There are two charter amendments on the ballot for November 1996 proposing a change in how we elect the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, to either district elections or preference voting (proportional representation).
THE PROBLEM
1. Too much money needed to win. The current system is a "winner take all" at-large voting system. A candidate needs a lot of votes to win -- a minimum of 90,000 votes in the 1994 supervisor elections. It is very expensive to run city-wide elections to wi n so many votes. The current system often pre-selects who can and cannot run for Supervisor.
2. Minority voters -- racial or political -- have a hard time electing their candidates. In 1994, Mabel Teng became the first candidate of color to be elected to the Board of Supervisors under the current system without needing to be appointed by the mayor first.
3. Gay/lesbian representation under the current system has been inconsistent. In 1992, gay candidates didn't win any seats. In 1994 3 out of 5 gay candidates won but two of these were incumbents, one of whom had been previously appointed. In fifteen years, only three gay candidates have won without being appointed by the mayor first.
4. Other groups in San Francisco who have not fared well under the current system include labor, renters, conservatives, neighborhood activists, third parties, small business owners and independent voters.
5. The current system used in San Francisco is the least representative voting system in use today. It has been the subject of numerous Voting Rights lawsuits in the South, because it systematically excludes minorities groups.
WILL DISTRICT ELECTIONS HELP?
Populations have shifted a lot since the late 1970s, when San Francisco last used district elections. The City's great diversity, including four major racial groups, gays & lesbians, conservatives, progressives, liberals, moderates and over 35 neighborhoo ds, is geographically dispersed, making it very difficult to draw any set of district lines that gives adequate representation to them all.
Consider the following:
1. Communities of color may not be helped by district elections. The City's African-American population is spread out in Bayview/Hunter's Point, Western Addition, and Ingleside, with smaller, yet significant concentrations scattered through other neighborhoods. The best district that could be drawn for African Americans only gives 39% in Bayview/ Hunter's Point, which is not enough to elect an African American candidate. These demographics prompted Supervisor Amos Brown to say, as he voted against placing district elections on the ballot (and for preference voting), "It's not possible to draw a district for we African-Americans in San Francisco. We're too spread out."
2. Latinos have a sizable population density in the Mission District, but actually have a greater number of registered voters in the south western portion of the city. are also scattered throughout four different parts of the city, making it difficult to draw districts for their representation.
3. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings. In the past two years the High Court has thrown out districts drawn for racial representation. So not only are such districts difficult to draw in San Francisco, but they also could be struck down by the courts. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) in San Francisco has commented: "The U.S. Supreme Court has recently increased the legal vulnerability of district voting... indeed, the proposed 11 district plan would offer San Francisco risk without benefit, as it does not appear to significantly increase minority access to the electoral system."
4. Gay vote diminished. The Gay vote has been mostly confined into one district centered in the Castro, limiting queer voting power and representation.
5. Districts are too large. The size of each district will about 68,000 residents -- about the size of Chicago's city council districts. That's too large, and not surprisingly Chicago's politics are hardly a model of neighborhood or grassroots representation. Rather, Chicago is dominated by Tammany Hall machine-type politics. Plus, Chicago has spent over $6 million defending their districts from lawsuits. Districts are subject to redistricting every ten years, creating a ticking bomb that will go off ev ery decade as different groups bicker for their share of turf.
THE SOLUTION IS PREFERENCE VOTING
Preference Voting is a form of proportional representation. Proportional representation voting systems are the most widely used in the world today among established democracies. Preference voting allows blocs of like-minded voters to win representation in proportion to their voting strength. It combines the best elements of districts and city-wide elections. Preference Voting has three unique features:
* Like district elections, preference voting reduces the number of votes needed to win a seat. Candidates can win with votes from one section of the City or several neighborhoods. However candidates may also win votes from communities spread throughout the City. It has all the advantages of a district system without having the headache of drawing the lines.
* In the 1994 supervisor elections, a winning candidate needed 90,000 votes. This preference voting plan reduces that to about 30,000 votes. This opens up the races to candidates representing racial, sexual or political minorities without having to manipu late district lines. Preference voting would elect a diverse Board, allowing minority representation but majority rule.
Jane Dollars
#4
Jose Wanna
#2
Tom Terrific
#1
Terry Trouble
#6
Sylvia Notbad
#5
Jesse Justice
#3
* it allows voters to rank candidates in their order of preference, 1,2,3,4...
* It has a transferable ballot, so that if a voter's first choice doesn't win, their vote transfers to their second choice, third choice, and so on. This keeps communities from splitting their vote among rival candidates, or having to settle for the "les ser of two evils."
Other benefits of preference voting:
1. Coalition building. The transferable ballot is conducive to coalition building, since allied organizations can rank each other's candidates on their slates.
2. Neighborhood representation. A candidate can win her/his 30,000 votes in one section of the city if they want (just like district elections) or from different parts of the city for those constituencies which are spread out. In Cambridge, MA, where pre ference voting is used to elect the city council and school boards, 6 out of 9 of the Council winners are usually strongly based in specific neighborhoods. That's because with preference voting, the voters district themselves.
3. Reduced influence of Big Money. Because it reduces the number of votes needed to win, Preference Voting also tends to reduce the amount of money a candidate needs to spend to win the reduced number of votes. Candidates can target their campaign to specific constituencies or neighborhoods.
4. Easy as 1, 2, 3, 4... The role of the voter is very simple-just rank your favorite candidates. That's it. Preference voting is currently used by over 30 million people in other American cities and other nations. It is used in Cambridge, MA to elect the city council and school boards; in New York City to elect community school boards; in Ireland and Australia; to elect UC Berkeley's student Senate; and to elect the five finalists in major categories of the Academy Awards.
Preference voting will reduce the costs of running a campaign; increase accountability of supervisors; increase the diversity of the Board; and increase the likelihood that grass roots candidates can win a seat.
Prop H is endorsed by: Jesse Jackson, Lani Guinier, Dolores Huerta, John Anderson, Democratic Party, SEIU, UFW, MALDEF, Harvey Milk Club, Tenants Union, Board of Supervisors, many Democratic Clubs, (partial list)
RESOURCE LIST:
Real Choices, New Voices, by Professor Doug Amy, Columbia University Press, 1993
Tyranny of the Majority by Lani Guinier, 1994
Electoral Systems and Party Systems by Professor Arend Lijphart, Oxford University Press, 1994
United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, editors Dr. Wilma Rule and Dr. Joseph Zimmerman, Praeger Publishers, 1992
Preference Voting in San Francisco means "State of the Art" Democracy
San Franciscans for Preference Voting
Back to Main Page