[Marin-d] Fw: [northbaygreens] The New Politics of Ranked-Choice Elections, by Steven Hill

[david quinley]

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "Rioryon at aol.com" <Rioryon at aol.com>
To: Rioryon at aol.com; GPSCcoordinators at yahoogroups.com; 
sonomagreens at lists.riseup.net; northbaygreens at lists.riseup.net
Sent: Sat, November 20, 2010 11:04:36 AM
Subject: [northbaygreens] The New Politics of Ranked-Choice Elections, by Steven 
Hill

Note - Steve Hill is widely considered by many Greens to  be a guru and font of 
knowledge on democratic electoral  reforms...
The New Politics of Ranked-Choice  Elections
Steven Hill
San Francisco  Chronicle 
 
Monday, November 15, 2010 04:00 AM 
 
Jean Quan's riveting victory to become the mayor of Oakland has brought  
re-newed attention to ranked-choice voting (or instant-runoff voting). San  
Francisco has used this system, which allows voters to rank their top three  
candidates, in seven elections since 2004. Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro  
used it for the first time this year. 

Quan became the first Asian  American woman elected mayor of a major city by 
coming from behind to beat  the favorite, former state Senate President Pro Tem 
and powerbroker Don  Perata.
Some political consultants and insiders seem baffled about how Quan  prevailed, 
but it's not that complicated. It came down to two things that used  to be a 
staple in American politics before our elections became marinated in  money: 
knocking on doors and building coalitions. Quan showed how to win with a  new 
kind of politics that better comports with the diverse society we have  become. 

Voters are  increasingly sickened by hack attack campaigns in which opponents 
spend enough  money to feed a third-world country. The recent gubernatorial race 
in which Meg Whitman spent an astounding  $140 million attacking rival Jerry  
Brown is a classic example. The recent Supreme Court decision known as  Citizens 
United, which has turned on the spigot for corporate campaign  donations, means 
that independent expenditures and mudslinging campaigns are  bound to increase. 
So undercutting the impact of such spending disparities is  one of ranked-choice 
voting's most important qualities.
It is estimated that Perata and his allies outspent Quan by 5 to 1, but Quan  
attended far more community meetings, forums and house parties. She told people,  
"If I'm not your first choice, please make me your second or third choice." She  
also reached out to her opponents, Rebecca Kaplan especially, saying, "In case I  
don't win, I think Rebecca should be your second choice." Really simple stuff,  
but effective: Quan received three times more runoff votes from the supporters  
of Kaplan, who finished third, than did Perata. That gave Quan her victory. 

Perata, meanwhile, used the traditional front-runner strategy, spending more  
money and attacking his opponent. But he couldn't attack all of his opponents,  
because he needed support from those opponents' voters in order to reach a  
majority. 

Post-election, many political consultants have shown they just don't get it.  
One of Perata's consultants has indicated that they should have attacked not  
just Quan but Kaplan, too. It hasn't occurred to him that instead of going  
negative, they should have gone positive. Find common ground, build coalitions -  
that's the incentive for winning in ranked-choice contests.
A similar story also played out in San Leandro's mayoral election and San  
Francisco's supervisorial Districts Two and 10. In these races, victors also won  
by building coalitions, coming from behind to win over opponents with more  
endorsements. In our overly adversarial, winner-take-all society, the incentives  
of ranked-choice voting to find common ground and build coalitions with ranked  
ballots is welcomed by most people. But bizarrely, some insiders have tried to  
call it "gaming the system." 

Ranked-choice voting is a better fit for our diverse, multi-everything  society. 
Ranked-choice voting allows voters to express the complex racial-ethnic  and 
political allegiances that most of us feel today by allowing voters to rank  up 
to three candidates. Indeed, nearly three-quarters of Oakland voters used all  
three of their rankings to pick their favorites among the 10 mayoral candidates. 

Ranked-choice voting also led to much higher voter turnout in Oakland. In the  
June 2006 mayoral election, 83,000 Oaklanders voted. This year, 119,000 voters  
participated in the mayoral election, a 43 percent increase. And 99.7 percent  
cast a valid vote. San Francisco's ranked-choice elections in November also  
generally have seen higher turnout than the old December runoff elections.
A recent court challenge to San Francisco's ranked-choice elections was  
dismissed, with the federal judge roundly rejecting arguments that ranked-choice  
voting disenfranchises voters. In 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously  
upheld the constitutionality of Minneapolis'  ranked-choice system, ruling that 
"every ballot and every vote is counted by the  same rules and standards."
As San Francisco girds for its mayoral election next November, we'll see if  the 
old-timers and insiders learn from Oakland. The campaign that grasps the  right 
lessons just might end up as the victor.
Steven Hill is author of "10 Steps to  Repair American Democracy" ( 
www.10Steps.net) and the architect of the  ranked-choice voting system in the 
Bay Area.

Read  more: 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/14/EDUH1GBFVT.DTL#ixzz15qlnt8vN



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/marin-d_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20101120/45ae3154/attachment.html>