City Hall Diary
Recently, I attended the San Jose Elections Commission where Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) was on the agenda. (By the way, there are two unfilled seats waiting for SJ residents on this commission.) IRV was discussed, but the commission deferred the item for one year. The main reason for deferral was that to implement IRV would require a vote of the people to change the city charter. This in itself was not a worry; however, the cost for the city to put it on the ballot was viewed as bad timing, considering our current budget deficit.
In the long term I believe IRV would save money by eliminating the runoff election for council members and the mayor. For example, when I was elected in a runoff election, the cost billed to the city from the Registrar of Voters was $511,196. Ouch! Locally, IRV is done in San Francisco where there is only one election in November, which ends up having a higher voter turnout.
Some of the other benefits of IRV are it encourages positive campaigning and more coalition building, candidates only raise money once, and voters can rank their choice of candidates.
Currently in San Jose a candidate must have 50 percent plus one vote to win an election. When it gets down to two people for the runoff, it tends to be a negative campaign, which in our city often pits the Labor Council against the Chamber of Commerce. Candidates try to raise all the money they can, and special interest groups throw in their weight with independent expenditures. With all this raising of money by the candidate and independent expenditures comes “some” loss of independence for elected officials. Inevitably, there is an awareness of who helped get you elected. This is one reason I never started an “office holder” account which would have allowed me to solicit donations year round. I think that candidates should run once, not twice. One election is much better for the sanity of the candidates and their families.
Also, your vote counts more then ever, since you rank your choices. So now the voter may decide to vote for the candidate they really like versus who they think can actually win; or when torn between two candidates, your second choice may actually fare better.
For a brief description of Instant Runoff Voting I turn to Wikipedia:
IRV is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters each have one vote, but rank candidates in order of choice. In an IRV election, if no candidate receives an overall majority of first choices, the candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one by one, and ballots cast for those candidates are recounted for the next choice candidate until the winner achieves a majority among remaining candidates. The term “instant runoff voting” is used because this process resembles a series of runoff elections.
So, would you prefer this IRV process or what we have today?
What are the pros and cons of each as YOU see it?
Would it have changed the outcome in the mayor’s race?
Would it make a difference in the upcoming elections in Districts 2 and 8?
Why is the San Jose Inside web-site inaccessible nights, and weekends? Is it supposed to be symbolic, or be a metaphor for San Jose being dead at nights, and weekends?
I don’t think there is much question that IRV is a fairer system. Ranking your choices is more power than just naming the top one.
It’s even more important for races that don’t have standard runoff voting- like congress or state assembly.
The real question is who is willing to push for it. It won’t come from the public- most voters don’t think political game theory is all that fun. After all, it’s noon and no one else has written a word.
#1
I am mystified by your post. We monitor the site 24/7 and have not been experiencing any problems. Can you email me directly and tell me exactly what difficulties you are having nights and weekends.
#2 Greg
I agree completely. We should adopt IRV across the board for all elections in the US. It is a fairer and more democratic method of election and produces a result that more voters are happy with. I lived in Ireland for many years where this is the method used to elect members of the Dail (Irish parliament) and the European parliament, as well as in local elections. It works very well and means that more parties are able to successfully field candidates, giving citizens something close to proportional representation, which we absolutely do not have here in the US, but should. IRV gives the Dem and Repub parties the creeps, I am sure. They will fight it tooth and nail. Money is far more important than “democracy” to those in power. IRV would mean an effective end to the artificial “two-party” system we now have resulting in better government for all in my view.
Jack, It sounds like you see merit, value and solutions in that political no-man’s-land we sometimes refer to a the “center”. IRV would help voters and candidates focus on fact-based solution oriented dialogs about strengthening our city and improving QOL.
Once again P.O., great topic; spot on, keep up the great work.
#4 David
The great merit in the IRV system is that it lets numerous parties and individuals into the process, giving voice to more than just conventional, party-hack views. With several parties in the mix, the results regularly require governments to build a consensus because often there is no absolute majority party, and, if there is, the majority can be razor thin. One of the “extreme” examples of this is Italy where they have umpteen parties and have had dozens of governments since WWII. Some may see it as a structural weakness, but, in fact, Italy (where they have a form of IRV) manages to function as a modern society and everything seems to get done despite the frequent elections and changes of government. Italy is often governed by a coalition of two or more parties, and some of the coalition partners are quite small, giving representation to groups with views that are not often heard. The same goes for many other European countries.
If the US had had IRV in the 2000 election, the result would have been quite different. It is easy to surmise that the vast majority of Nader’s votes would have been redistributed to Gore as the second preference candidate and Gore would have won the election handily without it being decided by the Supreme Court (Karl Rove’s dirty tricks notwithstanding). By the same token, Clinton might very well have lost the 1992 election with the majority of Perot’s votes being redistributed to Bush I. But an even more important difference would have come in Congress in those elections, probably resulting in Independent Party and Green Party candidates, as well as a few “rogue” elements from the two major parties, winning a few seats in the House.
With this in mind, you can see how the Dems and Repubs will surely fight IRV like they do redistricting.
As for the last mayoral election in San Jose, the beauty of it is, we would have had it over with in one night. However, looking at the candidates and how they fared, the result would probably have been the same. Reed started out on top, and I don’t see any significant vote from the bottom three going to Chavez, so it looks like a Reed victory anyway to me. But, who knows?
Democracy is a messy business, and there are no shortcuts, nor should there be. Reformers are always looking at ways to take politics out of democracy. It just can’t be done.
Our founding fathers expected monumental battles between candidates as a way for citizens to gauge the candidate qualifications and character.
IRV looks to reduce the cost of elections at the expense of the citizens getting to know the candidates. IRV gave San Francisco Supervisor Ed Jew, who under a normal run-off election, with both candidates examined by the press, electorate and EACH OTHER, someone may have discovered Mr. Jew did not even live in San Francisco! Didn’t he also take $40,000 from an undercover FBI officer? This is what IRV will get you.
The traditional run-off election is the process of vetting the candidates, and is an integral part of a democratic government. It gives us citizens the real chance to see what the candidate is made of and if they are worthy of the office. After all, we will be stuck with them for a long time. Then there are the constitutionality questions of “one person, one vote” which is still being played out across the nation. It would be up to someone to challenge it here in San Jose if enacted.
IRV is not the panacea it is made out to be, and eliminates the one-on-one confrontations we need to make sound decisions. The voters are informed. Though people and candidates say they don’t want to go through tough examinations (dirty campaigns?), and make nice through the election, a feisty election does serve a purpose – more so on a local level.
As Hillary Clinton said yesterday to Obama yesterday “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen”
#8
The problem is IRV by no means will not make the electorate any more involved or informed. Citizens that are ignorant and apathetic will still be ignorant and apathetic. Unless these citizens decide to run in an IRV election, then they will be ignorant and a candidate, and possibly become an office holder.
We have the ability to choose our candidates by whom the associate with, and the recent disclosure laws, both for the candidates and the IE’s have helped tremendously.
The influence labor and business lobbies have on local officials is overrated. These people were wired this way before they got the support of each group. This is the dirty secret that lobbyist don’t want their clients to know. They make decisions based upon their core principles, and though you may not agree, or feel they don’t have the public interest at heart, for the most part it wasn’t because of the money pumped into their campaign, or a visit from a lobbyist, but it was because the walked a protest with their father when they were younger, or recall working in the fields, or feel bringing in business provide opportunities to help those better themselves (if they are not apathetic). Though a case can be made that they got to the run-off with support (=money=visibility) from these interests.
But times are a changing, look at the special election Pierluigi spoke about that cost over $500,000 that we could have avoided if Mr. Yeager would have served out his term rather than try for another job. In this election, special interest did not play a big part, though many tried to inject themselves once they found they were intentionally left out. The D6 campaign is truly a good campaign to study from start to finish for anyone interested in a future in politics, be it a candidate or an worker.
Many appreciate Pierliugi’s refreshing independence and it should set the standard for future elections.
IRV does nothing to inform the apathetic public who is best to represent their interests.
#3
For whatever reason, right around the time this website was undergoing rework, I started getting “Site unavailable” messages at home, but during the day at work it was okay. My thought was additional work was ongoing at night and on the weekend. However, after last weekend I felt that it was long enough, hence my post this morning.
After reading your answer I started troubleshooting after I came home tonight, and it turns out the problem was my piece-of-crap Cisco (Linksys) router. For whatever reasn, the router would not connect to this site. After power cycling it, I was able to connect.
Sorry for the confusion.
In principle I agree with #6- Campaign Strategist. I think that his arguments make sense IF the electorate is truly involved and informed. Unfortunately, that is not the case here in San Jose. Voter ignorance and apathy have created a vacuum of influence that corporations, unions, and any number of other special interests are only too happy to fill.
IRVs are a good idea because they create a higher probability of giving us a winner who isn’t bought and paid for the minute they take office. The long campaign between only two candidates creates too much of an opportunity for special interests to insinuate their influence over both potential office holders.
When there are more candidates, the lobbyists have less assurance that their money will wind up in the pocket of the eventual winner so there’s more chance that the winner will have the public interest at heart and not the special interest.
As one of the candidates who ran in the District 6 special election in 2006, I believe that I may have a special perspective on this issue. If you recall, I narrowly missed the run-off election by just 49 votes out of more than 22,000 cast.
For many of the reasons shared by Pierluigi, I have long supported instant run-off voting in city-wide and district elections. I have no idea if instant run-off voting would have helped or hurt my candidacy but that really shouldn’t be the issue.
Elections should not be organized in order to manipulate or favor the self-interests of the candidates. Rather, I believe that healthy elections should encourage greater collaboration between competing constituencies that will allow for true problem-solving.
Also, with instant run-off voting, I believe that some voters could become more inspired to educate themselves on the complex issues that most impact their lives.
Instant run-off voting is one of several progressive election reforms that are long overdue in our city and I hope that this conversation provides our elected city leaders some encouragement to find ways to improve our system of elections.
Councilman,
I do enjoy your postings and refreshing viewpoints however you are an anomaly. Your citizen politician approach is good however it will not take you far in this field. Unless you learn to play politics, do favors and get into the money game you will only ever be just a councilman.
#3 and #5 Jack
It’s important to make a distinction between IRV, which is a single-winner system, and Choice Voting, the multi-winner cousin of IRV. Choice Voting is a ranked system similar to IRV, but because it is used to fill multiple seats at a time, it results in proportional representation (PR). Choice Voting is the system used to elect the Irish parliament and some members of the European parliament (other members are elected using the Party List form of PR), as well as the Australian Senate.
IRV, on the other hand, as a single-winner system, can only achieve proportional results by accident. It is used to elect the President of Ireland, and (in single-member districts) the Australian House of Representatives.
As for Democratic and Republican opposition to IRV, don’t be so sure! The California Democratic Party has support for IRV in its platform; see the last bullet point in http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.1193757/k.A452/Political_Reform.htm
And IRV was well-received when I described it to attendees of the California Republican Party convention in San Francisco last February. Howard Dean, Barack Obama, and John McCain all support IRV.
I like what Steve Chessin just said. However, if we had to choose between the simpler IRV
or Choice Voting, I would choose IRV because of its simplicity. It would take time for the Registrar of Voters to convert and for the public to get used to it. And that is the simpler model. San Francisco had difficulty converting but it now seems to go smoothly. I commend Pierluigi for bringing the issue to us and we need to remind him to bring it up later on.