[GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Ranked Choice Voting in the Bay Area: 3 Points about 2012 RCV Elections

[Jim Stauffer]

FYI... from Fairvote.com

Jim



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Ranked Choice Voting in the Bay Area: 3 Points about 2012 RCV Elections
Date: 	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:21:39 -0500 (EST)
From: 	Rob Richie <info at fairvote.org>



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 12 2012

*ANALYSIS OF 2012 RANKED CHOICE VOTING ELECTIONS IN THE BAY AREA: THREE POINTS*

Ballots for Tuesday’s ranked choice voting (RCV) elections in four cities in
the Bay Area are still being counted, but it is clear that RCV has again
worked well. Because of RCV, voters in Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco and
San Leandro have been able to elect leaders in a high turnout presidential
election instead of having to rely on either low turnout runoffs in December
or primaries in June. As a result, a far larger and more representative
electorate participated in city elections than these systems’ previous voting
systems.

FairVote will provide updated analysis of the RCV races as the tallies are
finalized. Today we focus on three particularly important points emerging from
the 2012 elections.

*/CANDIDATES OF COLOR AGAIN THRIVED IN RCV RACES, EVEN WHEN OUTSPENT/*

Racial minorities continue to do very well as candidates in ranked choice
voting elections in the Bay Area. In San Francisco, for example, there are 18
offices chosen by RCV, and at least 15 next year will be held by people of
color -- potentially 16 if Norman Yee wins the District 7 election.

As evidenced by Oakland’s District 3 City Council election, voters of color
used the system to clear effect. Three African American candidates ran in
District 3, with their backers generally promoting ranking these candidates
first, second and third. Although a white candidate led in first choices,
Lynette McElhaney will prevail with strong support from voters who had backed
Derrick Mohammed and Neisha de Witt as first choices. McElhaney won despite
being outspent by Sean Sullivan – a common pattern in RCV races in which the
winning candidate has been particularly active in direct outreach to voters
*
*/*RATE OF VOTER ERROR IS LOW: VOTERS HANDLE RCV BALLOT WELL*/

The results demonstrate that election officials in both Alameda County and San
Francisco continue to do an excellent job in ensuring voters know how to fill
out an RCV ballot. Even though Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco and San
Leandro have all held RCV elections before, many voters came out to vote for
president this year who had never voted locally in an RCV election.

Nevertheless, very few voters made an error in indicating a first choice in
RCV races. In Alameda County RCV races, for example, more than 99.6% of voters
consistently cast valid ballots, including more than 99.9% of voters in San
Leandro’s highly competitive District 4 race with four candidates and more
than 99.8% of voters in the even more hotly contested District 3 city council
in Oakland with six candidates. In San Francisco’s large-field RCV races in
District 5 and District 7, 99.5% of voters cast valid ballots for their first
choice, and more than three in four voters indicated a valid second choice as
well. These rates of invalid ballots are far lower than the invalid ballot
rate in the U.S. Senate primary in June 2012 , and lower than the expected
rate of error that in the San Francisco school board races.

Ballot image reports are not yet available for the Alameda County races, but
are available for analysis in the two San Francisco races that require
multiple rounds to determine a winner (District 5 and District 7). In both
races two-thirds of voters used all three of their rankings and eight in ten
voters ranked two – this despite the fact that many endorsing entities like
the /San Francisco Chronicle/ endorsed only one or two candidates.

*/A TRUE “INSTANT RUNOFF" IN 2012 : MOST RCV OUTCOMES CLEAR ON ELECTION NIGHT/*

Election officials in San Francisco and Alameda County should be applauded for
choosing to run the ranked choice voting algorithm on election night. Doing so
not only provided faster results, but also clarified that RCV has not been the
reason for any past delays in determining outcomes.

Indeed the timing for reporting results should be no different than when
reporting non-RCV results. Just as with non-RCV elections, most RCV races will
be known as soon as the RCV tally is run. If an RCV is close, of course, then
the winner may not be decided until absentee and provisional ballots have been
completely processed. That of course is no different than in RCV races, such
as the California Attorney General race in 2010 that required weeks to decide,
in which the race is close and all absentee and provisional ballots must be
processed.

This year, election night RCV tallies made it instantly clear who was the
winner in nearly every race in which there was no majority winner in the first
round. In San Francisco’s District 5, for example, London Breed led with less
than 30% of first choices, but was a decisive winner over incumbent Christina
Olague in the RCV tally – showing strength in securing second and third
choices that propelled her to being a certain winner. Lynette McElhaney was
second in first choices in Oakland’s District 3, but was a clear winner after
running the RCV tally.

By running the tally early, the public and the candidates had more clarity
about who is ahead and who is behind, as is normal when election returns are
reported. In San Francisco’s District 7, for example, Norman Yee leads in
first choices, but is locked in a very tight race in the final round of the
RCV tally with F.X Crowley. In San Leandro’s District 2, incumbent Ursula Reed
leads in first choices and is in a tight race with challenger Morgan Mack-Rose
in the final round of the RCV tally.

The only two RCV races where outcomes are in doubt are ones where the election
is extremely close. The winner will the finalist who earns the most votes in
the “instant runoff” – in other words, is preferred to the other finalist by
more voters. Current RCV tally leaders Norman Yee and Ursula Reed will win if
they keep their leads as the remaining votes are counted, just as would be the
case in a close non-RCV race that had uncounted ballots.

FairVote is a non-partisan, non-profit organization organized around the
principle of respect for every vote and every voice. If you have any questions
about this analysis or other aspects of ranked choice voting, please contact
FairVote’s executive director Rob Richie (rr at fairvote.org) or FairVote legal
fellow Mollie Hailey (mhailey at fairvote.org). We also wanted to draw your
attention to resources available on FairVote’s webpage on Bay Area RCV
elections (http://www.fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-in-bay-area-elections
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=WWUT6ENR97tWEj6g4RXL4S4rNcHrJADg>

) and on San Francisco civic leaders’ website SF Better Elections
(http://www.SFBetterElections.com
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=JkJ5t6TeEgolDmz3nsFdsC4rNcHrJADg>).




-   End -