Implementing ranked choice voting this year may cost the City of Oakland $946,950, according to a new report prepared by City Attorney John Russo. Russo issued a legal opinion last month that stated that the city must use the new voting format in the November 2010 election. The $946,950 cost, however, does not include the $800,000 that Oakland is estimated to save if it forgoes a June election. If the City Council refrains from holding a June primary, then Oakland will only have to spend about $147,000 this year for ranked choice voting, and will save money in successive years because it will not have to pay for start-up costs again. Ranked choice voting allows the city to only have one election in November and avoid a costly June primary.
The Oakland City Council is scheduled to take up the issue of ranked choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting, tomorrow night, and is expected to go forward with the new format this year in light of Russo’s strong legal opinion last month. Russo’s opinion noted that a 2006 measure approved by 69 percent of Oakland voters states that the city “shall” use ranked choice voting once the Alameda County Registrar of Voters gives the go ahead. Registrar Dave MacDonald did that last month after Secretary of State Debra Bowen approved the county’s hardware and software voting system and outlined a comprehensive voter-education campaign.
Russo said in his new report that the $946,950 was a maximum cost estimate, and that MacDonald has indicated that it could very well be cheaper than that. However, the city’s costs could increase to a maximum of $1.5 million (not including the savings of not having a June election) if either or both Berkeley and San Leandro decide to forgo ranked choice voting this year. Unlike Oakland, San Leandro has no voter mandate to implement the new system and the council is scheduled to take up the issue later this month. Berkeley, meanwhile, could put off ranked choice voting if it decides that it will be more costly than holding a traditional runoff election.
Showing 1-5 of 5
to dto510 -- Berkeley does have runoffs. They take place in the next calendar year after the election in the democracy "dog days" of February. Ranked Choice Voting would make sure the winner is decided in a higher turnout election and keep the candidates from having to raise and spend all the money they'd need for a runoff.
@JB96 - The pre-IRV Berkeley charter specified a threshold for a candidate to win an election with a plurality, so runoffs are rare without IRV. Unlike Oakland, Berkeley does not hold June nominating elections.
Burlington anti-IRV forces are led by the losing Republican candidate Kurt Wright and his backers. Wright led in first choice rankings, but lacked majority support and lost with IRV. So what does their petition call for? Getting rid of the majority requirement and letting someone win despite opposition from most voter -- pretty transparent what they're really after.
Berkeley has traditional runoffs right now, so yes, IRV makes sense there. That's why seven in ten voters backed it in both Oakland and Berkeley.
How much does democracy cost?
Citizens of Burlington Vt have signed a petition that now forces an up or down vote in March 2010 to ditch IRV.
One major reason they want to ditch IRV - because they want debate between the candidates and they believe they didn't have that with IRV. You can see a video of the press conference at this link http://bit.ly/6bRO0c
This information bodes ill for Oakland's budget. The IRV initiative didn't say the city could put it off because of cost, so that shouldn't be a factor tomorrow, but Berkeley already sets up their electoral system to avoid runoffs, so IRV doesn't make that much sense there, and who knows what San Leandro will decide. Oakland may get stuck with the bill, with the other jurisdictions free-riding on our voter-education campaign until they do it in 2012.