About the GPCA Organizing Resources Take Action Elections and Candidates Issues and Platform Latest News Home
Green Focus home


Inside Green Focus

  Latest Issue
Elections & Strategy
Green Issues
Local Greens
Elected Greens
Opinion & Reviews
News Clips & Letters

About Green Focus

Submit Articles, Photos, Graphics
Link to Us
Fall 2005 (current) [PDF] [HTML]

Back Issues

  Fall 2005 (current) [PDF] [HTML]
Summer 2005
Spanish Version [PDF]
Spring 2005
Winter 2004
Fall 2004
Winter 2003
Fall 2003
Summer 2003
Spring 2003

UCD Campus Greens take leading role in upgrading democracy

In this issue:

Turning the Green Party Black in 2003
Green candidates win fifty percent of local races
State election analysis presents challenges to Party growth
Whither To Grow?
Greens grow as a state force in California politics
PATRIOT Act takes US to McCarthyism, and beyond
Green Party of the U.S. Opposes Iraqi Invasion
Multiparty political system needed now
UCD Campus Greens take leading role in upgrading democracy
Endorsements matter in City Council race
Editorial: FAQ - What Does it Mean to Vote Green?
Editorial: Fear of the 'enemy' masks the danger within
Review: The War on Freedom - How and Why America was Attacked September 11, 2001
News Clips
The Green Party at UC Davis has proposed the “Choice Voting” Amendment for this February’s student ballot to change the way UCD students elect their campus representatives.

By Matthew Stewart, Campus Greens, UC Davis

Under the current “Runoff Voting” system, if no candidate for president receives a majority of the votes, a costly and exhausting second runoff election is held a week later. This prolonged ritual is an unnecessary hassle for students, faculty and candidates. The Choice Voting Amendment would establish “Instant Runoff Voting” or IRV, in which the voters can indicate the runoff choices all at once, thus bypassing the second election altogether. IRV also solves the so-called “spoiler” problem. For example, during the 2000 presidential election Ralph Nader was blamed for taking votes away from Al Gore and helping to elect Bush. With IRV, voters would have had the freedom to vote for Nader as their first choice and Gore as their second choice. During the runoff, Nader’s votes would have been immediately retabulated and forwarded to Gore.

The Choice Voting Amendment would also institute a variant of “Proportional Representation” or PR for the student senate. In the current senatorial elections, the top six vote-getters are automatically elected. Large portions of the student voice could go unheard, a dilemma that has occurred in two of the last four UCD elections. With PR, every candidate must earn a specific number of votes in order to get elected. Once that threshold has been reached by a candidate, all surplus votes are then redistributed proportionally to each voter’s next favorite choice. The process continues until every vote has been distributed. Thus, all students will be represented proportionately to the votes they have cast.

Keep in mind that the ideas and concepts spelled out in the Choice Voting Amendment are nothing new or esoteric to American universities. Both Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation have long been used in student governments at UC Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, Harvard and Princeton to ensure a more democratic and representative electorate.

For more information about this proposal, visit www.ucdgreens.org.

> Green Focus Home
> Subscribe to Green Focus