San Francisco Bay View
Implement instant runoff
voting now
by Steven
Hill June 4, 2003
San Francisco public officials and Secretary of State Kevin
Shelley should do everything possible to implement ranked choice
voting - also called instant runoff voting - for San Francisco
elections. Unfortunately there are some in San Francisco who are
attempting to politicize the process. They believe killing ranked
choice voting, which was passed last year by 55 percent of San
Francisco voters, will help their preferred candidate for mayor.
They care not at all about fulfilling the ���will of the voters.���
But ranked choice voting
is critically important for empowering communities of color in San
Francisco, and for getting rid of an unnecessary December runoff
that was inconvenient for voters and cost millions of tax dollars.
San Francisco���s previous two-round (December) runoff system was
discriminatory of communities of color. Research by San Francisco
State University professor Rich DeLeon has demonstrated that, while
citywide voter turnout declined in most December runoff elections,
it declined even more among minority precincts. Communities of color
often do not have the financial resources to mobilize voters for two
back-to-back elections. Consequently, the final decisive election in
December occurred when voter turnout in communities of color was at
its lowest. Also, the December runoff forced candidates to raise
money for two elections, often in a short period of time for the
second election, which was an additional disadvantage for minority
candidates. Not only will ranked choice voting (also known as
instant runoff voting) do away with the discriminatory impacts of
the December runoff, but there is strong evidence that ranked choice
elections have had a positive effect on communities of color and
language minorities in other places, including New York City, Ann
Arbor, Cincinnati, London, Australia, Cambridge, Mass., and more.
Ranked choice voting elected a black mayor when it was used in Ann
Arbor, Mich. A legal challenge to the system by the losing
Republican candidate was rejected by the Michigan court, and ranked
choice voting was upheld as constitutional and in full compliance
with ���one person, one vote.��� Moreover, ranked ballots in New York
City community school board elections have helped racial and
language minorities. In these elections, large percentages of
non-English speaking voters participated. As the Asian American
Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) has documented, Asian
American candidates achieved greater electoral success in these
elections than in any other elections in New York City. Latino and
African Americans also consistently won fair representation. The
ranked ballots encouraged coalition building and teamwork, and
helped communities of color prevent split votes among their own
competing candidates. The U.S. Department of Justice in 1999 upheld
the use of New York City���s ranked ballot elections, and Bill Lann
Lee, the first Asian American director of the Civil Rights division
of the Justice Department, was personally involved in this decision.
For all these reasons, San Francisco���s communities of color
strongly voted in favor of Proposition A on March 5, 2002, which
implemented ranked choice voting for all major city offices,
including 69 percent support in Latino precincts, 62 percent in
African American precincts, and 55 percent in Asian American
precincts. In fact, the only major demographic that voted against
Proposition A was white conservative precincts. Also, Prop A was
endorsed by leading minority groups and leaders, including
Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian
Pacific Democratic Club, Asian Week, Latino Democratic Club, San
Francisco Bay View newspaper, United Farm Workers, President of the
Board of Supervisors Matt Gonzalez, school board members Eric Mar
and Mark Sanchez and more. The opponents of ranked choice voting
are trying to say that it will be costly to implement. But citywide
elections like a December runoff cost about $4.5 million to run. The
estimated costs of implementation of ranked choice voting is less
than half that amount. Millions of dollars will be saved every year
we don���t have citywide runoff elections in December. Plus, we will
have our election results a month sooner than with a December
runoff. In sum, there is strong evidence from many places, both in
the United States and abroad, that ranked ballots and ranked choice
voting have been advantageous to communities of color and their
candidates. And there is strong evidence of the discriminatory
impacts of San Francisco���s previous two-round (December) runoff. It
is simply untrue that there is any evidence that ranked ballots are
confusing for voters, or will disenfranchise minority voters, or
will diminish their ability to participate in San Francisco���s
electoral process. Quite the contrary. It is unfortunate that some
in San Francisco are choosing to politicize this implementation of
ranked choice voting. San Francisco public officials and the
Secretary of State should speedily implement the will of San
Francisco voters, as well as the law of San Francisco, which is to
elect our local offices by ranked choice voting. Steven Hill is senior analyst with
the Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org) a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization that educates the public about electoral
systems like ranked choice voting. He is the author of ���Fixing
Elections: The Failure of America���s Winner Take All Politics���
(Routledge Press, www.FixingElections .com). |