The SF voter guide has been posted online as a PDF.  It contains the
official arguments for and against Prop A, as well as paid arguments
submitted by various people.

The SF Republican Party has organized a campaign against Prop A.  Their
arguments are very manipulative and show a very disturbing disregard for
the truth.  I'm proud to say that the pro-A campaign has done a good job
of respecting the truth, the voters, and the opponents.

There is a lot to read, but I encourage it so you can see what we're up
against.

The SF voter guide is a 4MB PDF file.  I've pasted the text arguments
below for those who don't want to mess with that.

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/election/onlinesf.pdf

The Prop A campaign's responses to the opposition arguments are at:
http://www.improvetherunoff.org/misinformation.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------
In favor:

Proposition A will allow San Francisco to elect candidates
supported by a popular majority without needing expensive, lowturnout
December runoff elections. This will SAVE $2 MILLION TAX DOLLARS PER YEAR,
RAISE VOTER TURNOUT and REDUCE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING.
Last December's runoff had a voter turnout of only FIFTEEN
PERCENT -- the lowest in San Francisco's history. December is
an awful time for an election. Voters are busy with holiday plans,
and don't even realize the runoff is happening. Voter turnout
usually declines.
Runoffs are costly to taxpayers. The December runoff for city
attorney cost nearly $2 MILLION, an average of $29 per voter.
This money could be better spent on other city services
threatened with cutbacks in our ailing economy.
Previous runoff elections have seen excessive negative
campaigning and 'hit' pieces. Such mudslinging is common
when the field is reduced to two candidates, and candidates can
win by attacking their lone opponent rather than attracting
voters.
The purpose of the runoff - to ensure majority support for
winners - is a good one, but huge declines in voter turnout, high
costs, and negative campaigning undermine this worthy goal.
Proposition A implements instant runoff voting to fulfill the
goal of electing majority winners without the inconvenience of a
second election.
The 'instant' runoff works much like December's 'delayed'
runoff. Voters indicate their favorite candidate, just like now.
But at the same time they also rank their runoff choices, 1, 2, 3.
This eliminates the need for a separate runoff election.
By doing it in one election, we produce winners who have a
majority of the vote and save millions of tax dollars. And we
avoid the considerable headaches of a second election during the
busy holiday season.
Proposition A will make our elections more EFFICIENT and
LESS EXPENSIVE.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors
How Supervisors Voted to Submit this Argument
The Supervisors voted as follows on December 17, 2001:
Yes: Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Hall, Leno, Maxwell,
McGoldrick
No: Newsom, Peskin, Sandoval, Yee

------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal to In Favor:

We agree with the Proponents on just one point: "December
is an awful time for an election."
Where we differ is that the cure being proposed is far worse
than the disease, and that the less drastic alternatives of changing
the dates for primaries and run-off elections would ensure
higher voter turnout, without the adverse side-effects that would
occur under Instance Run-off Voting. These side-effects were
articulated, in a paid argument by the former members of the
Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections.
Additionally, we do not believe that the Board should be
experimenting with San Franciscans' hard fought right to vote.
Primaries and run-off elections have served our nation well for
most of its history. Preference Voting (IRV) was in vogue in the
1930's and 1940's in some parts of the United States but has been
abandoned almost every place where it has been tried. It is still
used for school board elections in New York City, where the
turnouts typically are about 10-12%. So much for the
Proponents' argument for increasing turnouts.
We urge you to join a broad coalition of community leaders
who have united to oppose Proposition A, including: Dennis
Antenore, Christopher L. Bowman, Ed Canapary, Donald A.
Casper, Doug Comstock, Mike DeNunzio, Larry Griffin,
Kathleen A. Grogan, Susan Horsfall, Tom Hsieh, Jr., Marcel
Kapulica, Charles Marsteller, Jane Morrison, David Spero, and
Jim Stearns.
Vote No on Proposition A.

Supervisor Gavin Newsom
Supervisor Leland Yee, Ph.D.
Julio Ramos, J.D., Member, SF Community College Board

------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition:

Responding to low voter turnout in the December 2000 run-off
election, the majority of the Board of Supervisors placed
Proposition A on the ballot. Unfortunately, Proposition A is not
reform but a return to the days of power brokers and back-room
deals.
Proposition A is brought to you by the same people who
proposed 'Preference Voting' which was resoundingly defeated
by San Francisco voters in 1996. They have relabeled their
flawed product 'Instant Run-off Voting', and have convinced
the Board of Supervisors on its 'merits' by arguing that 'IRV'
will reduce the cost to taxpayers and eliminate negative
campaigning.
What they don't say is that Proposition A will enrich
for-profit slate card organizations, increase the cost of
campaigns, reduce meaningful debate on issues and hide
ideological differences, and effectively disenfranchise language
minorities and people with limited education. Rather than have
the majority rule, Proposition A could actually reduce the actual
number of voters who decide elections to a smaller portion than
currently go to the polls in run-off elections.
So, how do we address low voter turnout in December run-off
elections? There are several alternatives that the Board of
Supervisors should have entertained.
First, move the primary for District Supervisors to March in
even-numbered years, when city voters decide the nominees for
State and Federal offices, and hold the run-off election in the
high-voter turnout General Election in November.
Second, move the primary in odd-numbered years, to the
Tuesday eight days or fifteen days after Labor Day in September,
and hold the run-off election in November.
Third, move the primary in odd-numbered years to the weekend
or second weekend after Labor Day when most people aren=92t
working.
There's better ways to reform the system.
Vote No on Proposition A.

Christopher L. Bowman
Member
Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections, 1993-2001

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal to Opposition:

The Democratic Party, The Green Party, many leading
Independents and over two dozen organizations are backing
Proposition A because it is a "good government" measure that
will capitalize on November elections when voter turn-out is
higher, reduce negative campaigning, save millions of dollars,
and make inconvenient December runoffs unnecessary.
The opposing argument is from a leader in the Republican
Party, one of the few organizations opposing this measure. The
distortions in the Republicans' ballot argument are many.
Proposition A doesn't increase the cost of campaigns, or enrich
slate cards or power brokers; it ELIMINATES the need for
candidates to raise more money for a second election, that's why
leading campaign finance reformers like Common Cause
support it. Prop A doesn't reduce the number of voters deciding
elections; it makes the decisive election in NOVEMBER, when
voter turnout is HIGHEST. That's why citizen groups like
California Public Interest Research Group and Senior Action
Network support it.
Contrary to claims, the Board of Supervisors DID explore
other options, and decided that instant runoff voting (IRV) is
the best, cheapest and most convenient method; and IRV has
NEVER been voted on in San Francisco.
Also, Proposition A will not disenfranchise language
minorities. In fact, the Asian-American Legal Defense and
Education Fund, a prominent voting rights organization, has
written, "Instant runoff voting could be used in San Francisco to
benefit language minority communities in the November
elections."
Visit www.ImproveTheRunoff.org for a demonstration of how
IRV works and for more information.

Matt Gonzalez
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
How Supervisors Voted to Submit this Argument
Supervisor Gonzalez submitted this rebuttal argument on behalf
of the Board of Supervisors. On December 17, 2001, the
Supervisors voted as follows to authorize Supervisor Gonzalez
to prepare and submit the rebuttal argument on their behalf.
Yes: Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Hall, Leno, Maxwell,
McGoldrick, Newsom, Peskin, Sandoval, Yee

--------------------------------------------------------------
Paid arguments in favor:

As a former member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee on
Elections and former Common Cause staffer, I've worked on
election reforms for 15 years. After studying Proposition A and
hearing both sides, I'm convinced that it's a smart way to
encourage and increase voter involvement. Join me in voting to
improve our elections. Vote YES on A.

Dan Kalb
County Central Committee member
Sierra Club Chapter Director

---
December is a terrible time of the year for an election. Vote
YES on Proposition A, since it will consolidate the runoff to
November and save $2 million per year that could be spent on
health care. Let this be the last time we go to the polls in
December.

California Nurses Association

---
Vote YES on Proposition A to improve runoff elections. This
good government reform will increase voter participation, save
tax dollars and reduce the influence of special interest money in
politics.

California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)

---
December elections guarantee low voter turnout. Instant
runoff voting efficiently combines the November and
December elections and saves taxpayers $2 million per year.
One election, not two.

Sierra Club

---
Seniors are leading the movement to recover democracy in our
civic institutions. Proposition A will save $2 million in tax
dollars, raise voter turnout and reduce negative campaigning and
mudslinging. Vote YES on this good government measure.

Senior Action Network
The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument
is Barbara Blong.

---
A YES vote on Prop A will consolidate elections, saving
Seniors and all taxpayers time and money. We'll have better,
issue-oriented campaigns =96 not the now-standard duplicity and
negativity.

California Legislative Council for Older Americans

---
This measure will encourage democratic participation, help
elect consensus building leaders, and save millions in taxpayer
dollars.

Joel Ventresca
Sunset District 4 Supervisor Candidate (November 2002)
President, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (1992-94)

---
California Common Cause urges you to vote Yes on A. This
important reform will increase voter participation, decrease
negative campaigning, and save taxpayers money. It also supports
campaign finance reform, since candidates won't have to
raise money for a second election in December.

California Common Cause

---
This is a well-crafted proposal that employs a ranked ballot
system similar to that used in American cities such as
Cambridge, MA and nations such as Australia, Britain and
Ireland. In Australia it is has contributed to the highest voter
turnout in the world.

Center for Voting and Democracy

---
On behalf of over 500,000 senior citizens, the Congress of
California Seniors heartily endorses Proposition A. This
measure will enhance voter participation and save millions of
dollars, and that's good for young and old alike.

Congress of California Seniors
The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument
is Pete Martineau.

---
The political establishment doesn't want Proposition A to pass
because it will change the way campaigns are run and make it
more difficult to manipulate the outcome.

VOTE YES ON A!
Jennifer Clary

---
The San Francisco Democratic Party supports Proposition A.

Wade Crowfoot
Secretary, SF Democratic Central Committee

---
It is critical that our electoral system be designed to maximize
voter participation. Please join me in supporting Proposition A.

Jeff Adachi
Candidate for Public Defender
The three largest contributors to the true source of recipient
committee are: 1. Peter Keane 2. Esther Marks 3. John Woo.

---
Vote Yes on A for Higher Turnout Elections
Proposition A will strengthen the democratic process and save
taxpayers millions of dollars by replacing runoff elections with a
better system. Instead of returning to the polls for a December
runoff, voters will rank candidates in order of their preference
when they vote in November.
Historically, voter turnout is very low in December runoff
elections. This means that many candidates are elected by only a
fraction of the people who live in San Francisco. Instant runoff
voting eliminates December runoffs, so more people will be
involved in choosing San Francisco's leaders. That means more
people in office who truly represent those they are elected to
serve.
Instant runoff voting is a system used successfully around the
world. It is a system that makes sense for San Francisco.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
www.spur.org
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient
committee are: 1. Jim Chappell 2. Frankie Lee 3. John Weeden.

---
Instant runoff voting means higher turnouts - which means
more tenant power at the polls. Vote YES on Proposition A to
protect and expand tenants' rights.

San Francisco Tenants Union

---
The Florida fiasco showed that our elections need improvement.
Proposition A will raise participation, save tax dollars,
reduce negative campaigning and lessen the influence of
money in politics.

National Lawyers Guild
SF/Bay Area

---
Proposition A empowers voters to rank their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
choice instead of picking the lesser of 2 evils. Proposition A also
acts as campaign finance reform because candidates won't have
to raise money for a second runoff election. Vote YES!

San Francisco Green Party
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee
are: 1. Dave Heller 2. John Marc Chandonia 3. Berry Hermanson.

---
Runoff elections discourage voter participation. Proposition A
would raise voter participation and save millions of dollars.
Those savings could support San Francisco's new publicfinanced
election system that gives all candidates a fair and equal
chance. Vote YES on A.

San Francisco Common Cause
The true source of funds for the printing fee of this argument is
Fred Ridel.

---
The following organizations endorse Proposition A:
Common Cause
San Francisco Democratic Party
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
Congress of California Seniors
Sierra Club
Senior Action Network
League of Conservation Voters
California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)
California Nurses Association
Green Party
California Legislative Council for Older Americans
and many more.

FairVoteSF
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee
are: 1. Center for Voting and Democracy 2. Betty Traynor 3.
Nancy Couperus.

---
The following individuals endorse Proposition A:
Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano
Supervisor Mark Leno
Supervisor Jake McGoldrick
Supervisor Matt Gonzalez
Supervisor Tony Hall
Board of Education member Eric Mar
Board of Education member Mark Sanchez
BART Board director Tom Radulovich
Former Board President Harry Britt
Former Congressman Tom Campbell
Former Congressman Dan Hamburg
Former Congressman John Anderson
Former Acting Secretary of State Tony Miller
Henry Louie
Arthur Chang
and many more

FairVoteSF
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee
are: 1. Center for Voting and Democracy 2. Betty Traynor 3.
Nancy Couperus.

---
Proposition A will support positive campaigns about issues,
not personal attacks. It will lead to coalition-building. This is the
way to elect politicians who care about safer streets and a more
livable city for everyone. We have used instant runoff voting for
our Board elections and it works. Vote Yes on A.

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument
is San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Paid opposition arguments:

KEEP YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE
Instant runoff is not the answer to increasing voter turnout.
Our Democracy must be measured by more than dollars and
cents. Let's create more opportunity to vote: weekend polls,
more absentee voting education, move election days to avoid
December holidays.
Runoffs provide vigorous debate and a thorough examination
by the voters.
Vote No on A and keep your right to vote. It's your right, fight
to keep it.

Tom A. Hsieh
Dan Dunnigan
Michael R. Farrah, Jr.
The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument
is Tom Hsieh for SF DCCC.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee
are: 1. Gavin Newsom 2. Barbara Kaufman 3. May Lee.

---
Vote No on Proposition A
Protect "one person one vote." This confusing scheme gives
one person three votes. It could cost three times more in mistakes
than it would save in dollars. For this reason, no major City in
the USA uses an instant runoff. Vote to keep elections simple.

Mike DeNunzio
Member, Republican Central Committee*
* for identification purposes only
The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument
is Mike DeNunzio.

---
Instant runoff equals constant confusion.
Haven't we learned our lesson from Florida? Let's fix the voting
system we have before we try a confusing experiment.
Under Proposition A, the winner will be decided by a computer,
using "preferences," not the voters' final choice. Don't take
away our right to choose.
Vote No on A.

Dennis Antenore
Jane Morrison
Calvin Welch

---
Proposition A is called "Instant Runoffs", but it is only instant
for the politicians who we get stuck with for four years. They
say it will save money, but it will cost an arm and a leg for stateof-
the-art emergent technology. They say they want an independent
Department of Elections, but then they try to micro-manage
the department before the new Election Commission is even
seated.
Matt Gonzalez rails against "duplicity", but then they get this
proposition put on the ballot in an off-season election. I love
Matt Gonzalez but this idea just plain sucks.
It's hard to tabulate. It's difficult to verify in a re-count. It
randomizes elections. It's anything but transparent. You can
probably think up your own reasons to vote against it and if you
wanted to spend your whole Christmas budget on it you could
get it published just like this.
There's a much better system, the September/November system
that also eliminates December runoffs and the leprechauns
in Gonzalez's office will probably put it on the ballot as soon as
you vote this one down. It'll give you a month-and-a-half to
study the finalists before you have to make your final choice.
Even though Matt Gonzalez is a Green, that doesn't mean he
can protect your right to vote. Only you can do that. Vote no on
A.

William Duffey, A Voter
The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument
is William Duffey.

---
Prop A lets special interests sneak into office.
Today, when special interests spend millions on campaigns,
voters have time to evaluate that information. Under Prop A, the
vote will be over before we even know who spent the money.
That's not reform! Vote No on A!

David Spero

---
Elections are confusing enough without subjecting voters to
two systems on the same ballot: State elections under one system,
City elections under a confusing new system.
Talk about discouraging voter turnout!

Doug Comstock

---
Nothing "Instant" About It
The Elections Department already struggles with close elections,
complicated by late absentee ballots. Proposition A will
make it even worse.
Here's why. With public financing and district elections,
there'll be dozens of candidates for each office. On election
night, many will be separated in rank by just a handful of votes.
In these cases, the Department of Elections won't know which
candidates to eliminate until every single vote is counted -
including late absentees and provisional ballots that must be
painstakingly checked one by one. This process takes days,
sometimes weeks.
So, the "instant" runoff process might take days, or even
longer. Because of the confusion, complications, and inevitable
legal challenges, our faith in the validity of election results -
already tenuous - will be severely undermined.
Proposition A is a seriously flawed piece of legislation with
too many unintended consequences.
Please vote No on Prop A.

Jim Stearns

---
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION A
Democracy is worth the price! San Francisco has had enough
problems with our elections. Let's not complicate matters further
with a confusing scheme.
Separate run-off elections allow the voters an important second
look.
Vote NO on Proposition A.
San Francisco Republican Party
Donald A Casper, Chairman
Cynthia Amelon Elsa Cheung, Vice-Chair
Mike DeNunzio, Vice-Chair
Howard Epstein, Assembly Candidate
Terence Faulkner
Sue Woods

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee
are: 1. San Francisco Coalition for Affordable Public
Services 2. Alfreda Cullinan 3. Sally L. Saunders.

---
The Board of Supervisors blew it when they placed
Proposition A on the ballot.
Instead of failing to recognize that "Preference Voting" and
"Instant Run-Off Voting" was new to California and that there
was a need to test the waters with a pilot program, with an
evaluation component to see if it accomplished what proponents
said it would accomplish and determine whether it empowered
or disenfranchised women, minorities, and mainstream voters,
the Board decided to require that every office (other than the
Board of Education and Community College Board) be elected
starting in November, 2002 using "Instant Run-Off Voting". The
Board truly took a leap of faith by its actions.
As a result, we are entering unchartered territory. Given the
very real defects of the new system, we could end up with an all
male, all white Board of Supervisors, and a number of fringe
candidates elected to City-wide office. If we do, there will be no
recourse but to repeal "Instant Run-Off Voting" at the next
election after the cost and effort of collecting 45,000 signatures
through an Initiative to amend the Charter.
In the interim, think of all the damage that could be done. Yes,
we would save $1,600,000 a year by avoiding run-off elections, but
if the radicals take over City Government, we could be paying
hundreds of times that cost in higher taxes and increased spending.
Let Berkeley and Oakland experiment with "Instant Run-Off
Voting".
Vote No on Proposition A.

Christopher L. Bowman
Susan Horsfall

---
The authors of Proposition A, the Center for Democracy and
Voting, are the same people who gave you "Preference Voting"
in 1996 which was overwhelmingly defeated by San Francisco's
voters.
They have repackaged "Preference Voting" as "Instant Runoff
Voting", but the intent is the same - to gain a bridgehead in a
major American city so that they can replicate their efforts
throughout the United States.
Why is this such a bad thing?
The agenda of the Center for Democracy and Voting is to supplant
traditional American Democracy with "Proportional
Representation". "P/R" is a system commonly found in many
nations in Europe and other westernized countries. And by and
large, it has been a failure, creating unstable coalition governments
in which minor fringe and religious-based parties hold the
balance of power. That's why the San Francisco Green Party and
the Libertarians support Proposition A. They believe it will
increase their chances of winning election even though they
constitute jointly less than 5% of the electorate.
Vote No on Proposition A.

Kathleen A. Grogan
Christopher L. Bowman
David Looman

---
The Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections studied the
issue of Preference Voting and "Instance Run-off Voting" over
the past six years and almost to a person felt the measures would
be confusing to the average voter and subject to manipulation
I join my former colleagues in urging you to vote No on
Proposition A. Vote No on an idea whose time has come and
gone.

Marcel Kapulica, Member
CACE, 1994-2001

---
As former members of San Francisco's Citizens Advisory
Committee on Elections, we oppose Proposition A for the following
reasons:
First, "for profit" slate card organizations would approach candidates
in each supervisorial district up for election and demand
that they pay to be listed on their slate card - possibly $15,000 to
be listed first, $10,000 to be listed second, and $5,000 to be listed
third, thereby enriching the "for profit" slate organizations,
and significantly adding to the costs of running campaigns.
Women and minority candidates who have difficulty raising
money would be particularly handicapped under such a system.
Second, there could be collusion between various candidates
to be listed on each other's campaign literature as their second or
third choices. The cost of that collusion would be to reduce the
level of meaningful debate on the issues and to hide ideological
differences. The losers would be the voters and the media who
would be unable to discern one candidate from another.
Third, language minorities and people with limited education
already have difficulty understanding the intricacies of our electoral
system. Why add one more complication? It's hard enough
to focus on one or two candidates - how about trying to rank 17
candidates (who ran in District VI in 2000)? You might be faced
with that if Proposition A passes.
Finally, because many voters will not exercise their right to rank all
the candidates, only the small minority of voters who are highly organized
and disciplined will exercise their rights, and it will be they, not
minorities, the poor, or mainstream voters who will decide the election.
For all these reasons, we urge you to vote No on Proposition A.

Kathleen A. Grogan
Larry Griffin
Christopher L. Bowman
Susan Horsfall
Ed Canapary
The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument
are Former Members of the CACE.

---
The new voting system proposed by Prop A is confusing,
untried, untested and unreliable. That's the reason no city in
America uses it!
Vote no on A.

Sue Bierman
Mary Jung
Gary Gartner