The most important reform the city could implement is PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION THROUGH RANKED VOTING. The council should be elected by ranked ballot (i.e., single transferable vote, STV) to ensure that everyone in Fresno is represented in proportion to their percentage of the population. Also, increasing the number of city councilmembers to 9 or 11 would increase the likelihood that all Fresno citizens (young, old, women, men, white, minority, wealthy, poor) are adequately represented. See ***http://fresnorankedvoting.blogspot.com*** for more info.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Fresno City Charter Review Committee Established
Good news! The Fresno City Charter is being reviewed for the first time in 20 years! This is what I posted in response to the news story (http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/07/26/2478665/fresno-city-charter-review-committee.html) about the committee in the Fresno Bee:
Friday, May 27, 2011
Instant Runoff Voting Unanimously Declared Constitutional By Appellate Court
http://www.theninthcircuit.com/2011/05/23/ninth-circuit-upholds-three-candidate-irv-election-system/
This is great news! Ranked voting is clearly constitutional and this decision should encourage more jurisdictions to start using it, especially as a remedy (or preventative measure) for alleged CVRA (California Voting Rights Act) violations!
This is great news! Ranked voting is clearly constitutional and this decision should encourage more jurisdictions to start using it, especially as a remedy (or preventative measure) for alleged CVRA (California Voting Rights Act) violations!
Monday, April 18, 2011
Response To Anti-IRV Article Regarding Hawaii
Here is my response to Rebecca Mercuri's article about IRV in Hawaii:
There is nothing shocking or controversial about instant runoff voting (IRV). It simply means using a ranked ballot so it can be determined who would win a runoff election without having to conduct a second election.
The author is aware of the organization FairVote (http://www.fairvote.org/), so I'm surprised that she makes several errors in her statements about ranked voting.
For example:
(1) The author's concerns about electronic voting are legitimate. However, a person can be against electronic voting and still support IRV. Ranked voting does not require a computer, and even if a computer is used, the election results can be manually verified by a hand count of the ballots.
(2) IRV is not the same as "proportional representation" (PR). It is true that one method of PR involves ranked ballots, like IRV, however, IRV is used to elect one winner (e.g., in single-member districts), whereas PR is used to elect multiple winners (e.g., in multi-member districts or an at-large city council election).
Let's hope that Governor Abercrombie does NOT veto this bill.
Monday, February 28, 2011
And The Oscar Goes To... Ranked Voting!
Did you know that the Academy Awards chooses its Oscar winners through ranked voting?
Here's what I posted at the "Governing Califoria" blog:
Ranked Voting is not complicated. Instead of eliminating everyone but the top two vote-getters (which is crude, clumsy, and unfair!), it works like a series of runoffs, in which one candidate is eliminated at a time. 99.8% of Oakland voters cast a valid ballot for mayor. So when we talk about an increase in the percentage of invalid ballots under this new method, we are talking about going from a fraction of a percent to a slightly higher fraction of a percent. Not alarming at all.
It is misleading to say that under the old method, Oakland mayors always had a majority support. Of course one candidate will always receive more than 50% of the votes if you FORCE the voters to chose between only two remaining candidates by eliminating all others with one swift chop of the axe. Such a "majority" is really an artificially-created majority.
Furthermore, having two separate elections (primary and run-off) consistently results in a low voter turn out at either the primary election or the run-off election. In fact, voter turn out is frequently less than 50% in one of the elections compared to the other. So in an election where half as many voters show up to vote in the run-off, how can any winner be declared to have "majority support"?
One can just as easily make the argument that having two separate elections (instead of one) disenfranchises the under-privileged/disadvantaged communities.
Here's what I posted at the "Governing Califoria" blog:
Ranked Voting is not complicated. Instead of eliminating everyone but the top two vote-getters (which is crude, clumsy, and unfair!), it works like a series of runoffs, in which one candidate is eliminated at a time. 99.8% of Oakland voters cast a valid ballot for mayor. So when we talk about an increase in the percentage of invalid ballots under this new method, we are talking about going from a fraction of a percent to a slightly higher fraction of a percent. Not alarming at all.
It is misleading to say that under the old method, Oakland mayors always had a majority support. Of course one candidate will always receive more than 50% of the votes if you FORCE the voters to chose between only two remaining candidates by eliminating all others with one swift chop of the axe. Such a "majority" is really an artificially-created majority.
Furthermore, having two separate elections (primary and run-off) consistently results in a low voter turn out at either the primary election or the run-off election. In fact, voter turn out is frequently less than 50% in one of the elections compared to the other. So in an election where half as many voters show up to vote in the run-off, how can any winner be declared to have "majority support"?
One can just as easily make the argument that having two separate elections (instead of one) disenfranchises the under-privileged/disadvantaged communities.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
IRV Is Not Complicated
Is instant runoff voting (IRV) really more complicated than the way we vote now? Take a look at this graphic and then decide for yourself:
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2011/01/17/how-complicated-is-the-alternative-vote/
(NOTE: "Alternative Vote" is what they call IRV in England.)
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2011/01/17/how-complicated-is-the-alternative-vote/
(NOTE: "Alternative Vote" is what they call IRV in England.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
