Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Oakland City Council Okays Instant Runoffs
Politics / People Robert Gammon — Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:46 PM
The Oakland City Council voted 6-2 tonight to use ranked-choice voting in this year's election, meaning city voters will decide on who will be the next mayor in November — not in June. The move is a boost to the campaign of Councilwoman Jean Quan and others who may now decide to jump into the mayor’s race. And it’s a setback to ex-state Senator Don Perata who tried to block the new voting system from going into effect in 2010 and would have benefited from the traditional primary and general election format because of his fund-raising prowess and strong name recognition.
Council members Desley Brooks and Larry Reid joined with Quan, Rebecca Kaplan, Pat Kernighan, and Nancy Nadel in voting for the new system, which also is known as instant runoff voting, while Vice Mayor Ignacio De La Fuente and council President Jane Brunner voted against.
Ranked-choice voting supporters were unsure before the meeting about how Brooks and Reid would vote, and while both council members said that they had serious concerns about the new system and about whether it will confuse voters, they said they could not go against the mandate of 69 percent of Oakland voters who approved ranked-choice voting in the 2006 election.
Comments (8)
Showing 1-8 of 8
As a SF voter I have been very happy with IRV, which was approved by voters in the 2002 primary election and first implemented in the fall of 2004. We have had several election cycles since then, and it has worked well: ballots have not been any more confusing than they already are, the city has saved a fair bit of money by holding fewer elections, and the number of voters who have participated in elections has increased over the previous "delayed run-off" system that required voters to go back to the polls in mid-December.
It's nice to see voters in the East Bay get a chance to try it out.
like
dislike
My religious zealot characterization was a reaction to your "halleluja" comment, JH. And, much of the debate on this issue HAS been frought with dogmatic, i.e. religious fervor. Over the past several decades in Oakland, there has been precious little ability shown by "activists" to communicate with average voters, and IRV won't change that. People don't vote in city elections because they don't relate to the personality-based gibberish that dominates the arena. It is, unfortunately, a self-fulfilling prophesy, and in my sincere opinion, IRV will exacerbate that, the pie-in-the-sky promises to the contrary notwithstanding. Also, who, besides people who have seen it doesn't work, do you think is trying to throw IRV out in Tacoma and Burlington? Don Perata?
You're a bit out there, Oaktown Willie. I don't think any activist has promised IRV as a panacea to Oakland's problems. It is, however, a better way of electing people. With our current system we've had special elections with "winning" candidates receiving less than a third of the vote, regular elections plagued by dismal voter turnout (because the election is in June), and a system that rewards insincere voting. This is what we're trying to solve.
I have no opinion as to whether Perata would make a good mayor or not; however, it is undeniable he has been trying to scuttle IRV for months now. Whether you agree with the system or not, you presumably (hopefully!) agree that when 69% of voters enact a law, our electeds should enforce the law. That's what was disappointing about Perata's maneuvers. And it doesn't reflect well on him.
As to this whole "religious zealot" thing, get off it man. "Oh terrible of terribles! Many citizens care deeply about the democratic process in our city and want to hold the City accountable for implementing the voter's will." Well stated Oaktown Willie, that sure sounds crazy to me...
Mr. Gammon's article is, unfortunately, slanted against IRV, in an indirect way; By expressing the use of IRV as a benefit to one group of politicians while a detriment to another denigrates IRV. Mr. Gammon apparently misses the whole point of having IRV in the first place, which is that the VOTERS should be in control and that the VOTERS should be electing the politicians, not the other way around. The Council's approval of IRV should NOT be considered a benefit or a detriment to any politician, per se, but rather the only proper and legal outcome possible, given that the voters have already approved it. Hence, the Council's vote to uphold their sworn duty was a victory for everyone concerned...there were NO losers...even those who opposed IRV based on their own (mis) perceptions now have a clearly defined playing field where the political rules (and laws) have been timely and fairly laid out.
Presently, in Oakland, there is "slow run-off". The voters have to vote for the lesser of two evils and have to be wary of "wasting their vote" on someone they really want, but cannot vote for because that person may not
succeed in getting past the primary. Then they have to vote AGAIN, in the run-offs. Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), on the other hand, allows for the voters to see "all the cards on the table at once"
and vote for everyone they really want in one election.
The issue of IRV costs is, and always was a red-herring...the costs long term will be less because there wont need to be run-offs...over time there will be savings and those will be substantial...more than compensating for the up-front costs.
Getting back to the politicians: How they finally decide to campaign and how the voters act in response to their campaigns will, of course, be another matter and in the upcoming elections there certainly will be winners and losers, but for now the will of the voters has been upheld and there's an open and level playing field for all....so "PLAY (political) BALL!", and let the best men (and women) win!
This may be the first time that I can remember the council actually voting for something that Oakland citizens are in favor of, but I am hesitant if the new process favors Clueless Quan in any way. She made a horrible mess of the education board and is fiscally incompetent - and she would be a disaster as Mayor. The only consolation is that if she does run and loses, she will also lose her council seat (about time!). It's time for her, Nadel, Bruner, Brooks and De La Fuente to take a short walk into the sunset of their retirement from city politics - they've done enough damage.
The religious fervor that the Express and activist supporters bring to IRV voting is amusing, though irrelevant to the real issues facing Oakland (and neighboring cities San Leandro and Berkeley). Yes, the measure, having been approved in concept by voters, is hard not to implement. However, Oakland is likely to discover, as Pierce County (Tacoma) WA and Burlington VT have, that the promises of IRV give way to voter alientation and confusion. Those who think IRV is a panacea for self-styled "progressives" may be in for a rude awakening. Once again, the Express' irrational hatred of Don Perata -- who is the prohibitve favorite to be the next mayor of Oakland, regardless of insider schemes to block him -- stands in the way of cogent analysis. Progressives who claim to electorally "own" the minority community have obviously never scientifically analyzed the overhwhelming support that Don Perata enjoys in the flatland communities of Oakland. Truly, the IRV religious zealots are fiddling, while Oakland burns.
Halleluja! IRV is a great reform for Oakland, and the Council should be commended for following the will of the voters (and the law)!
Larry Reid, especially, deserves praise. The Councilmember has opposed IRV from the start, yet he respected the will of 69% of the Oakland electorate to implement IRV. All-too-often politicians put their own personal ambition or self-interest before the very constituents they swear to serve; Councilmember Reid is not of that ilk, and has shown himself to be a man of moral fiber and a real leader.
Author Archives
-
Jerry Brown’s Optimism Has Been Costly
- May 18, 2012
-
A’s Planned Move to San Jose Looks Dead
- May 17, 2012
- More»
