"Top Two" System Is The Opposite Of Reform

Here is my response to a recent editorial by the Bakersfield Californian newspaper:

This "top two" system is the opposite of reform. The top-two system does nothing to fix the problem of vote-splitting (i.e., the "spoiler effect"). For example, if too many Republicans run for an office, they risk splitting the vote between themselves and causing a Democrat to win, EVEN IF THE DISTRICT IS OVERWHELMINGLY REPUBLICAN. (And vice-versa for democrats.) How is that fair? Yet it is entirely possible under this new system. TRUE REFORM would eliminate the spoiler effect, the way Ireland and Australia have done by using a ranked ballot. --Ryan Dunning, San Joaquin Valley Coordinator for Californians for Electoral Reform.

Compton Needs STV

A comment I posted on the L.A. Times website regarding this article:

Compton needs to switch to the ranked voting method known as Single Transferable Vote (STV). STV would allow Compton to retain at-large elections, but at the same time would ensure that each ethnic group elects its proportionate share of representatives. Under STV, if 4 city council members are to be elected, then any group which makes up slightly more than 20% of the population is guaranteed a representative for each block of (slightly more than) 20% that they represent. Therefore, based on the population estimates above, Latinos would be guaranteed 2 seats, African-Americans 1 seat, and the remaining seat would go to either a Latino that a significant number of African-Americans found favorable, or an African-American that a significant number of Latinos found favorable.