[Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: Governor vetoed AB1294, ranked voting

[Drew Johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [G-C-F] [LAVoteFIRE] Governor, in stupid Arnhole mode, vetoed AB1294
From:    "Lisa Taylor" <lisa at losangelesgreens.org>
Date:    Tue, October 16, 2007 10:12

> From: David Holtzman <dh at LAvoteFIRE.org>
> Date: October 14, 2007 11:21:49 PM PDT
> To: "Friends, Members and Supporters of L.A. VoteFIRE "
> <dah at LAVoteFIRE.org>
> Subject: [LAVoteFIRE] Governor, in stupid Arnhole mode, vetoed AB1294
>
> Gov. Schwarzenegger waited until the last day to act on AB 1294,
> and he vetoed it.  AB 1294 would have (1) let any city have instant
> runoff elections, upon city council and voter approval (cities with
> their own charters, like L.A., Pasadena and Long Beach, can already
> do this) (the bill had similar provisions for counties), and would
> also (2) have enacted enact official rules for instant runoff
> elections, making it much easier for any city (charter or non-
> charter) to start having such elections.
>
>
> Here's the veto message (***>>see initial comments from me below):
>
> To the Members of the California State Assembly:
>
> I am returning Assembly Bill 1294 without my signature.
>
> This bill would allow cities and counties, subject to voter
> approval, to conduct a local
> election using a ranked voting system. This represents a drastic
> change to the way we
> vote. Although there are some proponents for ranked voting, which
> allows for so-called
> “instant runoff” elections, I am concerned that we don’t yet know
> enough about how
> voters will react to such a dramatic change in the way they vote.
> For instance, charter
> cities and counties already have the right to hold ranked voting
> elections, yet only one
> city has done so thus far, and that was on a trial basis only.
>
> Further, the machines necessary to implement ranked voting are not
> widely available nor
> have any been certified by the Secretary of State. As the Secretary
> of State recently
> decertified the vast majority of electronic voting machines used
> for traditional elections,
> it is premature to even contemplate moving to ranked voting
> tomorrow until we have
> resolved any issues with the machines needed for how we vote today.
> Sincerely,
>
> [AS]
>
>
>
> ***>>Now, the governor knows that charter cities and counties are
> generally much bigger than cities and counties that haven't adopted
> their own charters.  So he's actually implying that we should try
> ranked voting first in (more) *big* jurisdictions (it's already
> being used in San Francisco, where polls show the voters love it)
> to see how "voters will react to such a dramatic change," instead
> of encouraging -- or even allowing -- trial runs in *small*
> jurisdictions.  That's the opposite of normal cautious pilot-
> project-first policy-making.
>
> ***>>Also, by this logic, general state law shouldn't change until
> charter cities and counties do ranked voting.  But many (if not
> all) charter city clerks and county registrars won't get behind
> ranked voting until the state codifies guidelines for it, which
> this bill would have done.  That's a chicken-and egg problem, a
> catch-22.
>
> ***>>Another chicken-and-egg problem or catch-22 is that voting
> machine manufacturers will not make machines for ranked voting
> "widely available" (and they have to pay a lot of money to get
> voting machines certified) until a wide range of jurisdictions is
> allowed to have ranked voting elections, which this bill would have
> facilitated (there are far more non-charter cites and counties than
> there are charter cities and counties).
>
> ***>>And then here we see no more lofty talk from the governor
> about respecting California's own voters, like when he vetoed the
> "national popular vote" bill.  (Well, maybe his horizon is limited
> to California ... he apparently didn't consider the successful use
> of ranked voting in various foreign countries and in U.S. cities
> outside of California.)  (But the Academy of Motion Picture Arts
> and Sciences uses ranked voting to choose nominees for the movie
> Oscar awards, which are awarded in California ... so maybe it's
> just that he's upset about never being nominated for an Oscar.)
>
> ***>>Oh, he doesn't have his facts right.  It was *not* "on a trial
> basis only" in San Francisco (ranked-choice voting is in the
> charter, and scheduled to be used for future elections).
>
> ***>>Finally, in general, only *non-charter* cities are small
> enough to conduct elections within their budgets without machines.
> Ranked voting doesn't require machines.  (There are no "machines
> necessary to implement ranked voting" -- another factual error.)
> What an idiot.
>
> Anyway, thank you for your help if you tried to reach the governor
> to ask him to sign the bill.
>
>   -dh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Core mailing list
> Core at cfer.org
> http://mail102.csoft.net/mailman/listinfo/core
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
cal-forum mailing list
cal-forum at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/cal-forum


-- 
JamBoi
http://www.greencommons.org/blog/63
"Peaceable: the ability to interact peacefully.  A skill set similar to
social or emotional intelligence that is unfortunately rare in today's
American culture, but can be developed by all.  The Green Parties need to
lead the way in Peaceableness."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20071016/a9603c95/attachment.html>