By Phil Nash
Published July 17th 2003 in Asian Week
Letters have been flying across the pages of Asian Week the past few weeks supportive and critical of instant runoff voting (IRV). This debate is a sign of a healthy democracy at work, and I applaud all of the participants (as well as an editorial policy at Asian Week that allows many viewpoints to be aired).
Before exploring the merits of the San Francisco voting situation, it is important to step back from the trees and look at the forest. Democracy is in shambles in this country. Ron Faucheux, editor of Campaigns and Elections Magazine reminds us in his June editorial that while commentators lament a situation where half of voting age Americans don't vote, the bigger problem is that a polarized two-party winner-take-all system makes many people feel like there is no place for them in the system. Rather than the much-discussed "50-50 split" between Democrats and Republicans, objective pollsters find the American electorate split more on the lines of 2% on the left, 2% on the right, 30% self-identified Democrat, 30% self-identified Republican, and 36% self-identified independent or unaffiliated.
With a winner-take-all system, minority groups like Asian Pacific Americans in most cities, Republicans in San Francisco, and Democrats in Utah do not have much chance of being elected to office. Minority viewpoints do not get heard, and the frustration these minorities feel when they get shut out on a repeated basis leads to them giving up on democracy or channeling their energy and insights to other endeavors.
IRV and other ranked-choice systems (first place, second place, etc, instead of just a vote for one candidate) are a proven winner when it comes to inclusion. Candidates can bring the issues of minority communities to the general electorate, and supporters of that candidate cannot be dismissed by other candidates. If that minority candidate loses, the ballots of his or her supporters will be scrutinized so that the second-choice candidates mentioned on these ballots can be apportioned to the leading candidates until someone gets 50% plus one vote.
Also, because there is no single "Asian Pacific American" point of view on a given issue, IRV also encourages many APA candidates to run, with coalitions formed so that instead of attacking each other, APA candidates can ask their supporters to back another APA candidate as their second or third choices.
The bottom line is that while we can argue about the availability and accuracy of voting hardware, and whether or not a given locality (San Francisco, in this case) is ready to implement its IRV procedures, IRV is definitely in the best interest of APAs in San Francisco and nationwide. Once we get past this current dispute, I hope all APA voting rights advocates can come together to support IRV and other pro-democracy voting reforms nationwide.
Moving from the "forest" issues back to the "trees" issues in San Francisco's upcoming elections, the developments are happening so quickly that it is hard to keep up with them. Here is my understanding of the latest:
Concerns have been raised about whether APAs and other racial and ethnic minority voters can be educated about the new ranked-balloting procedures in time to have their votes count in a meaningful way in the upcoming elections. This is an important point, but I would turn it around and ask whether the start of a new IRV regime might not be the spark that galvanizes APA student groups, church groups, community groups, and others to make it their business to educate our community about this great innovation. Instead of giving in to the forces of winner-take-all voting, which are a 100% loser for our community, let's take up the challenge that IRV presents and make sure that every APA voter understands how to vote using the new technology.
On July 2, the Elections commission approved a $225,000 outreach plan, which will award contracts to community-based organizations to contact voters in all eleven San Francisco Supervisorial districts to inform them about the new voting system. APA groups should definitely get some of this money, and it should be supplemented by many hours of volunteer efforts by every APA who believes in one person/one vote democracy.
Similar concerns have been raised about the ease of use of the new technology that allows rank-ordered votes. There are several ways to address this concern. First, APA community groups and campus organizations should take the lead on testing the new voting hardware in San Francisco (and in every other locality), so that we can hold voting machine manufacturers everywhere accountable to the needs of our community. Second, we must not forget that people all around the world, using many languages, have made ranked-choice systems work.
Typically, voters use a simple ballot where the candidates are listed, and the voter error rate usually is very low. In Ireland and Malta, for example, the rate of voter error has been generally under 1.0% for decades. When IRV was used in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the voter error dropped in half to just over 1% for a mayor's race that was run just four months after the system was adopted by the voters.
With the availability of hardware solutions still up in the air, the Department of Elections, as a fallback, might want to retain a British firm for this one upcoming election in case simple manually-tabulated ballots have to be used. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and other civil rights organizations have written to the California Secretary of State supporting a manually-tallied IRV voting scheme, calling it superior to the present two-round runoff system that already has proven a disaster for minority voter turnout.
Moving back to the big picture again, whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, or unaffiliated, the public debacle that followed our 2000 presidential election was a wake-up call that our fragile democracy was in serious need of an overhaul. Because IRV requires that the winner receive 50% plus one vote, if we had had an IRV system in place, we would not have needed a Supreme Court decision to determine the election outcome.
Voters could have voted their conscience on their first ballot, and then the second place ballot of those favoring minority party candidates would have gone to Bush or Gore and a clear winner then could have been declared. The IRV procedure thus would have had the advantages of a second vote, without the costs, aggravation, and charges of voting irregularities. Within a day or two, the winner would have been known.
Instant Runoff Voting (for executive positions, where there is one winner) and Proportional Representation (for legislative bodies) are the best hope for full electoral empowerment of APAs in this country. Let's come together to make the best of this current opportunity in San Francisco, and then work to make IRV a reality for APAs and all Americans.
Before exploring the merits of the San Francisco voting situation, it is important to step back from the trees and look at the forest. Democracy is in shambles in this country. Ron Faucheux, editor of Campaigns and Elections Magazine reminds us in his June editorial that while commentators lament a situation where half of voting age Americans don't vote, the bigger problem is that a polarized two-party winner-take-all system makes many people feel like there is no place for them in the system. Rather than the much-discussed "50-50 split" between Democrats and Republicans, objective pollsters find the American electorate split more on the lines of 2% on the left, 2% on the right, 30% self-identified Democrat, 30% self-identified Republican, and 36% self-identified independent or unaffiliated.
With a winner-take-all system, minority groups like Asian Pacific Americans in most cities, Republicans in San Francisco, and Democrats in Utah do not have much chance of being elected to office. Minority viewpoints do not get heard, and the frustration these minorities feel when they get shut out on a repeated basis leads to them giving up on democracy or channeling their energy and insights to other endeavors.
IRV and other ranked-choice systems (first place, second place, etc, instead of just a vote for one candidate) are a proven winner when it comes to inclusion. Candidates can bring the issues of minority communities to the general electorate, and supporters of that candidate cannot be dismissed by other candidates. If that minority candidate loses, the ballots of his or her supporters will be scrutinized so that the second-choice candidates mentioned on these ballots can be apportioned to the leading candidates until someone gets 50% plus one vote.
Also, because there is no single "Asian Pacific American" point of view on a given issue, IRV also encourages many APA candidates to run, with coalitions formed so that instead of attacking each other, APA candidates can ask their supporters to back another APA candidate as their second or third choices.
The bottom line is that while we can argue about the availability and accuracy of voting hardware, and whether or not a given locality (San Francisco, in this case) is ready to implement its IRV procedures, IRV is definitely in the best interest of APAs in San Francisco and nationwide. Once we get past this current dispute, I hope all APA voting rights advocates can come together to support IRV and other pro-democracy voting reforms nationwide.
Moving from the "forest" issues back to the "trees" issues in San Francisco's upcoming elections, the developments are happening so quickly that it is hard to keep up with them. Here is my understanding of the latest:
Concerns have been raised about whether APAs and other racial and ethnic minority voters can be educated about the new ranked-balloting procedures in time to have their votes count in a meaningful way in the upcoming elections. This is an important point, but I would turn it around and ask whether the start of a new IRV regime might not be the spark that galvanizes APA student groups, church groups, community groups, and others to make it their business to educate our community about this great innovation. Instead of giving in to the forces of winner-take-all voting, which are a 100% loser for our community, let's take up the challenge that IRV presents and make sure that every APA voter understands how to vote using the new technology.
On July 2, the Elections commission approved a $225,000 outreach plan, which will award contracts to community-based organizations to contact voters in all eleven San Francisco Supervisorial districts to inform them about the new voting system. APA groups should definitely get some of this money, and it should be supplemented by many hours of volunteer efforts by every APA who believes in one person/one vote democracy.
Similar concerns have been raised about the ease of use of the new technology that allows rank-ordered votes. There are several ways to address this concern. First, APA community groups and campus organizations should take the lead on testing the new voting hardware in San Francisco (and in every other locality), so that we can hold voting machine manufacturers everywhere accountable to the needs of our community. Second, we must not forget that people all around the world, using many languages, have made ranked-choice systems work.
Typically, voters use a simple ballot where the candidates are listed, and the voter error rate usually is very low. In Ireland and Malta, for example, the rate of voter error has been generally under 1.0% for decades. When IRV was used in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the voter error dropped in half to just over 1% for a mayor's race that was run just four months after the system was adopted by the voters.
With the availability of hardware solutions still up in the air, the Department of Elections, as a fallback, might want to retain a British firm for this one upcoming election in case simple manually-tabulated ballots have to be used. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and other civil rights organizations have written to the California Secretary of State supporting a manually-tallied IRV voting scheme, calling it superior to the present two-round runoff system that already has proven a disaster for minority voter turnout.
Moving back to the big picture again, whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, or unaffiliated, the public debacle that followed our 2000 presidential election was a wake-up call that our fragile democracy was in serious need of an overhaul. Because IRV requires that the winner receive 50% plus one vote, if we had had an IRV system in place, we would not have needed a Supreme Court decision to determine the election outcome.
Voters could have voted their conscience on their first ballot, and then the second place ballot of those favoring minority party candidates would have gone to Bush or Gore and a clear winner then could have been declared. The IRV procedure thus would have had the advantages of a second vote, without the costs, aggravation, and charges of voting irregularities. Within a day or two, the winner would have been known.
Instant Runoff Voting (for executive positions, where there is one winner) and Proportional Representation (for legislative bodies) are the best hope for full electoral empowerment of APAs in this country. Let's come together to make the best of this current opportunity in San Francisco, and then work to make IRV a reality for APAs and all Americans.
