On June 5, San Francisco held a special election for Mayor, using ranked choice voting. The San Francisco Chronicle, and former Mayor Willie Brown, have been opposed to ranked choice voting for over a decade.
Here is an opinion piece by David Campos, chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party and a former supervisor, defending San Francisco’s ranked choice voting.
Here is the lead story for Sunday, June 10, in the San Francisco Chronicle. Even though it is a news story, it contains an attack on ranked choice voting.
Here is Willie Brown’s column in the June 10 Chronicle, attacking ranked choice voting. Scroll down.
The June 10 Chronicle also has an editorial in support of the top-two system. The main point is that without the top-two system, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Eric Swalwell would never have been elected, because although they are Democrats, they are not liberal enough to have won a Democratic primary, yet they could win in a top-two system. But the editorial fails to note that either or both of them might have been elected as independent candidates, under the old semi-closed primary that was in effect before top-two began. Californians elected Quentin Kopp to the State Senate as an independent in 1986, 1990, and 1994; they elected Lucy Killea to the State Senate as an independent in 1992; and they elected a Green, Audie Bock, to the Assembly in 1999.
For many months, the Chronicle has refused all op-ed submissions that are critical of top-two, including a submission that points out that California could return to the blanket primary, or that it is free to switch to an open primary, or a semi-closed primary, if it wants to expand voter choice in November but retain the ability of independents to vote in primaries.
“the Chronicle has refused all op-ed submissions that are critical of top-two”
The Chronicle is a cadre of NWO corporatists pretending to be journalists. Joseph Goebbels would be right at home there.
1. Will Condorcet math be done on the SF votes ???
2, ANY of the Chronicle so-called *journalists* heard about PR, AppV and Condorcet ???
RCV — EXTREME EXAMPLE
The *Middle* is almost gone – see Germany 1933.
49 A-M-Z
49 Z-M-A
1 M-A-Z
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 49 – 1 – 49 – 99
Z 49 – 0 – 50 – 99
M 1 – 98 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
WHO SHOULD WIN ???
—
In the SF case — the Middle is dead/moved out —
leaving commie gang AA vs commie gang ZZ —
with a few lost persons in the SF commieland.
Santa Clara’s Measure A to divide the city failed on June 5th.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/05/santa-clara-voters-approve-measure-a-switch-to-district-elections/
The one party system in SF might need to be replaced with pure proportional representation (PPR) so the threshold would be lowered from 50% (plus one vote) in eleven single winner districts to 8.4% (plus one vote) at-large city-wide.
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/marking-your-ballot
LIMIT 3 CHOICES.
COMPARE WITH MAINE RCV BALLOT.
James Ogle, the Santa Clara proposal was for proportional representation. It is tragic that it lost.
When David Campos was elected supervisor in 2008, he only got 43% of the vote. There were tons of voters who skipped the race, many overvoted or whose ballots were deemed too tired be run through vote counting machines again. And Campos was running as a Obama supported with his name printed on Democratic campaign literature. Had San Francisco still used a conventional runoff, voters would have been able to choose between Mark Sanchez and Campos in the runoff. San Francisco should go back to odd-year elections like they had used before the stealth recall. They should also switch to two-year terms for all supervisors. With 11 districts, there is little risk of a total turnover of the entire board. San Francisco could also expand the board of supervisors. Based on the cube root rule, this would be 95 supervisors who would likely reflect their neighborhood, and take big money out of the elections.
If someone had first started voting in 1964 (“In your heart you know he’s right”) it would not have been until 2010 that they would have to take off their shoes in order to count all the independent candidates for Congress (over 1000 opportunities, and there were independents in about 1% of them). It is either disingenuous or naive to believe that Eric Swawell or Ro Khanna would have been elected as independents under the old system (p.s. where is Fortney Stark registered to vote now?).
Quentin Kopp’s campaign manager in the 1979 mayoral election has said that Dianne Feinstein found her voice in the runoff, and would not have gone on to be elected senator otherwise. Under IRV, she might have campaigned as the lady who happened to be head of the board of supervisors. Kopp was elected to the state senate after losing the mayoral race, and there was no Republican candidate. He might well have won under Top 2. Lucy Killea was elected as a Democrat, and had to get the law changed to even be permitted to run for re-election as an independent. She expressed interest in the Nebraska Top 2 system.
Audie Bock’s election in the special election was a fluke.
I’ve studied the top-two system in depth. I filed the initiative (#17-0020) to repeal the top-two in 2017. While it faild the minimum signature requirement for it to be placed on the 2018 general election ballot, there were several reasons why it did not catch on, the primary one being the gas tax repeal. The top-two repeal could not compete. It’s philosophical whereas the gas tax is sexy, that is, you don’t have to pay the tax or you get money back.
Essentially, the top-two system is manufactured government as opposed to a system wherein the top vote-getter in each Party moves on to the general election which provides representative primaries, consistent with our Constitution.
The entire premise used to support the top-two is false, but was widely promoted by the media. The premise was that more moderate or centrist candidates would be involved in the primary from which to choose. To the contrary, more liberal incumbents retained their seats and more liberal candidates won the plurality of their races.
But, the tied is changing despite the media’s reluctance to inform the public. Individuals with clout are doing a 180 on the top-two. Organizations are following suite. And, 4 of 6 Parties favored the repeal, including the Democratic Party. Following an interview I gave to the Sacramento Bee last fall, the reporter made the usual call-arounds. When told Palzer said this and Palzer said that, Eric Bauman, Chairman of the Democratic Party was called. Bauman clearly stated that he favored the repeal. He cited his Party’s control of tha Assembly and Senate, that the Party could have arranged for a repeal through either bodies, but, as he said, “We didn’t do it.” He added, “We could have filed an initiative like the Republican, and we didn’t do that either.”
Asked why he now favors the repeal, he added that the Party supports every candidate financially. Since most of the races are Dem vs. Dem, he indicated that the Party has paic more than $90M in the past and it simply doesn’t want to continue down that path.
When the Republican Party didn’t pass an endorsement resolution in support of the repeal, it splintered the Party. A single, questionable Republican, Charles T. Munger, Jr., son of Warren Buffet’s business partner, gathered up enough proxies at the Fall Convention of the CAGOP to keep proponent of the repeal from getting the 2/3rds vote needed to endorse.
Details of the initiative to repeal the top-two system can be found at: http://www.stoptop2.com
@Rom Palzer,
What constitution are you referring to as “our constitution”?
What does “consistent with the constitution mean”?
You seem to imply that Top 2 is inconsistent with the constitution, whatever that means.
TP —
NO primaries.
General election ballot access via equal nominating petitions or filing fees.
PR legis (would give Elephants in CA a chance to join with non-communist Donkeys for saner laws) and nonpartisan AppV (exec/judic).
Longer term — divide all larger States.
Approval voting would be simple. Each candidate would get a fraction of your vote if you approved them. Approve 1= 1 vote, 2= 0.5 votes, and so on. Cant harm voters for voting for a third party and major party for example.
Approval Voting is pending Condorcet.
Also — TOTAL separation of Powers —
esp top Exec officers having ZERO legis/judic powers —
USA Prezs, State Guvs, Hizzoner local mayors, etc.