March 13, 2003
Sacramento - Seeking
alternative voting methods to streamline the electoral process while
saving communities dwindling tax dollars lost under the new state
budget, the Green Party of California endorses and actively supports
AB 1039, the Local Electoral Freedom bill.
Introduced by Assembly
member Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), AB 1039 allows municipalities
to enact alternative election methods, including Instant Runoff
Voting and Proportional Representation.
"With declining voter
turnout, cities need options to reinvolve residents and make sure
municipal elections have the broadest participation," explains Green
Mayor pro tem of Santa Monica, Kevin McKeown. "Santa Monica has
successfully implemented innovations like two-day weekend balloting
for a Council seat and our current all-postal special election on
an initiative ordinance."
"Instant runoff voting
is perhaps the most exciting alternative," McKeown continues, "because
it lets voters rank their choices and truly vote their consciences.
IRV saves cities money, and reduces the role of big corporate contributions
in politics because candidates need run only a single campaign."
Instant Runoff Voting
(IRV) is a method that guarantees a winner with a mandate from a
majority, all within a single election. In an IRV election, voters
rank their choices - first, second, third, and so on. If a voter's
first choice "loses" (in effect, finishes last), the voter's next
choice is counted toward the total in the next round. The rounds
continue until a candidate has 50 percent plus one vote. In this
way, runoffs are eliminated and a candidate receives a true majority.
IRV's advantages are
many. In this era of budget constraints, for example, IRV would
limit costs to cities for runoff elections by declaring a winner
on Election Day, rather than a community bearing the costs of a
runoff election a month later; costs that run into a six-figure
sum for larger communities.
Other advantages of IRV
are that it:
- eliminates the "spoiler effect" of
three-way candidacies. The Nader-Gore situation in 2000, as
well as the Bush-Perot situation in 1992, would not be a concern
under an IRV system. Many Nader voters might have made Gore
their "second choice," just as many Perot voters could have
chosen the elder Bush as their number two.
- allows local communities more control
over local elections. Voters can directly choose the best voting
option for their communities.
- promotes positive campaigns and eliminates
negative campaigns, since a candidate would need second- and
third-choice votes. Attack ads, then, would not be wise and
would probably not pay off in an IRV system.
- raises voter turnout, as results have
shown that turnout increases with more choices on the ballot,
as well as increasing the likelihood that one's vote will be
decisive.
The city of San Francisco will use IRV
for the November elections this year after citizens passed Proposition
A in March 2002. November races for mayor, district attorney and
sheriff will be chosen by IRV, and all subsequent elections for
supervisor, treasurer, city attorney, public defender and assessor
will use IRV.
Other alternative voting methods included
in the bill are cumulative voting, limited voting, and choice
voting.
The GPCA encourages all Californians
to lobby their assembly representatives to co-sponsor and/or support
the bill. Contact your assembly members at www.assembly.ca.gov
More information on IRV:
California IRV Coalition
http://www.calirv.org.
The Green Party of California
http://www.cagreens.org
P.O. Box 2828
Sacramento, CA 95812
Phone: (916) 448-3437
gpca@greens.org
Close
Window
|