On October 17, a Los Angeles city council committee passed a bill, switching elections for city office from the spring of odd years, to coincide with federal elections in even years. Currently the city holds an election in March of odd years for city office, with run-offs when no one gets 50% two months later. The bill would switch elections to June of even-numbered years, with a runoff in November if no one got 50%.
See this story, which indicates there are other proposals. The story does not say if the committee considered ranked-choice voting.
This would save the taxpayers of Los Angeles millions if not thousands of dollars in election costs. I assume the same ballot and election workers would be used, which is the majority of the costs of elections.
My little home town several years ago, changed their non-partisan elections to be on the same day as the General Election. I asked the Town Clerk, what would happen if there happened to be more than two candidates running for Mayor, and no candidate had a majority of the votes? Was there a provision for a run off?
I never received an answer. I assume that if such happens, the candidate receiving the most votes would be declared the winner. So if the ballot had several candidates running for Mayor, for example, a candidate could be elected with as few as 30% or less of the vote.
It is obvious a lot of thought is not placed into our election laws by those who claim they are the experts in knowing what is best for us. I guess they know what is best for us, when they require such repressive requirements to get on the ballot, as they do for a 3rd party or Independent here in Alabama.
I meant “…save the taxpayers of Los Angeles thousands if not millions of dollars…”
When one gets 70 years of age with medical problems, sometimes the ole brain does not think as clearly as it did in better times past.
The City of Los Angeles conducts its own elections. You may have noticed that a reason for the delay was to permit Los Angeles County to update their voting equipment. The county has a one-of-a-kind InkaVote system which replaced punch cards in 2003. Apparently this permits one ballot to be used for the entire county with dozens of cities and races and candidates. But adding in the city of Los Angeles would overwhelm the system.
The default in California is for city elections to be non-partisan coinciding with the state June/November schedule, with a runoff in November if necessary.
One city switched to a runoff, simply by changing the charter to say that the elections would be held on the statewide schedule, without adding any language to do with runoffs.
I would vote against the LA proposal because it would extend transitional terms by 17 months, rather than shortening them by 7 months. I wouldn’t count on the new county system being ready by 2020, so it would be simpler to continue with the current odd-year system.
The default in California city elections is just one election, with no run-off. The vast majority of California cites do not have run-offs.
Since California cities are non-partisan, as I understand, so you are saying that a candidate can win with as little as 30% of the vote.
Doesn’t seem fair, but apparently the voters are content. We get what we ask for.
In 2006, when Morro Bay wanted to have majority election, they simply switched their general election date to coincide with the June statewide primary, which under state law made it a majority election, with a runoff in November.
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/CR/Elections/Past+Elections/November+7$!2c+2006+general+election/City+of+Morro+Bay.pdf
In 2010, runoffs were required in Chula Vista, Fresno, Inglewood, Morro Bay, Sacramento, San Jose.
You are correct that most cities have chosen the November general election date for their city elections. Because of 5 months between June and November, more cities may be reluctant to switch to majority elections. California should move the primary to September.
Yes, if California has to put up with Top Two, at least let it be (if only an illusion) that the majority wins.
But as the politics of this nation becomes more splintered – even among the so-called “responsible Democrats” and “responsible Republicans,” don’t be surprised if a move for “Top Three” comes about.
Wouldn’t help 3rd parties or Independents in most major elections,ie., statewide, as 3rd partisans and Independents simply don’t have the big bucks to get the name recognition. It is a “lose-lose” situation no matter what kind of electoral system the elitists force upon us.