1. Runoff Turnout vs First Round, SF Mayoral Election

   1999 +12% conventional runoff
   2003 +22% conventional runoff
   2011 -27% IRV3

   Runoff Turnout in 2011 vs 1999 (62%, down by over 1/3)
   Runoff Turnout in 2011 vs 2003 (56%, down almost 1/2).

   Gavin Newsom (2003) received 94% of the combined vote of Ed Lee and John Avalos (2011). Tom Ammiano (1999) received 6% more votes than Ed Lee (2003), even though Ammiano had 40% of the vote and lost, while Lee had 60% of the vote and won.

   If it were true that runoff voters were overwhelmingly whiter, wouldn’t Ammiano have won in 1999? Tom Ammiano is one of the white supervisors that he claims that IRV has helped rid the city of.

   There was not an ethics commission report in 2003 that showed independent expenditures increased by a factor of 4 in “runoffs”. There was a resolution by the ethics commission that claimed that independent spending for the two supervisors whose election went to a runoff in 2002 had quadrupled. We don’t know if that was from $5000 to $20,000 or who was spending money for whom. The ethics commission report was urging implementation of IRV using uncertified equipment for the 2003 election. Since they were claiming that IRV was a panacea, we don’t have to bother checking whether IRV has led to a change to independent spending since then, do we?

   Turnout for the city attorney’s race in November 2009 was 17%, hardly better than the 16% in the 2001 runoff. And by then there were significantly more permanent-vote-by-mail voters that would have received a ballot in the mail, and simply had to return the ballot after marking it.

   When SF was first considering non-plurality elections, they considered use of a Top 2 Open Primary, but they realized that the city attorney and treasurer were rarely contested. Historically, they average around 1.5 candidates per election. Since they were elected in the election alternate to that for the mayor, DA, and sheriff, they realized a primary would be a waste. So the proposal would have made the office of treasurer appointed and moved the election of city attorney. This measure failed.

   But soon, runoffs for mayor only were instituted. These were generally common because mayoral elections have always attracted hordes of candidates, and turnout was often higher in the runoff.

   After one round of district elections, it was decided to make supervisors require a majority election. It was simpler to change the charter to make majority elections a requirement for all offices. The stealth recall of 1980 removed from office any supervisors who had been elected in a 1979 runoff, and switched back to plurality at-large elections of supervisors.

   It also accidentally switched the election of supervisors to even numbered years where they would be buried on the bottom of a gubernatorial or presidential ballot. The city attorney and treasurer were left in a stand-alone election every four years. Even though it was stupid to hold an election for such minor offices which are dubious as elected offices in the first place, San Francisco continued to require a majority. But no runoff was needed because there was either one or two candidates.

   Voters rejected STV election of supervisors at the same election they approved switching back to district supervisors. The charter still provided for a runoff for all single-member offices.

   In 2000, most at-large supervisors attempted to be re-elected from districts. Some such as Gavin Newsom, Tom Ammiano, and Leland Yee made the transition easily. Some failed miserably. Alicia Becerril who had been appointed as an at-large supervisor finished 6th in her district. Historically, supervisors were appointed a year before an election so they could be listed on the ballot as “Supervisor”. Faced with choosing 5 or 6 candidates, voters would pick a “supervisor”. If they voters for 5 or 6 “non-supervisors” the votes would tend to be more scattered.

   The voters in 3 districts chose someone different than the first round leader. Two who lost were at-large supervisors who had been picked by the downtown crowd, but had less grassroots support and were outhustled by Jake McGoldrick, Tony Hall, and Sophie Maxwell (all of whom were easily re-elected in IRV elections).

   IRV elections for supervisor on the bottom of the presidential or gubernatorial ballot favor name recognition, which might be won by those who can afford to run commercials on MWTV.

   In 2001, there happened to be more city attorney and treasurer candidates than normal. Since most people didn’t care who was elected, they didn’t show up for the November election, or only voted for the issues. There was a runoff, and even fewer people voted. Instead of recognizing how stupid it was to have these elections separate from other city elections, or to make the offices appointed, the IRV crowd exploited this election to inflict IRV on the city.

   The 2009 elections demonstrated that it is still stupid to have these two offices contested in their own election.

   Hopefully, SF will return to runoff elections, and if they have any sense will restore the supervisor elections to the odd year where they will get more attention. There really is no need to split the district elections, that was just a carryover from at-large elections. Perhaps those elected in 2012 in the last IRV election could serve until 2017, while those elected in a conventional election in 2014 would serve a 3-year term.

2. Pingback: California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano Defends San Francisco’s Current Voting System | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

3. IRV for single offices = THE method to elect Stalin/Hitler clones when the terrified Middle is divided.

   34 S–M–H
   33 H–M–S
   16 M–S–H
   16 M–H–S
   99

   Gee — who has 99 votes in 1st+2nd place votes ???

   —-
   P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. NOW.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.