As expected, California’s Secretary of State has sent monitors to roam polling places in San Francisco making sure there’s no funny business in today’s election. It’s a clear sign that someone is taking the allegations of voter fraud and ballot tampering in the campaign seriously.
Seven candidates urged the state to monitor the election after allegations of election misconduct were made against volunteers for interim Mayor Ed Lee. The blue-shirted “Ed Heads” were seen marking and taking ballots from Chinese-speaking voters. One source told me Lee was supposed to sign on to the letter to make it a united front by the top candidates against any improprieties. In Ranked Choice Voting races, you are supposed to get that kind of collegiality. But not here. Lee was left off the letter, as some of the also-rans apparently chose to make this a last minute and not so subtle attack on Mayor Interim.
It could backfire on everyone.
Lee may slip back as everybody’s No.2 or No. 3 choice and more easily win a majority.
Or as people are hoping, angry voters could leave him off the ballot entirely, creating a real “Hail Mary” situation in Ranked Choice Voting. No one has a majority and every ballots’ No.2 and No.3 comes into play until a majority is had.
History at first blush may have seemed partial to a first Asian American mayor with so many Asian American candidates. But in a RCV shootout, who knows who gets the No.2s and No.3s. It doesn’t have to be an Asian American.
Whatever, the whole thing seems more random than not, though RCV supporters will say it’s totally logical. They may be able to explain it step by step so it makes theoretical sense. But in the effort to save time and money (no more costly runoff elections, what a deal!), RCV adds a confusing layer of complexity that leads to distrust.
You don’t need to understand the math to vote. You just need to trust the vote. RCV takes voter sentiment out of context. A second and third choice could be different if they have no chance to win on a subsequent tally.
It makes you yearn for a simpler, old-fashioned way. Instant runoff savings? It may not be worth it if voters end up wondering what the hell happened to their vote.
See my blog post at www.aaldef.org/blog
Emil,
Pining for those good old days with runoffs? You mean back in 2003 when there was only one Asian American on the Board of Supervisors, with Michael Yaki and Mabel Teng having recently lost low-turnout December runoffs after leading by big margins in high-turnout November first rounds?
Would it really have been better to have a polarizing fight among Asian American candidates this year, all fighting each other for APA voters in order to get into the runoff, and then have a one-on-one runoff that likely got even nastier, with huge influx of independent money?
Really? Does the alleged “simplicity” of low turnout runoffs with a disproportionately low APA turnout really improve that?
I’ll end by saying that FairVote was pleased to stand side-by-side with AALDEF as we successfully convinced the DOJ to uphold a ranked choice voting system in New York City. AALDEF attorneys and Margaret Fung recognized how much the system meant for APA voters and candidates, with the ranked choice ballot not a barrier. Too bad to see you on the ‘other side.’
I’m not on the “other side,” if what I want is fairness and greater sense of trust in our system.
We should both want that.
I just don’t think RCV is the total answer. There are other ways to fight “big money” influencing elections, i.e., more restrictive campaign finance options, free media, etc. RCV only creates a different set of problems that everyone in the process from candidates to voters and all those inbetween are forced to adapt to.
I was open to the idea for the smaller races but this large field in the SF mayoral race should bring out some strong opinions about RCV. And I don’t think it will be as positive as Fair Vote thinks.
I’m with you on those goals.
I don’t think RCV is the total answer — far from it, and much to do. But my sense is your posts have focused on what’s been frustrating to you without considering alternative frustrations you’d have with different rules. …. December runoffs are impractical due to new vote-counting realities — and in all the but the mayor’s race has much lower, less representative turnout. June first-rounds have that same problem — turnout is less representative, but it would eliminate all but two.
Would love to engage with you on things that could work better — starting with a better ballot design that allows more rankings, with more creative voter education that gets into “why”, not just “how.” But going into the “end it” camp and saying that the RCV ballot is so confusing when APA voters have __very__effectively used it in several SF races and when APA candidates have a great record of success in it seems problematic to me.
Note that in these elections, almost every candidate will lose. RCV is not to blame for that. No winner-take-all system is going to make everyone happy.
I think when APA candidates have done well, it’s due to district elections and not necessarily RCV.
But I ‘m glad you admit that RCV isn’t the total answer. There are a lot of problems in the system. San Francisco turnout seems light today, and the early voting wasn’t that heavy either. Before we talk about mechanisms to enable the vote, we better talk about ways to get voters turned on so they turnout.