On the evening of Sunday, October 13, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 212. It would have allowed non-charter cities and counties to use ranked choice voting for elections for their own officers. Here is his veto message.
On the evening of Sunday, October 13, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 212. It would have allowed non-charter cities and counties to use ranked choice voting for elections for their own officers. Here is his veto message.
Shame that supposedly “Democratic” governor in the most Democratic voted state for now, has to veto a bill with a Regressive Republican talking point!
Newsom is probably worried that RCV elections in CA would result in the Democrats increasingly being challenged by third parties like the Greens, who are fairly active and ascendant in places like the Los Angeles metropolitan area. I hope CA’s third parties hit him hard on this undemocratic veto.
Condorcet [since 1780s – 1780s] = RCV done right.
LOTS of math UN-aware folks regarding 3 or more choices —
akin to plurality math with ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders having single member districts.
@JH,
Municipal elections in California are non-partisan.
When Gavin Newsom was elected mayor of San Francisco in 2003, Matt Gonzalez came quite close to defeating him in a conventional runoff. It is unlikely that it would have been close at all as votes are frittered away in an IRV election.
What is a non-charter city and county?
Plain fear. He is nothing but a 1960s R and he walks the conservative D’s walk, just like the Speaker of the House.
The myth of “voter confusion” leads ultimately to one-party-ism. Obviously, in the minds of Democrats, people who voted for Trump must have been “confused” The “cure” must be a one party state, like Communist China, that makes sure only “vetted” and pre-approved candidates are placed before the voters.
WALTER- That’s genius! It’s called Top One. Most efficient electoral system in the world.
@Andy,
A city charter is like a constitution for a city. The charter will typically spell out how the city is governed, and how its officers are elected. A city without a charter is typically called a general-law city. They are restricted to the forms of government and methods of election specified in state statute.
The statutes may provide for options such as the size of city councils, whether there is directly elected mayor, and whether there is a city manager. In California elections are by plurality.
WZ and CO —
what about ye olde NOOOOO elections systems –
just hereditary/appointed tyrant killers in control — gangsters succession scheme.
— generally survived in Europe to 1918 and in east Asia to 1945.
Now coming BAAAACK ??? — Trump-Putin-Xi etc.
—
JR —
local charters – more UN-needed stuff
GENERAL LAWS – for all local govts.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
@WZ,
In the last SF mayoral election, Jane Kim was the last candidate eliminated.
Her votes transferred to
Mark Leno 44724
London Breed 13210
Nobody (exhausted) 8054
Overvote 55
Were 8109 voters indifferent about who would become mayor, or confused?
Had they voted in the same proportion as those who did express a preference between Leno and Breed, Leno would be mayor.
I did not know that there were any cities or countiens in California that operated without a charter.
@JR
Who can say whether or not they were confused? And, if they were confused, who is empowered to “correct” their confusion, and how?
JR wrote –
Were 8109 voters indifferent about who would become mayor, or confused?
—
8109 were obviously EXHAUSTED — got tired/bored of doing added number rankings.
Exec/Judic >>> NONPARTISAN — with NO legislative powers.
END the MONARCH fixations.
—
What do top execs actually do that is worth much of anything for the survival of Western Civilization ???
IE – local govt trash collectors or animal catchers are much more important.
@Andy,
About 75% of California cities are general law cities.
Most larger cities are charter cities. Fremont is the only general law city with more than 200,000 persons (1 of 18 such cities). About half of cities (23 of 48) between 100,000 and 200,000 are charter cities. Only 20% (82 of 420) below 100,000 are charter cities.
@WZ,
If a 3-year old says that hamburgers are his favorite food, chicken is second, and umm hamburger is third, it is cute. When a voter does the same thing it demonstrates that he does not understand the question or the purpose of the ranking, and may be confused.
If a voter votes for Bob, we can presume he wants Bob to be mayor. If Bob is not among the Top 2, then the voter can make a second choice in the runoff. He might consider whether Bob made an endorsement, or on the basis of a robust one-on-one debate in the runoff.
Gavin Newsom was mayor when San Francisco adopted IRV3. He was elected in a conventional runoff, and then was re-elected in an IRV3 election, with an overwhelming majority of the vote. He is not unfamiliar with IRV3.
In
Food rankings show up in $$$ economy ??? — esp fast food joints.
Candidates elected — legis – exec – judic — rankings show up in how many folks flock to/away from regimes ???
—
What percent of the pop of each State want to get the Hell O-U-T – IF they could afford to do so ???
Esp CA, NY, MI, etc.
Top One eliminates ALL confusion! Get with THE program, comrades!
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2019/10/15/detroit-sixth-worst-for-rats/3984704002/
City rat rankings — come back for mid 1300s plague ??? YIKES.