Assuming that the issue of choice voting is not completely dead in Davis, the Oakland Mayor’s race might give us insight into how choice voting could work in Davis. It would undoubtedly give fodder to both sides of the fence.
In 2006, Davis’ voters heavily endorsed the advisory measure that instructed the city to consider enacting a choice voting system, in which the voters, rather than vote for a single candidate, would rank order their candidates by preference.
Choice voting may well be dead in Davis, but if it is not, adherents and detractors alike ought to watch Oakland’s mayor’s race.
The Oakland Mayor’s race pitted heavily-favored former state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata against largely-unknown school board member Jean Quan, among others in a ten candidate race. They were seeking to replace outgoing Mayor Ron Dellums, who decided not to seek a second term.
“This is a race people are going to be studying for a long time,” Ms. Quan told supporters after learning she had won.
And she is correct, but there is a catch: the votes were counted under Oakland’s new ranked-choice system, which enables voters to rank order their candidates – first choice, second, and third.
Don Perata heavily outspent Ms. Quan and was widely expected to win. However, Mr. Perata got out-hustled. Ms. Quan had what she called a “relentless voter outreach” approach, which included attending over 200 house parties in order to combat the huge war chest of Mr. Perata.
However, despite this, Don Parata held a double-digit lead over Quan when the first-choice returns were counted last week. Mr. Parata held an 11,000-vote lead over his nearest rival.
How did Ms. Quan win then? She took the lead late last week when the third-place finisher, Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, was eliminated by the choice voting process which meant that the votes cast for her were then reapportioned to the voters’ second choice, whether it be Ms. Quan or Mr. Perata. Thus, Ms. Quan won because she was the second choice of more voters than Mr. Perata.
“Having won over 11,000 more first-choice votes than his nearest rival, these numbers need to be scrutinized carefully, and spoken to carefully,” Perata spokesman Rhys Williams said Wednesday. “No decision has been taken on next steps.”
The real question is what do the results mean for the broader issue of choice voting. This result gives ammunition to both sides.
On the one hand, you have a case where the first place finisher among first-choice ballots, who had a healthy plurality lead after the first round, lost. On the other hand, clearly Ms. Quan was the first or second choice of more voters than Mr. Parata.
That is a theoretical argument as to who deserves victory.
On the other hand, this result worked largely as choice-voting advocates would like. You have a ten-candidate race, and instead of having a plurality vote leader win, you take into account second and third choices for Mayor to determine who should be Mayor.
Perhaps this freed people up to vote their true preference rather than their most-preferred that had a chance to win.
It also enabled the candidate who mobilized more broadly to win over the favored candidate who spent more money and was better known.
The ultimate question here is whether voters will accept this result as legitimate. If they do, the system works, by-and-large. If they do not, then the system will ultimately fail.
My fear was always that the second a candidate lost who would have won by the more conventional system there would be allegations and controversy about the result. That would be fueled even more if people did not understand the vote counting mechanism.
The implication of Parata’s aide’s statement should not be ignored and should be tracked to see if it becomes a broader issue.
Oakland is not Davis, and the people may be less concerned in Oakland about such things as Davis. But we may be able to look back at this race as helping us understand how choice voting works and whether it is for us.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”[b]On the one hand,[/b] you have a case where the first place finisher among first-choice ballots, who had a healthy plurality lead after the first round, lost. [b]On the other hand,[/b] clearly Ms. Quan was the first or second choice of more voters than Mr. Parata[/i] (sic).
Essentially, what happened was that neither Mr. Perata nor Ms. Quan ([url]http://humanisthall.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/JeanQuan.jpg[/url]) won 50% of the vote. So those two had a run-off–albeit, an instant run-off–and a solid majority supported Quan. To my mind, that is far more democratic than making Perata the mayor without a majority of the vote of the people; and it’s even more democratic than having a special election run-off say 6-8 weeks later, when most people will not be paying attention to the campaigns and hence not voting. Also, an instant run-off like Oakland had cost nothing on the margin. As we know in Davis, holding a special election would be very expensive for that city.
[i][b]”On the other hand,[/b] this result worked largely as choice-voting advocates would like.”[/i]
Wait a minute. You have three hands?
Rifkin: “Essentially, what happened was that neither Mr. Perata nor Ms. Quan won 50% of the vote. So those two had a run-off–albeit, an instant run-off–and a solid majority supported Quan. To my mind, that is far more democratic than making Perata the mayor without a majority of the vote of the people; and it’s even more democratic than having a special election run-off say 6-8 weeks later, when most people will not be paying attention to the campaigns and hence not voting. Also, an instant run-off like Oakland had cost nothing on the margin. As we know in Davis, holding a special election would be very expensive for that city.”
Had they had another vote w just Perata and Quan on the ballot – a true run-off vote, I wonder if the results would have been different? I suspect they would have. In which case choice voting is not the people’s choice at all…
It doesn’t matter how many people chose Ms. Quan as their second choice. We don’t elect second choices. The pool of voters in a runoff might be somewhat different from those in the general election; they might pay more or less attention. None of that is relevant, nor does it IMO make the process of a runoff more or less democratic. If you wanted Ms. Quan to be mayor, you should have voted for her.
This is one of the best arguments against choice voting I’ve seen to date.
We’ve seen a variation of this theme play out twice before, in my opinion, in Davis… in two three-way elections (3 Councilpersons up for a vote), a “third choice” candidate was the highest vote-getter (Julie Partansky’s first term on council, & Debbie Nichols-Poulos). In all likelihood, neither would have made the cut in a two-opening race, given the other candidates, but they were well positioned to be a strong “third” choice. Despite the ‘protocol’ of having the highest vote-getter become mayor pro-tem, then advance to Mayor, Julie made it, Debbie did not… another interesting story, right, Mike?
Don Shor: “It doesn’t matter how many people chose Ms. Quan as their second choice. We don’t elect second choices. The pool of voters in a runoff might be somewhat different from those in the general election; they might pay more or less attention. None of that is relevant, nor does it IMO make the process of a runoff more or less democratic. If you wanted Ms. Quan to be mayor, you should have voted for her.
This is one of the best arguments against choice voting I’ve seen to date.”
AMEN!!!
[b]DON:[/b] [i]”It doesn’t matter how many people chose Ms. Quan as their second choice. We don’t elect second choices.”[/i]
Bull feces!
We elect second choices all the time. Here’s an example: In 2000, my first choice for U.S. president was John McCain. But he lost in the primary. So I had to choose between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush as my second choice.
But it’s not just in presidential elections. It’s in every election if you are not a mainline Republican or mainline Democrat. If you are an independent and don’t vote in the primaries, your general election ballot up and down the ticket is full of second or third choices. If you are a Green and you don’t want to “waste your vote,” you will likely pick a Democrat over a Republican; or if you are a Libertarian you might vote for the Republican so your vote is not wasted.
[b]DON:[/b] [i]”The pool of voters in a runoff might be somewhat different from those in the general election; they might pay more or less attention.”[/i]
Get rid of these namby-pamby mights. You know the facts. We have special run-off elections held all the time in the U.S. and we know that the voters are always less representative of the General Election voters and they are far smaller in numbers. They are older, whiter and stronger partisans. This is without exception.
In Georgia, for example, its constitution requires a runoff in every statewide election when no one receives a majority of the vote. Run-offs happen quite often in that state.
In 2008, no one got a majority in the Georgia U.S. Senate race. Saxby Chambliss was the plurality winner (with 49.5% of the vote) on November 4; and he was pitted against the runner-up, Jim Martin (46.7%). They had a run-off a month later and only one-fourth as many people voted. Chambliss won 57.5% to 42.5% in the run-off.
In 1992. Georgia had an incumbent Senator named Wyche Fowler. He won just under 50% of the vote in the General Election. The second place finisher was a man named Paul Coverdell. With a far lower turnout in the run-off election, Coverdell won by 20,000 votes.
[b]DON:[/b] [i]”None of that is relevant, nor does it IMO make the process of a runoff more or less democratic.”[/i]
I think you are dead wrong. A democratic imprint is had when the person elected wins a majority in an election, not just a plurality. Don Perata was not supported by 50 percent of the voters.
Now Oakland could, like Georgia, have a run-off in a month or so. That would be Democratic. But because those special elections ALWAYS result in lower turnouts and predictably take certain classes of marginal voters out of the equation, it seems to me that is less Democratic than holding the run-off election instantly.
[b]DON:[/b] [i]”If you wanted Ms. Quan to be mayor, you should have voted for her.”[/i]
A majority did vote for her. That’s democracy.
[i]”This is one of the best arguments against choice voting I’ve seen to date.”[/i]
What is the best argument you have seen?
The great fallacy of Don’s position is that it is democratic to elect anyone with only a plurality of the vote.
It was the example of the “election” of Salvador Allende as president of Chile in 1970 which convinced me that no one should ever win office without a majority of the electorate backing him.
Allende was a Soviet-backed Marxist who was loathed by a majority of his countrymen. However, the left-center and right-center of Chile could not agree on one candidate to oppose Moscow’s candidate. So they each ran a major candidate and that split their vote.
The result was Allende had 36.6% of the vote; the conservative (who was a former president) had 35.5%; and the liberal-centrist had 28.1%. In reality, 60% or more of the Chilean electorate in 1970 would have voted against Allende in a run-off.
The Chilean constitution at that time required, whenever no one won 50% or more of the popular vote, that the Congress pick the president. The precedent–it had happened a number of times–was to pick the largest vote-getter. But Allende was so despised by most in the Congress that this was unlikely to happen. The center-right was pressuring the center-left to back its man. But the actual center-left candidate thought, because of the precedent, that would be wrong. So he authorized his supporters in Congress to vote for Allende in a second round of Congressional voting. Most of them still would not go along. But they agreed to not back the center-right candidate, either. The center-right bloc reacted by walking out of their Congress and the remaining members, left and some center-left, followed precedent and picked Allende.
I know it is popular among U.S. lefties to think of Allende as a victim–once he was ousted by Pinochet in a U.S.-backed coup–but Allende was a total disaster for three years. He had run their economy into the ground; Marxist gangs were attacking businesses and priests and kidnapping opponents off the street; and there was general chaos up and down Chile.
All of that, including the despotic Mr. Pinochet, would have been avoided had Chile required a run-off election or had, as I favor, an instant run-off.
I actually don’t see how the Chilean situation argues for choice voting, since Allende was selected by Congress. A runoff between the two top vote-getters would have been my preference.
As to your other points:
DON: “It doesn’t matter how many people chose Ms. Quan as their second choice. We don’t elect second choices.”
Bull feces! We elect second choices all the time. Here’s an example: In 2000, my first choice for U.S. president was John McCain. But he lost in the primary. So I had to choose between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush as my second choice.
In each election, we have a first choice. That first choice might not be your first choice overall, but it is your first choice in that particular election. .
DON: “The pool of voters in a runoff might be somewhat different from those in the general election; they might pay more or less attention.”
… we know that the voters are always less representative of the General Election voters and they are far smaller in numbers. They are older, whiter and stronger partisans….
But that is the choice of the voters. Voting isn’t mandatory. Not voting is a form of voting.
The second place finisher was a man named Paul Coverdell. With a far lower turnout in the run-off election, Coverdell won by 20,000 votes.
Which would be disappointing if you were a Fowler supporter, and would make you redouble your efforts to get people to choose to vote in the runoff.
DON: “None of that is relevant, nor does it IMO make the process of a runoff more or less democratic.”
I think you are dead wrong.
Or, to put it another way, you disagree with me. Hence the IMO.
A democratic imprint is had when the person elected wins a majority in an election, not just a plurality. Don Perata was not supported by 50 percent of the voters. Now Oakland could, like Georgia, have a run-off in a month or so. That would be Democratic. But because those special elections ALWAYS result in lower turnouts and predictably take certain classes of marginal voters out of the equation, it seems to me that is less Democratic than holding the run-off election instantly.
I don’t equate democratic-ness with the size of the turnout. I don’t happen to believe it is defined by majority vs plurality, either, but a majority is achieved by having a runoff.
DON: “If you wanted Ms. Quan to be mayor, you should have voted for her.”
A majority did vote for her. That’s democracy.
Not in my opinion. A plurality voted for Perata. A smaller number voted for Quan.
”This is one of the best arguments against choice voting I’ve seen to date.”
What is the best argument you have seen?
That a second-place finisher could emerge victorious due to “second choice” votes.
[i]”A majority did vote for her. That’s democracy.”[/i]
[b]”Not in my opinion. A plurality voted for Perata. A smaller number voted for Quan.”[/b]
You have the right to your own opinions. You don’t have the right to your own facts. The fact is, under the Oakland system, more people, a majority, voted for Quan. That’s why she won. Never did Perata win the support of a majority of the voters. Never.
It’s false to claim “a smaller number voted for Quan” at the end of the day. In the first round of voting, Perata had a plurality. But those who favored other candidates voted in favor of Quan, when she was put up against Perata. As such, a larger number voted for Quan, and that’s why she democratically won the election.
Your argument seems to be based on the notion that the second or third round of voting should not count, because those rounds of voting take place immediately, as opposed to a month or more later. But there is NO REASON to think a second or third election delayed into the future is more democratic than one held immediately. In fact, because of lower turnout and demographic differences in the electorate, a delayed run-off is ALWAYS less democratic.
The 2009 mayoral election in Burlington VT:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont_mayoral_election,_2009[/url]
Voters in Burlington decided to repeal choice voting in March of this year.
Rifkin: “Your argument seems to be based on the notion that the second or third round of voting should not count, because those rounds of voting take place immediately, as opposed to a month or more later. But there is NO REASON to think a second or third election delayed into the future is more democratic than one held immediately. In fact, because of lower turnout and demographic differences in the electorate, a delayed run-off is ALWAYS less democratic.”
There is a huge underlying assumption here – that voters would vote the same way as they initially did if faced with a different choice/slate of candidates. Not necessarily…
the thing is, this doesn’t really give much insight into how choice voting in davis would work, because this is for a mayoral race, with multiple candidates running for one position. davis OTOH does not have a mayoral system, so we’d be ranking multiple candidates in a huge field of candidates. the dynamic is totally different.
where i’d be in favor of choice voting is if we had a mayoral + district election city council system. then each of those races would be single member district, and thus more amenable to choice voting.