[Sosfbay-discuss] SF Examiner "Group sues to stop instant runoff elections in SF"

[eden]

   I was dismayed to see this, thinking "they even have enough
money/energy to fight on this front?" But, the last comment explains
it better. Nevertheless, does anyone know if this means that SF
implemented the system incorrectly, or is this something fundamental
to all IR systems?

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Group-sues-to-stop-instant-runoff-elections-in-SF-83607307.html#ixzz0efedhVDK


Group sues to stop instant runoff elections in SF

Bay City News
February 5, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — Six San Francisco residents sued the city in federal
court Thursdayto challenge its instant runoff voting system.

The lawsuit claims that the way the city implements the system is
unconstitutional because some voters are denied the ability to have
their
vote counted in later rounds of balloting.

The instant runoff system, also known as ranked-choice voting, was
approved by a voter initiative in 2002 and put into effect beginning
in 2004 for the offices of mayor, Board of Supervisors, district
attorney, city attorney, sheriff, public defender, treasurer and
assessor-recorder.

The system is intended to avoid the cost and the risk of low voter
turnout in having a separate runoff election at a later date when no
candidate in a race wins a majority.

Under the system, voters can rank three choices in each race. If no
candidate in a race wins a majority, the candidate with the lowest
number of votes is eliminated and his or her votes are transferred to
the second choices of each citizen who voted for that candidate.

The process continues until one candidate achieves a majority.

Some races, such as supervisor contests, sometimes have a dozen or
more candidates.

The lawsuit claims the system violates the constitutional right to
vote because voters whose candidates are eliminated in early rounds
have no voice in the final rounds of ballot counting in the instant
runoff.

The suit seeks a preliminary injunction that would require the city
either to return to having a separate runoff election or to allow
voters
to rank all candidates in a race.

A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction is tentatively
scheduled for March 12 before U.S. District Judge Susan Illston
in San Francisco.

Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said
lawyers for the city had not yet seen the lawsuit, but said, "It's the
city
attorney's job to vigorously defend the laws voters enact, and that
includes ranked-choice voting."

Reader Comments
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment
box is limited to 250 words.

Dixon

Feb 4, 2010

Never liked the system. I'd like to be able to chose between who is
the final two standing, but you never know when there are so many
candidates.

Let's have a real run-off, where two candidates can debate each other.
But have the run-off a couple months later, say March, not during the
holidays. That's why turn-out was so low.



SF-415

Feb 5, 2010

The old system was much better when you could only vote for one
candidate and then have a runoff election between the two highest vote
getters. Ranked choice voting is very confusing.



John E. Palmer

Feb 5, 2010

Instant runoff voting is a great step forward for eliminating the
spoiler problem of most elections. It also saves costs and avoids the
turnout problems that often result with multiple elections.



Bob Richard

Feb 5, 2010

On ranked choice voting itself, what John Palmer said. It's
interesting that the reporter choose not to name the plaintiffs. So we
have to do a little digging to find out that the lead plaintiff is
losing candidate Ron Dudum. In spite of the previous comments, the
suit has nothing to do with ranked choice voting per se, but rather
questions the use of voting machines that limit the voter to fewer
rankings than there are candidates.