On the evening of January 5, the Oakland, California, City Council voted 6-2 to use Instant Runoff Voting for this year’s city elections. Instead of the old system, a June first round with a November run-off when no one got 50%, the 2010 election will be entirely in November. See this story.
When Oakland voters chose IRV a few years ago, they were told it would save the city hundreds of thousands of $. Now they know IRV is going to cost them over a $million.
IRV will give Oakland more to do than just figure out where to get the money to pay for IRV:
1. Now Oakland will be central counting these votes, i.e not counting votes where cast, opening elections up to fraud.
2. Oakland requires a majority win, but like San Francisco, will have to redefine majority to accept the IRV abbreviated majority which is based not on all votes, but only those votes still left after elimination process.
3. Oakland will need to review its campaign finance and ethics codes to ensure that when or if candidates co-endorse each other that they don’t breech any laws.
4. Oakland will need to devise a plan of voter education that reaches around 50 different languages.
After all this is said and done, will Oakland join Pierce Co Washington, Cary NC, in ditching IRV or join Burlington VT and Aspen CO in putting IRV on the ballot to let citizens repeal it?
If you want to know why Burlington voters are rethinking IRV, then google “burlington one person one vote press conference” and watch the approx 30 minute video.
Good for Oakland. As a SF voter I have found IRV to be simple to use, a more democratic way to elect people (increased voter participation), and a nice saver of time and money (no more delayed run-off elections in mid-December and the cost that they incur) .
Nice to see IRV spreading slowly but surely. I heard that IRV is moving forward towards implementation in Mpls now as well.
As so often is the case, Joyce McCloy is inaccurate or misleading in much of what she writes here:
1. Oakland taxpayers now do not need to pay for a June primary, which woudd have cost them $800,000 this year. Furthermore, the great majority of the expenses will be one-time only, and by 2012 or 2014, the city projects it will save money. If more cities (or the county) moves to IRV, Oakland will be reimbursed for most of its one-time expense as well.
2. Ballots in the IRV election will be counted in the precincts. The data file will be collected centrally. There are sensible audit procedures that can be enacted to ensure integrity of the data
3 Majority wins in runoffs always have been defined by which candidate has more votes in the final round of counting, just as with IRV — as Joyce knows from the runoffs she defends in North Carolina where voter turnout has dropped by more than 90% from the first round. No redefinition is required.
4. The county and city already have a good voter education plan developed that has been approved by the Secretary of State
5. Pierce County is the only jurisdiction that has voted to stop using IRV. It did so after the statewide primary system changed, addressing the problem that had led most voters to support IRV. (As to Cary, it used IRV in 2007 in a one-time pilot program, and two post-election surveys showed overwhelming voter support for keeping the system rather than go back to runoffs. The council was uncertain in 2009 over how the count would be done. With more clarity, we’ll see what happens in 2011.)
6. Joyce is excited about the repeal campaign in Burlington, which, if passed, would set up a system where a candidate can win with only 40% of the vote — eg, it brings back “spoiler” dynamics. Yes, some major party folks are unhappy that a third party has won the city’s two IRV elections, but the local league of Women Voters, Common Cause, PIRG and many city leaders will be fighting to preserve IRV.
Rob Richie should let the people in Burlington speak for themselves:
http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/one-person-one-vote-press-conference
Bernie Sanders was elected mayor of Burlington several times as an independent candidate under a conventional election system, and was followed in several subsequent elections by another independent, both of whom would have found favor with the third party in question. All of these were majority wins, so no runoff was needed, and with typically much higher participation than in the two IRV elections.
None of those races would have required a runoff. And in the two elections under IRV, no candidate received 40% of the vote so there would have a conventional runoff.
IRV is an EVIL fraud FIX.
IRV ignores most of the data in a place votes table.
How often will Stalin and Hitler clones be in the final top 2 if IRV is used ???
It only takes ONCE for really bad stuff to happen.
See U.S.S.R. – 1927-1953 – the communist tyranny under Stalin.
See Germany 1933-1945 – the nazi tyranny under Hitler.
Of course, New Age mindless MORONS will say that such stuff can not happen in the U.S.A.
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. — pending MAJOR public education about head to head math.
Jim –Your link to a Burlington video was from the leaders of the anti-IRV campaign. They say various inaccurate things, such as IRV violating one-person, one-vote (it doesn’t), turnout is down (it’s up from the last elections without IRV) and IRV was passed without debate (voters supported IRV in a 2002 advisory vote, a 2004 advisory vote and a 2005 binding vote). They obscure the fact that the energy for the repeal was overwhelmingly tied to supporters of the losing Republican candidate, and the 40% threshold they want is probably the best chance for that candidate to win.
Do you support a 40% victory threshold instead of a 50% threshold? Just curious.
Rob – you characterized the proponents of the repeal as “major party folks unhappy with the results”.
Of course the video was by the proponents of the repeal of IRV. That was my whole point – to let them make their own points, rather than have them stereotyped by you.
http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/one-person-one-vote-press-conference
I re-watched the entire video. You claim, “they say various inaccurate things, such as IRV violating one-person, one-vote.” I did not hear any such claim. Please cite the precise time on the video where such a claim was made.
IRV was approved in 2005, in an election where the big local issue was a referendum on the YMCA moving to the waterfront. The ballot title on the IRV question was phrased as requiring a “majority vote for mayor … and then something about a instant runoff” (paraphrase). Voters were voting for an abstract idea in an election where something more tangible was also on the ballot.
The last mayoral election without IRV in 2003 had 24% of voters who showed up skipping the mayor’s race. What kind of election has 1/4 of voters skipping the top of the ballot executive race? Doesn’t really sound like an election where people rush out of their houses to get to the polls before closing time, “quick I’ve got to get to city hall before 7 pm so I can skip the mayor’s race. Who cares who’s running for city council, the important thing is to get there in time to skip the mayor’s race.”
Has 40% been problematic in the past? Were any mayors elected with between 40% and 50%, and was their election thereby illegitimate?
Current law in Burlington uses the 40% threshold for all offices other than mayor – and it was probably easier simply to insert “mayor” in the list of offices and strike the language regarding IRV, rather than make an additional change from 40% to 50%.
Maybe the city council can place an alternative version on the ballot that provides for repeal of IRV and a 50% threshold.