No on Proposition A: Don't Throw Your Vote Away

By Christopher L. "Chris" Bowman

The San Francisco Green Party and the Center for Democracy and Voting lobbied the Board of Supervisors and Supervisor Matt Gonzalez to place Proposition A on the March 5th ballot. Prop. A is untried and untested, and unworkable, and must be defeated at the polls.

There are various techniques for increasing voter turnout including increasing voter awareness of candidates and propositions through public forums and media coverage and public service programs, changing the date of elections so they don't conflict with the holidays, conducting elections on the weekend and early voting at selected polling places, declaring election day a holiday, and reducing the number of candidates and issues on the ballot and incorporating simpler voting systems.

Unfortunately, Proposition A is "none of the above".

Proposition A was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors after they were heavily lobbied by members of the San Francisco Green Party and paid staffers of the Center of Democracy and Voting. It is currently supported by only five of the Board's eleven Supervisors and is opposed by Supervisors Leland Yee and Gavin Newsom.

Prop. A would replace run-off elections with a system called "Instant Run-Off Voting" ("IRV"). IRV is untried, untested, and unworkable. It has never been tried in the United States although it is on the books in a couple of cities in the East Bay. It requires the voter to rank up to three candidates per office under the current "optical scan" system, and as many candidates as there are on the ballot should the City adopt the "touch screen" voting system, which would cost approximately $10,500,000. IRV is similar to a system called "preference voting" which was in vogue in the 1930's and 1940's in some parts of the United States, but has been abandonned almost everywhere in America where it has been tried.

The system is fatally flawed and does not take into account the unique political culture of San Francisco in which a large segment of the electorate "bullet votes" or votes only for the candidate of the voter's first choice. Bullet voting is particularly dominant in sub-groups of voters -- namely new citizens, Asian Americans, African Americans, homeowners, seniors, and progressives. If these voters continue to bullet vote should Proposition A pass, they could become effectively disenfranchised because only those voters who list their first, second, third, or more choices would influence the final outcome of the election.

Run-off elections were adopted in San Francisco in the 1970's because candidates were being elected by a plurality, not a majority of the votes cast. Indeed, Dan White, in 1977 was elected with only 30% of the votes cast in his district. By eliminating run-off elections and the requirement that candidates be elected by a majority of the voters who vote, the adoption of IRV may presage a return to plurality winners because the fine print of Prop. A says that the winner will be elected by a majority of the "continuing ballots" (those in which the voter ranked at least three candidates), not a majority of the total ballots cast for a particular race.

Run-off elections are helpful, also, in that they afford voters a "second look". Because many voters bullet vote, they really don't examine the other candidates in a race. Indeed, in many multiple candidate races, there is very little information available on which the voter can rely to evaluate all but a handful of candidates -- namely those with high name recognition, e.g., incumbents and well-funded candidates. Additionally, If the voter's favorite candidate comes in third or worse, with run-off elections, the voter will be able to focus his or her attention on the two top vote-getters.

Additionally, IRV could decrease, not increase voter turnout. Imagine, if you would, if a voter were asked to rank 17 candidates for Supervisor (first through seventeenth). In November, 2000, there were 17 candidates for Supervisor in District VI. How long would it take a voter to rank 17 candidates? What if the voter made a mistake and had to start all over again. How long would the lines be? How long would a voter have to wait before he or she just gave up and left the polls before voting?

Finally, there is a serious question, whether or not IRV is workable because of conflicts with State law and because of technological problems. According to Bradley Clark, the Register of Voters in Alameda County and the dean of all the Registrars in California, State law would have to be amended to permit IRV, and the current "optical scan" software programs are incompatible with IRV and the "touch screen" technology which is compatible with IRV has yet to be certified by the Secretary of State for use in California. Thus, Proposition A could pass, but never be implemented.

In conclusion, Proposition A is a complex and confusing voting system which will make the problem of low voter turnout even worse. I call upon every voter to read the fine print of Proposition A, word for word, and if, after three readings, the voter understands the every provision of the measure and agrees with Prop. A, that the voter vote in favor of the measure. I would posit, that that will not be the case and that the voter should Vote No on Proposition A.