"With Mayor Kevin Johnson’s 'strong mayor' proposal headed for the ballot and a Charter Review Committee examining potential changes to city government, now is the perfect time to consider whether Sacramento’s method of electing local officials serves the best interests of its citizens."

So begins my op-ed running in today's Sacramento Bee.  You can read the rest of the piece here where I propose Instant Runoff Voting as a way to generate interest and new ideas for Sacramento city government.  Sacramento's city council races are pretty low-key affairs with little voter participation in what are largely uncontested or landslide elections.  By changing the dynamics of elections and making campaigns easier and cheaper to run, IRV could encourage more local citizens to step up to the plate and run for office; leading to innovation, increased voter turnout and a greater diversity of elected officials.

This November, only two states will be electing new governors: New Jersey and Virginia. Political commentators frequently view these two off year races as harbingers of political winds to come, so we at Early Ed Watch are keeping a close eye to see what implications these races may have for early education.

There is a lot at stake for early education in New Jersey: As Early Ed Watch has discussed, New Jersey has made significant investments in preschool and PreK-3rd as a strategy to narrow achievement gaps between students from high-income and low-income families, and the state is seeing some successful results in several school districts.

Since Jon Corzine was elected Governor in 2005, he has made pre-K a pillar in his education policy . Last year's School Funding Reform Act, included plans to phase in state-funded full day preschool for all low-income 3- and 4- year olds in the state over the next eight years, and to expand universal pre-K from 31 Abbott districts to an additional 84 districts statewide, with the goal of providing preschool for an additional 30,000 children by the 2013 school year.

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.

Larry Kosmont, President and CEO of Kosmont Companies, has endorsed Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

Mr. Kosmont has assisted hundreds of local government agencies in land development policy decisions ranging from large-scale economic development to site-specific real estate strategies and projects. He has guided over 1,000 private sector projects in obtaining public approvals, structuring deal terms, and securing public/private financing.

"We are pleased to have the support of a top civic leader like Mr. Kosmont," said Gautam Dutta of New America Foundation. "We salute his years of service to the community," he added.

Mr. Kosmont has also served as a State Commissioner on the California Economic Development Commission, and until December 2007, as a Los Angeles City Commissioner on the Industrial Development Authority.

On September 29, we invite you to join Long Beach Councilmember Suja Lowenthal for a Town Hall discussion about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which might soon be placed on the Apr. 2010 Long Beach ballot.

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.

Currently, IRV is being studied by Los Angeles County and the cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Pasadena.  IRV has already been adopted by San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, Memphis, Burlington VT, and Santa Fe.  At a time of fiscal and economic crisis, IRV saves San Francisco taxpayers about $3 million every year.

In a nutshell, IRV allows voters to rank their top 3 choices (1-2-3). This way, if your top choice cannot win, there's no need to vote again. Instead, your vote will automatically go to your second choice.

Political Reform Deputy Director Gautam Dutta and CA Assemblymember Ted W. Lieu wrote an article for the Daily Breeze about how Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) would reduce election costs:

California faces a crater-size, $24 billion deficit - and we're about to throw away millions more on three elections we don't need. But here's the good news: If we adopt Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV, for special elections, we can save that amount and more.

With IRV, taxpayers could save nearly $2 million July 14 (fittingly, Bastille Day).

The full article can be found here.

Here is some brand new analysis from Washington state results that might shed light on the efficacy of the top two primary, which many are promoting as a good thing for CA. It is especially directed at whether the top two would elect more moderates -- or more extremists? This evidence below suggests it's a bit of a crapshoot, the top two primary could as easily elect more extremists as elect more moderates. 

In taking a look at official WA state election results at http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx? for last year's primary, you can see there are basically four categories of results for the 98 house races and 25 senate races.

In the first category, which has by far the vast majority of races, one candidate (usually an incumbent) is either uncontested or is so far in the lead with anywhere from 53 percent to over 70 percent of the vote and a huge enough lead that it's obvious they will win in the general (November) election as well. That includes 24 races uncontested in the primary, and 3 with only token write-in opposition. The practical impact in those races is no different from what we have now in CA, as I outlined recently in my Los Angeles Times oped.

A quick note on Lieberman’s political vulnerability, and how he might have played his hand differently from 2004 on.

Just as Democratic AG Joe Lieberman brought down an idiosyncratic incumbent, Lowell Weicker, in 1988, it looks as though Democratic AG Richard Blumenthal could easily bring down the idiosyncratic Lieberman in 2012...