Long Beach Greens

Eliminating runoffs 
Here's a charter change for later that could 
make elections fewer, and maybe more fun.


reprinted from the
Press-Telegram Online

Article Launched: 01/28/2007 08:30:52 PM PST

Long Beach voters will have about all they want to deal with in the way of charter amendments in the May 1 election, but here's one to consider for another time: fewer elections.

It's clear voters would appreciate it, as evidenced in abysmally low turnouts in runoff elections. The way to handle that, as Oakland and other cities have decided, is simply to eliminate them.

Oakland voters in November approved an "instant runoff" in which they will select first, second and third choices. If no candidate gets more than 50 percent, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those votes distributed to the second choices until someone wins more than 50 percent.

That does away with a runoff election that would cost Oakland an average of $400,000. Some believe this might result in more votes for third-party candidates, and it almost certainly would encourage less negative campaigning because candidates would be the No. 2 choice of opponents' supporters.

The instant runoff, or ranked-choice voting as it also is known, was used in November 2004 in San Francisco, where it was a hit with voters. In post-election polls, voters said they liked it and found it easy to understand.

Apart from saving money, the system could help voters who complain about having to choose between the lesser of two evils, or having to worry about "wasting" their vote on a candidate they like but who probably can't win. In the 2000 presidential election, for example, if Ralph Nader's votes had been distributed according to ranked choices, the outcome likely would have been different.

Are instant runoffs the best choice? Not necessarily. There is another approach known as "range voting," which, like Olympic scoring, would allow voters to give each candidate a numerical rating of , say, zero to 99. The winner would be the candidate with the highest average score.

This, for the first time, would give voters the chance to say how much, or how little, they like each candidate or, if it's someone they know nothing about, to leave a blank. "Gaming" the system, by voting for only one candidate in a five-candidate race for two positions, would no longer work, and unintended consequences would be fewer.

For example, in an instant runoff (or in a winner-take-all election), it's possible that a candidate who comes in third by a tiny margin might actually be the only one capable of defeating either opponent head-to-head, yet still be the loser. In "range voting," that candidate would end up not only the most popular among the most voters, but also the winner.

These are thoughts worth exploring later. But first, there's that election in May, with charter amendments in seven categories - rebalancing the roles of mayor and City Council members; creating commissions on council salaries, redistricting and ethics; extending and realigning terms of council and commission members; tightening candidate requirements; protecting open space; tweaking the duties of city prosecutor, and cleaning up obsolete sections.

That's enough change in governance for the moment. But next time, voters might like to be the center of attention. A change in the design of elections could improve voter turnout, ensure meaningful outcomes, and maybe even make voting more fun.

Everybody knows a candidate who deserves a 99 (or a zero).


Back to LB Greens HomePage ~ Back to Press HomePage