The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will decide, either on February 7 or February 14, whether to place a ballot measure on the ballot, or perhaps two ballot measures on the ballot, concerning Instant Runoff Voting. One measure that may be put on the ballot is to eliminate IRV, and return to the system of two rounds of elections for city office. The other idea that may be placed on the ballot is to expand IRV so that each voter may indicate more choices for any one office other than just First, Second and Third Choice.
If the Board approves putting either of these measures on the ballot, or both of them, the Board will also decide whether to put them on the June ballot or the November ballot. The date of the February hearing should be clearer on February 3. UPDATE: the Supervisors cannot act to put the measures on the ballot until their February 14 meeting. But they could table either or both measures on February 7. Thanks to Steve Hill for this news.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
IRV for single offices = THE method to elect Stalin/Hitler clones — when the mystified muddled middle is divided.
Pingback: San Francisco Supervisors Will Vote on February 7 or February 14 Whether to Put two Voting Systems Questions on Ballot | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Two mutually-exclusive but independently-voted ballot items; if both pass, the one with the most votes will be enacted.
That’s approval voting, but with the status quo automatically getting 50%+1. Not bad, but it would be better to formally list “keep the current system” as its own item (since one of the alternates may get >50%, but still not be as preferred as the status quo.)
Or, if the board is serious about IRV, run it under those rules, with the three choices being runoff, IRV-full, and IRV-3 (incumbent). Watch out for spoilers though!
Condorcet head to head = advanced math.
BUT with the LOW-LOW-LOW New Age math thinking of the math moron lawyers and SCOTUS, Condorcet will have to wait a bit — perhaps centuries ???
Great beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your web site, how can i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I were tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided brilliant transparent concept
The current city charter says that a voter may rank all candidates.
“The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number of choices in order of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office; ”
But then goes on to say.
“provided, however, if the voting system, vote tabulation system or similar or related equipment used by the City and County cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates running for each. office, then the Director of Elections may limit the number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three.”
111329
Would modify “no fewer than three” to “no fewer than the maximum number allowed by the technical limitations of the City’s voting system, which in no case may be be fewer than three”.
So if the City’s voting system could accommodate 12 candidates, but there were 13 candidates, a nefarious Director of Elections could limit choices to three. But under the proposed amendment he would have to use all 12.
Perhaps a future charter amendment could change “City’s voting system” to “the voting system, vote tabulation system or similar or related equipment used by the City and County”
And clarify that “three” is “more than 2” but “less than 4”.