2 (2.6)
Democratic Unionists: 20 (18.0) United Kingdom Unionists: 5 (4.5) Independents: 3 (2.4)
Irish Catholic Social Democratic and Labor Party: 24 (22.0) Sinn Fein: 18 (17.6)
Cross-community Alliance: 6 (6.5) Women's Coalition: 2 (1.6)
The Irish Times - editorial, Monday, June 29, 1998 A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACYNow should be the time to rejoice and celebrate a new birth of democracy. The people of Northern Ireland have brought into being an assembly which is democratic, representative of the community in all its shades and variations and which is set to give it extensive control of its own affairs on a basis of shared authority. There are obstacles to be overcome and there are large and legitimate currents of dissent. But these will be addressed within the institutional framework which has been adopted at referendum by more than 70 per cent of the population. The Assembly will stand at the centre of Northern Ireland's political future and it will work......
PROPOSED MERGER IS ALMOST A DONE DEAL[The first part of this editorial reports on a party merger taking place in the Republic of Ireland. The second part has an excellent summary of the impact of PR -- and transferable ballots in particular -- in Northern Ireland.]
....There was intense interest in Leinster House this week in the strongly contested Assembly election in the North, coupled with a sense of relief that we were not ourselves involved because deputies quite simply do not like elections. There is some satisfaction at the apparently good vote recorded by the SDLP [the major Catholic party]. Some months ago there was a fear that they might be eclipsed by Sinn F�in but they have now reverted to their approximate figures of recent elections. While the final results of the Northern election will presumably not be available until sometime later today, the indications suggest that a sizeable majority of the seats will be taken by candidates who are prepared to work the Agreement. With all the built-in voting margins that are necessary the overall result may not be clearcut until the Assembly actually meets and votes but it does seem that it will be able to work as intended. There will be relief at this in many quarters. The splits in unionism are quite remarkable and the way the formerly monolithic vote has fragmented would have been disastrous for them in a first-past-the-post system. Ironically, what will save them is the Irish form of proportional representation which has been adopted in the North for Assembly and local elections. Transfers of a lower order may be even more important in the North than they are in the Republic's elections and there may well be some surprising people elected as a result. The whole process of the Assembly's workings and the selection of a chief minister and deputy chief minister, together with other members of the executive, will be a fascinating study in the months to come. The 94 per cent majority of people down here who voted for the Agreement will fervently want the whole thing to work and at least the prospects this morning are relatively hopeful. * * * The Irish Times - News: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 HOW THE VOTING WILL WORKA total of 1,178,583 people are entitled to vote in Northern Ireland's Assembly elections tomorrow. This is almost 3,000 more than in last month's referendum on the Belfast Agreement, in which the 71.1 per cent Yes vote paved the way for the Assembly. Each of the 1,228 polling stations opens at 7 a.m., and voting will continue until 10 p.m. Counting begins in all 18 constituencies at 9 a.m. on Friday, with an average of 45 counting staff in each count centre. All the Belfast counts will take place at the City Hall, and the remainder in eight regional centres. There is no time limit for completion of the counts, but at about teatime on Friday local returning officers will decide whether to suspend the counting operation for the night or continue.... The 18 constituencies average about 66,000 voters each and will elect 108 representatives, six per constituency. This means one Assembly member for every 11,000 voters. In the Republic, about 2.7 million voters elect 166 TDs to the D�il, more than 16,000 electors for each TD. When the Assembly election was being planned, the smaller political parties wanted a "top-up" system whereby a small number of seats would be set aside and shared among the top 10 parties by votes gained overall. This was not agreed at the multi-party talks which led to the adoption of the Belfast Agreement. Instead, an election offering six seats in each constituency was proposed. The larger parties said that six-seater constituencies would ensure adequate representation for smaller groups, although the small parties were dissatisfied with this. The highest number of candidates in any constituency is Strangford's 22. East Belfast has 20 while, at the other end of the spectrum, Mid-Ulster has only 13. There are 296 candidates overall. Proportional representation voting is not new to Northern Ireland: it is used in European and local elections. Only in Westminster elections is the first-past-the-post system used.
The Irish Times - Editorial, Thursday, June 25, 1998
[Note the remark that the system can seem daunting, but is good for voters and rather a simple calculation for them in the end.]
NORTH'S DAY OF DESTINY (editorial)
Today, the dangerous vacuum in political life which Northern Ireland has endured in the years of direct rule from Westminster is to be remedied in considerable measure. More than 27 years after the suspension of Stormont, the electorate goes out to choose a representative assembly which will sit at the centre of Northern Ireland's new political structures. It is a day which many believed they would never see and which even a few short months ago might have been considered impossible. For some, it is a day they earnestly hoped they would not see. As yesterday's reckless attack in Newtownhamilton and the previous day's attempted mine-trap, also in South Armagh, illustrated, those who cling to the bomb and the bullet have not gone away - to borrow a phrase. And aligned with them, in mindset if not necessarily in methods, are the elements within each community which still resist the notion of sharing power. They are the supremacists - both nationalist and unionist - who have domination rather than accommodation as their credo. More than 280 candidates from over a dozen parties are contending for the Assembly's 108 seats. By contrast with the straightforward first-past-the-post electoral system which is used for Westminster elections, it may appear a daunting challenge to the voter. Anything between 20 and 22 candidates' names may appear on some of the ballot papers. Proportional representation is both taxing and satisfying from the voter's point of view. It demands judgment while allowing the franchise to be exercised in a manner which is sophisticated and often subtle. But in fundamentals, the voters' choice is not nearly as difficult as it might at first seem. They are asked to choose between the way of compromise and the way of continuing confrontation. In each constituency there are candidates who stand for dialogue, for compromise and for the values of mutual respect and esteem. Conversely, there are candidates who wish to be in the Assembly only to frustrate the agenda solemnised in the Belfast Agreement. Every voter faces a straight choice between the forces of reconciliation and those of retrenchment. At constituency level, after that, all sorts of tactical voting is possible and it will be intriguing to see how votes may transfer across traditional lines. Voters will have to decide if they are willing to give second or subsequent preferences to those whom they have traditionally regarded as rivals - in order to block the progress of some whom they would until recently have regarded as allies. The choice is between a continuation of the past and seeking to make a new future in which old certainties, old loyalties and old alignments have lost much of their meaning. The people of Northern Ireland who have been bombed, shot, harassed, intimidated, threatened, ground down and in many individual instances brought to the limits of human endurance, have their day today. If it can be said of any people that they deserve to find peace and normality it must be true of them. They must have the good wishes and the encouragement of all as they step out today with the chance to make a new future and to shape their own destiny. * * *
Kathleen Barber of Cleveland and Ken Bearman of Minnesota wrote good letters to media outlets -- protesting the use of "complex" and "complicated". Here is Steve's letter to Associated Press.]
Please forward this message to whomever is responsible for your wire stories on the Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I take exception to your characterization of the system of proportional representation used to elect the new Northern Ireland Assembly as "complex". (See, for example, your story dated Wednesday June 24.) Since many news outlets repeat your stories verbatim, you are affecting the coverage of this event all across the United States. Sure, this system is unfamiliar to most Americans, but that doesn't mean it's difficult to understand. Over thirty million people around the world use this system, known variously as Choice Voting, Preference Voting with Multiple Winners, and the Single Transferable Vote (STV). The Irish have used Choice Voting for decades to elect their legislature, as have the Australians for electing their upper house. New York City has used it since the 1940's to elect their school boards, as has Cambridge, Massachusetts for electing their city council and their school board. Proportional representation results in better diversity of representation, and because fewer votes are wasted turnout is invariably higher. Choice Voting involves ranking the candidates in your order of preference, just like making a "top ten" list. It's as simple as one, two, three. In fact, because Choice Voting results in better diversity than traditional winner-take-all elections, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences uses it to select the Oscar Nominees (they may have a different name for it, but it's the same system as used for the Northern Ireland Assembly). No slight intended, but if your typical Hollywood movie producer/actor/director understands this system, just how complicated can it be? |