On Thursday, January 26, two important legislative hearings will take place in California. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Rules Committee will meet at 1:30 pm in Room 263 of City Hall to hear two bills on Instant Runoff Voting. One bill would eliminate it; the other bill would preserve it and expand the number of choices for voters. Currently voters are limited to a First, Second and Third Choice vote. UPDATE: the hearing time has been changed to 2:30 pm.
Also on January 26, the California Assembly Elections Committee will hear AB 1413 sometime in the morning, in room 3162 of the State Capitol. The bill would delete write-in space on general election ballots for Congress and partisan state office. The bill has already passed the State Senate. The Committee won’t say what time the hearing is; instead the hearing will be held as soon as the Assembly floor session ends, which will probably be in the mid-morning.
IRV = THE method to elect Stalin/Hitler clones when the muddled Middle is divided.
34 S–M–H
33 H–M–H
16 M–S–H
16 M–H–S
99
Gee – who has 99 of 99 votes 1st plus 2nd place ???
It AIN’T S or H.
Pingback: Two Important California Legislative Hearings Set for January 26 | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
111329 is really dishonest. It apparently includes the switch of the city attorney and treasurer races to the mayoral election, as part of an effort to confuse voters. The real change that should be made is to restore the supervisor elections to the odd year where voters would have a real opportunity to choose their supervisor without having it buried under the presidential and gubernatorial election,
Turnout in odd-year non-mayoral election plummeted when the supervisor elections were moved to the even year as part of the stealth recall in 1980. Voters were coming out to vote for supervisors, not the city attorney and treasurer, which were hardly ever contested (the 2001 runoff was the first since voters approved runoffs for those offices in the 1970s).
And it really doesn’t increase the number of preferences that a voter may vote. The city charter already says that a voter can rank all candidates (unless the voting system can not accommodate that many). The charter amendment simply adds meaningless language that the election commission may only limit to 3 if if is a “technical limitation”.
Q. Why can’t I rank more than 3 candidates?
A. It is not feasible with our equipment.
Q. What do you mean it is not feasible?
A. It is a technical limitation.
There should be some teeth put into the provision.
For example.
If the voting equipment can not feasibly allow a voter to express full preferences, then a conventional runoff will be held.
If the voting equipment can not feasibly allow a voter to express full preferences, then a voter may write-in a numeral next to each candidate’s name indicating their preference order. In all cases, the voter’s intent shall be honored. All voter education materials shall explain this option.
If the voting equipment can not feasibly allow a voter to express full preferences, then paper ballots on which a voter may indicate their preference order by use of numerals shall be used. The city and county may expend necessary funds to hire persons from Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland to count the ballots.
If the voting equipment can not feasibly allow a voter to express full preferences, then a voter may mark the same preference ranking for multiple candidates. This shall not be considered an overvote, but rather equal ranking of the candidates. Whenever a preference ranking indicates an equal preference for more than one continuing candidate, it will be treated as if the vote was equally divided among all such continuing candidates.
If the voting equipment can not feasibly allow a voter to express full preferences, a ballot on which a voter has indicated as many preference as permitted for unique candidates who have been eliminated, the ballot will be deemed a coerced exhaustion. If the number of votes cast for trailing candidates, plus the number of coerced exhausted votes is less than for the next higher candidate, the trailing candidate or candidates will be eliminated. If no candidates may be eliminated, then counting will be stopped.
A ranked choice runoff will be held one month later, with all continuing candidates appearing on the ballot. No write-in space shall be provided, but any write-in candidates who were continuing candidates will appear on the ballot.
The process of ranked choice runoffs will continue until a candidate is elected.
AB 1413 would codify the SOS misinterpretation of 8002.5. That is more important than the write-in provision.
How did she come up with such a complicated interpretation of the word “upon”?