IRV in San Francisco Provides Lessons for New York City, Other Major Cities

San Francisco State University professor Richard DeLeon has released a new analysis of exit polls conducted during last November's initial instant runoff voting election for San Francisco municipal races. One conclusion: "San Francisco voters of virtually every type and stripe – liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, whites and non-whites, men and women, young and old, rich and poor, and so on – prefer [IRV]  to the old December runoff system." Released on the San Francisco political site, The Usual Suspects, DeLeon's findings come as San Francisco prepares for its first citywide IRV elections this November -- and as other cities like New York City, Cincinnati and Los Angeles struggle with more antiquated, costly systems.

New York City, for example, employs a two-round runoff system to try and nominate citywide candidates with greater voter support than in a simple plurality primary. Indeed, several winners in non-citywide offices won with less than 30% of the vote. This year, however, depending on the outcome of the recent fractured mayoral primary, the city will potentially face a compulsory runoff in mayoral primary at an estimated cost of more than $10 million. Even worse, the first place candidate is poised to be only a few votes shy of avoiding the runoff, and the second place candidate has already conceded -- making the $10 million runoff an expensive formality. New York could learn from the San Francisco model, and implement IRV to produce party nominees with the support of more voters in one round instead of two, thereby saving millions of dollars, avoiding drops in turnout, and promoting more civil campaigning.

[ Download Rich DeLeon's Study at The Usual Suspects - .pdf 404 KB ]
[ More Information About IRV in San Francisco ]
[ New York City Plurality Elections 2005 ]
[ Mother Jones Calls for IRV ]
[ Gotham Gazette Calls for IRV ]

From California to Ohio, Redistricting Reform Heads to November Ballot

FairVote's Redistricting Reform Watch 2005 Analyzes the Impact of State Proposals

With the aftershocks of Rep. Tom Delay's mid-decade redistricting of Texas' Congressional delegation continuing to be felt around the nation, reformers are scrambling to implement redistricting reform proposals. Most recently grassroots groups in California and Ohio successfully gathered enough signatures to place independent redistricting proposals before voters in upcoming November elections.

Over time FairVote has consistently backed non-partisan redistricting criteria, but we believe the process should not end there, as competitive races and increased representation of women and communities of color requires more than just a neutral line-drawing process. Alternatives, such as proportional voting, need to be considered in tandem with redistricting reform, and in the least, reform proposals should not preclude the later use of these public interest electoral systems. In that spirit, our new Redistricting Reform Watch 2005 Center analyzes the effects of the various state proposals on proportional voting plans, competitiveness, and other public interest criteria.

[Redistricting Reform Watch 2005]
[Redistricting Reform through California Superdistricts]