Comments for Emil Guillermo: AMOK!

Comment on Monitors at SF Polls as voters try to make history–if Ranked Choice Voting lets them by Amok

Amok — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:31:42 +0000

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.

Comment on Monitors at SF Polls as voters try to make history–if Ranked Choice Voting lets them by Rob Richie

Rob Richie — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:07:04 +0000

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.

Comment on Monitors at SF Polls as voters try to make history–if Ranked Choice Voting lets them by Amok

Amok — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:01:45 +0000

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.

Comment on Monitors at SF Polls as voters try to make history–if Ranked Choice Voting lets them by Rob Richie

Rob Richie — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:43:10 +0000

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.’