Yes, it's complex. Yes, it's different. Yes, it employs a term that in another context is getting a lot of flak these days. All the same, the "preference voting" system set forth in Proposition H has so many positives that we strongly urge voters on November 5 to choose this way to elect the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

We hold greater faith in the intelligence of the electorate than do pessimists like Chamber of Commerce CEO G. Rhea Serpan ("difficult to understand") and Board of Education candidate Adam Sparks ("we'll have to bring in Harvard mathematicians"). In any event, voters don't need doctoral degrees in political science to see what's wrong with the current at-large system or the alternatives offered on the same November 5 ballot by Proposition G: a return to district elections.

By its nature, the at-large system calls for so much campaign money that incumbents, including mayoral appointees, must devote far too much time and energy to maintain their overwhelming financial edge in spending for advertising, consultants, press agents, poll takers, campaign managers and endorsements.

Mabel Teng, a political veteran, is the only supervisorial candidate from a minority group to win election without having first been appointed to fill a vacancy. Other minorities, such as Republicans or residents west of Twin Peask, don't stand much of a chance either.

It's a mistake to blame the system of district elections (1976 to 1980) for the murders in 1978 of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. The moralistic Dan White, supervisor from District 9, said they had double-crossed him.

The reform (Prop. T) brought to power political novices from neighborhoods seldom represented in City Hall. Unfortunately, some of the newcomers quickly turned into insiders with a penchant for vote trading, ambition for higher office, us-against- them feuding and other normal political behavior previously blamed on at-large elections.

In preference voting, if there are four vacancies on the board, you rank your favorite candidates as first, second, third and fourth. The rest is up to the computer. Read the details in the Voter Information Pamphlet. It makes sense, and it doesn't require a mathematician from Harvard.

Supporters claim that preference voting will "root out special interests" (CalPIRG), "stimulate voting (MALDEF), "make choices without worry of 'wasting' votes (Elections Task Force), be a "national model of innovation" (Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club), "lower the threshold of victory" (Lani Guinier) and "result in positive campaigns based on principles and issues rather than cash or personalitics" (John Anderson, independent presidential candidate in 1980).

We prefer preference. Vote yes on H.

Back to Main Page