The Political Reform Blog

For those of you interested in understanding more about how Instant Runoff Voting can benefit Oakland, where it is poised to be implemented for the 2010 election, and why there is a delay in the implementation, check out these two radio interviews (14 minutes in length total) from KPFA-FM.

KPFA has a new program called OaklandSeen, which focuses on Oakland issues. The host, Aimee Allison, recently interviewed two people about IRV: Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont, Director of a coalition called Oakland Rising, and Oakland city councilmember Rebecca Kaplan.  

According to its website, Oakland Rising is made up of Just Cause Oakland, Urban Habitat, EBASE, ACORN, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the Ella Baker Center. Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont's interview starts at the 25:44 minute mark on the KPFA link.  In her four minute interview she does a great job laying out how IRV could help disenfranchised communities.    

Following the interview with Esperanza is a ten minute segment with Rebecca Kaplan, whose comments on IRV perfectly complement Esperanza's.  Kaplan says that IRV in Oakland is “incredibly important for our democracy and our budget.”  The segment also features sound bites from community activists and members of the League of Women Voters at the rally and press conference held at Oakland City Hall last Friday.

Minnesota's capital city, St. Paul, is the latest American city to adopt Instant Runoff Voting for local elections, according to news reports from Minnesota.  IRV had a big day in the Twin Cities--Minneapolis' first instant runoff election was conducted today and went off without a hitch.

East Bay voters in the cities of Oakland and Berkeley have overwhelmingly approved using Instant Runoff Voting for local elections.  Both cities are slated to use IRV—also known as Ranked Choice Voting—for the first time in 2010.  But heel-dragging on the part of state election officials—and questionable interference by an Oakland mayoral candidate—has local activists wondering what the heck is going on.

Last week, the League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, San Leandro, Castro Valley, Hayward, San Lorenzo and Oakland sent a letter to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen expressing their concern over the delay in implementation of IRV in the East Bay.

In order for Oakland and Berkeley to use IRV, the voting machine hardware and software used by those cities must first be approved by the Secretary of State.  As the League points out in their letter, San Francisco uses the same exact system to conduct their local IRV elections.  The League then poses this question to Secretary Bowen:  “Please explain to us why Alameda County is not being allowed to “piggy-back” on the approval that has been granted to San Francisco, to use the identical election systems.  We have heard no adequate explanation for this, and our cities are running out of time in order to call, or not to call, elections for 2010.”

On October 11, 2009, a bill to uniformly set California’s voter registration age at 17 was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This legislation does not change the voting age; it simply changes the age at which one may register to vote.  Prior to the adoption of AB 30, California’s voter registration law was inconsistent and confusing:  some 17 year olds could in fact register to vote (those who would turn 18 before the next election) while the rest could not.  

Student leaders called on Governor Schwarzenegger Thursday to sign AB 30, a bill passed by both houses of the California Legislature that would lower the voter registration age to 17.  The students, from the California Association of Student Councils, held a press conference and afterwards met with Jacque Roberts, the Governor's Assistant Legislative Secretary, whom they presented with a petition signed by many other students requesting the passage of AB 30.

The Governor was unavailable for the meeting as he was attending the New America Foundation-sponsored conference in Los Angeles on climate change.

California has no shortage of problems.  One problem in particular that does not bode well for the future is this:  young voters, tomorrow's leaders, are staying away from the polls in droves.  Almost half of California's eligible voters in the critical 18-24 age bracket are not registered to vote.

There is no magic wand that will solve this problem overnight.  But there are steps we can take toward the ultimate goal of encouraging and ensuring participation in the heart of the democratic process.

One potential solution is now sitting on the desk of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The California Legislature recently approved AB 30, a bill that would lower the voter registration age to 17.  Lowering the registration age, not the voting age, would allow students to get involved in the democratic process at an earlier point in their lives and a critical stage in their development.  It would also allow high schools to become more actively engaged in the real world process of civic education.

"Good Government" groups appear to be unanimous in their support of this concept.  Some members of the public, though, have misunderstood this proposal and equate it with lowering the voting age.  One person contacted New America with this comment:

Yesterday, hundreds of newspapers around the world announced that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will award its coveted Oscar for Best Picture by using a voting method commonly known as Instant Runoff Voting.  This is probably the most attention that news outlets have paid to voting methodology since the topsy-turvy 2000 presidential election.

"Instead of just marking an ‘X' to indicate which one picture they believe to be the best, members will indicate their second, third and further preferences as well," Academy President Tom Sherak said. "PricewaterhouseCoopers will then be able to establish the Best Picture recipient with the strongest support of a majority of our electorate."

With ten nominees vying for Best Picture, the Academy wisely decided to avoid vote-splitting and chose a voting method that would pick a flick with majority support.  The Academy's executive director, Bruce Davis, said they were concerned about "certain mathematical dangers" of a winner emerging with scant support from a crowded field.  This is a concern that many political scientists share about the "top two" primary (often mistakenly referred to as an "open primary"), which will make its way to the ballot in California as a result of the state's dysfunctional legislative process.

Yesterday, Long Beach's Budget Oversight Committee took the first step to recommend Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to the full city council.

Please attend and testify at the next committee meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 8th, at 3:30 pm (City Hall Chambers, 333 W Ocean Blvd, Long Beach 90802).

The Press-Telegram just published an article about yesterday's meeting:

Instant runoff voting

City Clerk Larry Herrera outlined for the committee several ways that his department plans to cut election expenses - saving $160,000 by having fewer polling places, reducing the size of sample ballots and having vote-by-mail voters pay for their own stamps.

However, the biggest systemic change to save money would come from the use of instant runoff voting, which Herrera said would save $3.72 million over an eight-year election cycle.

In instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates starting with their first choice to win. If no candidate gets the majority of the votes, then the candidate who received the fewest number of first-choice votes is eliminated, and voters who chose that person have their second-choice votes count toward the other candidates.

The process continues until one of the candidates has a majority of the votes to win the election.

In a welcome development, Long Beach City Hall has scheduled a committee hearing to discuss the merits of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

The Council's Budget Oversight Committee will discuss IRV during its next meeting, which will be held on Aug. 31, 5 pm, in City Hall Chambers (333 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach CA 90802).

If you can attend the hearing, please let us know at 213.480.0994 or dutta AT newamerica.net.

The agenda for the Aug. 31 hearing can be accessed here (IRV is Item # 8).

By eliminating separate runoff elections, IRV will not only relieve voter fatigue, but will save up to $1.2 million in taxpayer dollars per election (source: Long Beach City Clerk).  Already, Councilmembers Suja Lowenthal, Gary DeLong, Robert Garcia and Val Lerch have joined the Los Angeles League in supporting IRV.



Currently, Long Beach holds costly, two-round elections that fatigue voters and waste millions of dollars.  In April 2008, only 12 percent of registered voters participated in the municipal election, which cost Long Beach taxpayers nearly $700,000 -- a whopping $60 per voter.



August 26, 2009
For Immediate Release

Contact:
Randy Gordon
President/CEO
(562) 843-0945

The Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce announces its support of the proposed Instant Runoff Voting proposal to be considered by the Long Beach City Council.

Instant Runoff Voting elects officeholders with a majority of the vote in a single election thereby eliminating the need for a second-round runoff election or primary election. Voters rank the candidates in order of their
preference -- first choice, second choice, third choice -- and if their first choice cannot win, their vote goes to their second choice candidate as their "runoff" choice. Voters are liberated to vote for the candidates they
really like, instead of worrying about "spoilers" or having to choose the "lesser of two evils."

"In 2006, Long Beach taxpayers paid a total of $2.5 million for an April primary election and a June runoff election," stated Randy Gordon, President and CEO of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. "If IRV had been used then, over $1.3 million of precious tax dollars would have been saved," continued Gordon.