CFER'S RANKED VOTING BILL MOVES TO SENATE FLOOR
HELP US PASS THE BILL ON THE SENATE FLOOR - PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATOR TODAY
AB 1121 - Davis - Local Option for Ranked Voting
August 17, 2009 - The California Senate Appropriations Committee passed AB 1121, our legislation to allow a small number of cities and counties the option to use ranked voting systems like instant runoff voting. AB 1121 passed in the Senate Elections Committee on July 7th and the full Assembly in early June. The bill must now pass on the Senate floor before heading to the Governor for his consideration.
You can find out who your Senator is using your address or a map at: https://www.cfer.org/findmysenator See Background or Talking Points or Supporters below.AB 1121, introduced by Assembly Member Davis (D-48), would allow a small number of general law cities and counties to use ranked voting systems like instant runoff voting to elect their representatives. The bill would establish a pilot program that would allow just 12 cities or counties to use ranked voting. Voter approval would be required in these jurisdictions to do so.
This bill is important in that most local jurisdictions are not able to use ranked voting systems under current law, regardless of the wishes of the governing body of those jurisdictions or the wishes of a majority of voters in those jurisdictions. Today only charter counties or charter cities can use IRV, but over three-fourths of cities and counties are general law jurisdictions and don't have these options. Over half of Californians live in a general law city, a general law county, or both.
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ensures that the winner of a single-winner election has the support of the majority of voters in a single election. By eliminating the need for a costly runoff election it saves local governments a lot of money -- about $1.6M per election in San Francisco alone. IRV also eliminates vote-splitting and spoiler effects, both of which undermine the public's confidence in the political process. Finally, IRV helps promote positive, issue-based campaigns with less negative campaigning because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes in addition to 1st choice votes.
By electing majority winners in a single high-turnout election, ranked voting eliminates the need for costly runoff elections that have a significant negative impact on voter turnout. Experience in San Francisco has shown that dramatic increases in effective voter participation are possible by using ranked voting.
San Francisco has used Instant Runoff Voting extremely successfully for five consecutive elections, and all academic and survey research shows that the results have been excellent. San Francisco voters understood IRV extremely well, used it effectively, and overwhelmingly prefer it to the old two-round runoff system that they had used for decades. Similar positive results have been seen in other cities, such as Cary (NC), Hendersonville (NC), Burlington (VT), Takoma Park (MD).
Given the momentum for ranked voting building around the country -- including Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, Santa Clara County, Davis, Burlington (VT), Memphis (TN), Telluride (CO), Santa Fe (NM), Sarasota (FL), Aspen (CO), Minneapolis (MN), Pierce County (WA), Ferndale (MI), and Vancouver (WA) -- this bill comes at an excellent time.
1) IRV has an extremely successful track record where it has been used
Surveys of voters performed in Cary (NC), Hendersonville (NC), Burlington (VT), San Francisco (CA), and Takoma Park (MD) all showed that voters overwhelmingly understood ranked voting, with responses of good understanding being 95%, 86%, 89%, 87%, and 88%. In those same cities, voters also expressed a strong preference for using ranked voting over their old systems, with 72%, 71%, 78%, 82%, and 89%, respectively, preferring instant runoff voting over their old system. All of the available research and surveys of the usage of IRV in San Francisco support the fact that every single demographic in the city -- defined by where they live and their race, age, gender, party and political philosophy -- preferred IRV to the old runoff system. Additionally, voters two-to-one perceived the instant runoff voting system as more fair than the prior two-round runoff system. So from the standpoint of voter acceptance, ranked voting has proven exceptional in the cities that are using it. And in addition to this usage in the U.S., over 25 million people worldwide use IRV and have done so for many decades, showing that this is not something on the bleeding edge, but rather a proven system gaining acceptance in California and across the nation. And while we do think these systems are preferable in many ways to the systems in place in most jurisdictions, the bill does not seek to implement them in all jurisdictions. We are simply arguing that these systems have shown themselves to be worthy of at least being an option for general law jurisdictions, just like they are for charter jurisdictions. This bill only allows 12 cities or counties to use ranked voting as a means of gaining more experience to better inform future policy choices.
2) IRV can lead to dramatic improvements in voter participation
There is a potential for dramatic improvement in voter turnout as a result
of using ranked voting, especially among minority communities. San Francisco
saw an estimated effective tripling of voter participation overall as a result
of using ranked voting (and being able to combine two elections into a single
election), and as much as a quadrupling of turnout among minority and low-income
neighborhoods. Significant improvements seem likely in other jurisdictions as well,
and also for local elections which coincide with the statewide primary and general
elections. For an analysis of how IRV led to significant improvements in voter
turnout in San Francisco, see: http://www.sfrcv.org/reports/turnout.pdf
3) IRV can save local governments considerable money
There is a significant potential for cost savings by eliminating the need for expensive runoff elections, often elections with single-digit voter turnout. San Francisco alone saves around $1.6 million per election, which is real money when we are talking about local government budgets. In Los Angeles, they had a series of local runoff elections that cost $5 million dollars and only had 6% voter turnout.
4) Cities and counties deserve the opportunity to use the electoral systems
that best address their unique needs . Currently, only charter cities have
this opportunity, and it should be extended to all local governments. Giving
general law jurisdictions the right to improve their election procedures would
open up valuable new opportunities for them to achieve more representative democracy
and better government. Allowing local jurisdictions to demonstrate improvements
to their electoral processes allows the whole state to benefit and see what
works best.
5) Our current voting systems suffer from a variety of deficits, including
vote splitting and spoiler effects, and unequal representation. Spoiler and
vote splitting effects can allow a candidate to be elected where the majority
of people would prefer a different candidate. Our winner-take-all electoral
systems ensure that a significant percentage of the population is denied representation,
and this ultimately undermines the political system. In particular, minority
communities suffer the most, and the Choice Voting system allowed by this legislation
provides for much greater opportunities for representation than are afforded
under our current at-large winner-take-all systems.
6) Ranked voting is broadly supported
See the partial list below of organizations and individuals that are supporting AB 1121 below.