Instant voting plan on fall ballot, if approved, could save about $200,00 in election costs
By Heather MacDonald
Published July 20th 2006 in Alameda Times-Star
OAKLAND — Voters will decide in November whether to change the City
Charter to allow them to rank up to three candidates in order of their
preference to avoid costly run-off elections.
While supporters said instant runoff voting would be as easy as picking a favorite ice cream flavor while increasing voter turnout and saving money, several council members said they were concerned the new system would disenfranchise minority voters.
Councilmember Nancy Nadel (Downtown-West Oakland), a measure co-sponsor, said just 46 percent of voters cast a ballot in the June primary, clear evidence that Oakland's electoral system is broken.
"Change can be scary," Nadel said. "But it is our responsibility to fix the system."
If the system wins approval, voters would pick three candidates, ranking them first, second and third, officials said. If their first choice doesn't win a majority of votes in the first round of counting, votes for their second, then third candidates are tallied.
Currently, if none of the candidates for an office wins a simple majority of the vote in the June primary, the two top vote-getters face off in the November general election.
Runoff elections typically cost the city about $200,000, money better spent on a host of other projects and programs, Nadel said.
Councilmember Desley Brooks (Eastmont-Seminary) said the people should decide how to elect their representatives. However, Brooks said she was not convinced instant run-off voting would be best for communities not already engaged in the political process.
"I believe in democracy," Brooks said.
Nadel and other supporters of instant run-off voting said they would heed concerns expressed about the need to educate voters about the change. Although such a campaign could cost as much as $400,000, the council has not set aside any funds for the effort.
Brooks said the campaign to educate voters about the potential change should start immediately.
If approved by voters, the change would take effect as soon as Alameda County election officials have new voting machines in place with the capability to rank candidates. That could be as early as November 2008, officials said.
Councilmember Patricia Kernighan (Grand Lake-Chinatown), who faces a runoff in November against Aimee Allison, a businesswoman and member of the Green Party, said the change would help both racial and ideological minorities, and make it easier to recruit candidates for office.
In addition, Kernighan said she expected instant runoff voting to increase the turnout of young voters and lessen the cynicism that many feel about the political process.
Councilmembers Henry Chang Jr. (At Large) and Larry Reid (Elmhurst-East Oakland) voted against putting the measure on the Nov. 7 ballot. Chang said he was concerned it would especially hurt elderly Chinese voters who struggle with English.
"They're going to be so lost that they won't vote at all, or they'll just vote for one," Chang said. "They're going to be very, very confused."
Reid said he doubted supporter claims that it would increase turnout of minority voters.
Former Councilmember Wilson Riles Jr. said it was insulting to think white voters are more capable of understanding the change than minority voters.
Although Council President Ignacio De La Fuente (Glenview-Fruitvale) initially opposed instant runoff voting, he said Riles and other supporters had worn him down after inundating his office with information about how the system worked in other cities, including San Francisco, in the 2004 election.
While supporters said instant runoff voting would be as easy as picking a favorite ice cream flavor while increasing voter turnout and saving money, several council members said they were concerned the new system would disenfranchise minority voters.
Councilmember Nancy Nadel (Downtown-West Oakland), a measure co-sponsor, said just 46 percent of voters cast a ballot in the June primary, clear evidence that Oakland's electoral system is broken.
"Change can be scary," Nadel said. "But it is our responsibility to fix the system."
If the system wins approval, voters would pick three candidates, ranking them first, second and third, officials said. If their first choice doesn't win a majority of votes in the first round of counting, votes for their second, then third candidates are tallied.
Currently, if none of the candidates for an office wins a simple majority of the vote in the June primary, the two top vote-getters face off in the November general election.
Runoff elections typically cost the city about $200,000, money better spent on a host of other projects and programs, Nadel said.
Councilmember Desley Brooks (Eastmont-Seminary) said the people should decide how to elect their representatives. However, Brooks said she was not convinced instant run-off voting would be best for communities not already engaged in the political process.
"I believe in democracy," Brooks said.
Nadel and other supporters of instant run-off voting said they would heed concerns expressed about the need to educate voters about the change. Although such a campaign could cost as much as $400,000, the council has not set aside any funds for the effort.
Brooks said the campaign to educate voters about the potential change should start immediately.
If approved by voters, the change would take effect as soon as Alameda County election officials have new voting machines in place with the capability to rank candidates. That could be as early as November 2008, officials said.
Councilmember Patricia Kernighan (Grand Lake-Chinatown), who faces a runoff in November against Aimee Allison, a businesswoman and member of the Green Party, said the change would help both racial and ideological minorities, and make it easier to recruit candidates for office.
In addition, Kernighan said she expected instant runoff voting to increase the turnout of young voters and lessen the cynicism that many feel about the political process.
Councilmembers Henry Chang Jr. (At Large) and Larry Reid (Elmhurst-East Oakland) voted against putting the measure on the Nov. 7 ballot. Chang said he was concerned it would especially hurt elderly Chinese voters who struggle with English.
"They're going to be so lost that they won't vote at all, or they'll just vote for one," Chang said. "They're going to be very, very confused."
Reid said he doubted supporter claims that it would increase turnout of minority voters.
Former Councilmember Wilson Riles Jr. said it was insulting to think white voters are more capable of understanding the change than minority voters.
Although Council President Ignacio De La Fuente (Glenview-Fruitvale) initially opposed instant runoff voting, he said Riles and other supporters had worn him down after inundating his office with information about how the system worked in other cities, including San Francisco, in the 2004 election.
