BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 X-WR-CALNAME:www.indybay.org PRODID:-//indybay/ical// v1.0//EN BEGIN:VEVENT UID:Indybay-18435305 SEQUENCE:18450553 CREATED:20070714T023800Z DESCRIPTION:FW:\nFor its July meeting, Marin Ranked Voting will change locations. We\nwill meet at the Aroma Cafe in downtown San Rafael on Wednesday, July 18\nat 7:00pm. Everyone interested in better ways of choosing public\nofficials is encouraged to drop by.\n\nThe Aroma Cafe is at 1122 4th Street, between A and B Streets. Our\nregular location at College of Marin will be available again in August,\nbut we may decide to make the switch permanent anyway.\n\nMeanwhile, you've seen lots of calls to action about AB 1294 recently,\nand know that the next stop is the Senate Elections Committee on July\n10. But did you know that IRV for city elections is now on the\npolitical agenda in Los Angeles? On June 13 a committee of the City\nCouncil instructed the city clerk to spend the next six months writing\nup IRV and a laundry list of other proposals for improving turnout in\ncity elections.\n\nBelow is an extensive eyewitness report, plus documents, from David\nHoltzman, Los Angeles area coordinator for Californians for Electoral\nReform.\n\n-- Bob Richard\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n-------- Original Message --------\nSubject: [LAvoteFIRE] City Hall developments - from the 10th floor\nDate: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:19:11 -0700\nFrom: David Holtzman\nTo: Friends, Members and Supporters of L.A. VoteFIRE\n\nDear Friends and Supporters of Having Instant Runoff Elections,\n\nOn Wed., June 13, on the 10th floor of city hall, the Los Angeles City\nCouncil Rules and Elections Committee discussed several ways to improve\ncity elections, including the motion by Councilmembers Huizar and\nGarcetti that would move the city a step closer to using Instant Runoff\nVoting (IRV).\n\n[see press coverage reproduced below]\n\nOf about 50 people in the audience at the committee meeting, about a\ndozen wore "IRV 4 LA" stickers that I brought along. Most of the\nspeakers expressed support for IRV, but the committee did not vote on\nthe Huizar-Garcetti motion -- because the discussion went too long (all\nbut one of the committee members left before it was over) and the IRV\nissue is being folded into a larger report on election reform that the\nCity Clerk is expected to produce over the next six months.\n\nThe bottom line from the Rules and Elections Committee meeting last\nWednesday is that the committee did not vote on anything, but instead\nasked City Clerk Frank Martinez to report back in 6 months, on several\nproposals, including the Huizar-Garcetti motion on IRV, all together\nunder one council file number. Eric Garcetti said Jose Huizar would be\nfine with that, although Huizar had come and gone hours before. So: the\nIRV motion has been delayed because it has been combined with other\nissues. In general, an omnibus election reform is not a very efficient\nvehicle. (It reminds me of "Big Green", a multi-idea statewide\nenvironmental initiative that eventually went down to defeat.)\n\nPart of the delay on IRV was due to Committee Member Richard Alarcon's\nopposition. In his remarks at the committee meeting, he expressed\ndispleasure with the claim that IRV would reduce negative advertising in\npolitics. Alarcon said that going negative was often a good idea in\npolitics. Then he disparaged IRV as "radical" because it is not yet in\nwidespread use in governmental elections in the United States ( --\nalthough it is used in many places around the world, and by numerous\ncivic and professional groups in the U.S., and in many mainstream\nacademic communities). He acknowledged that democracy is expensive, but\nwould not jump on the "fewer elections" bandwagon (however, he may have\nfelt somewhat defensive in a room full of people concerned with voter\nfatigue because his early departure from the State Legislature had just\ncasued a special election). Nevertheless, because Dennis Zine seemed\nsupportive, and Eric Garcetti seconded the motion, it is my sense that\nif the IRV motion had been considered separately, it would have passed\nthe committee on a 2-1 vote.\n\nDetails of the committee meeting\n\nThe Rules and Elections Committee meeting started with (fairly long)\npresentations from several influential groups about a variety of\nelection improvement ideas. The groups were: the African American Voter\nRegistration, Education and Participation Project; the Asian Pacific\nAmerican Legal Center of Southern California; California Common Cause;\nthe League of Women Voters of Los Angeles; the National Association of\nLatino Elected and Appointed Officials; the New America Foundation; and\nthe William C. Velasquez Institute (formerly the Southwest Voter\nResearch Institute). Some very good news from the meeting is that all\nthe groups that expressed opinions on IRV said positive things. (At\nleast one presenter called it "the star of the show," to general\nagreement.) So we can work together moving forward.\n\nIndividual Councilmembers also expressed support for IRV, and for some\nof the other proposals being discussed (including ideas about holding\ncity elections at the same time as state elections, about the number and\nlocation of polling places, and about letting people called to jury duty\nwork at the polls instead).\n\nCity Clerk's report\n\nCity Clerk Frank Martinez gave a long presentation about the most recent\nelection and related issues. For razzle-dazzle, his staff brought along\npolling place hardware (voting booths, an audio ballot marker, and an\novervote/undervote alert system) and some pollworker recruitment\ncommercials. One thing he noted was that his office was understaffed\nrelative to similar offices in other big cities.\n\nCombining elections to increase turnout\n\nOne obvious way to increase turnout in city elections would be to have\nthem on the same day as Congresssional and Presidential elections. But\nthe county is very reluctant to run city elections. So for the city to\nhave its elections on the same Election Day as state and federal\nelections, the City Clerk would need to run a concurrent election.\nIndeed, on May 15, the city and the county had successfully run two\nseparate elections at the same time and in the same polling places: a\nvacant State Assembly seat (Alarcon's) was up in a special election (the\ncounty runs state elections) while the L.A. Community College District\nhad a district-wide runoff that day for one of its board seats (the city\nruns LACCD elections). But despite being proud of the May 15 effort,\nFrank Martinez said he'd rather resign than run citywide elections --\nwith or without IRV -- on the same November Election Days as the county\nruns the elections for federal and state offices. (Of course he might\njust stay and conduct such citywide elections if the City Council would\naddress his complaint about the understaffing of his office.)\n\nAnyway, for now, L.A. VoteFIRE has proposed using IRV to eliminate the\ncity's separate primary election day in March (of odd-numbered years).\nThis would let voters express their top choices and runoff choices on\nthe regular city general election ballot in May (of odd-numbered years),\nwith one trip to the polls or post office. This simple idea still\nmerits separate consideration.\n\nFYI, please see the recent local press related to the meeting, below,\nincluding a letter in the L.A. Times by Carole Bradley, who is an L.A.\nVoteFIRE participant and an active member of the Alternative Voting\nMethods committee of the League of Women Voters Pasadena Area.\n\nAs always, thank you for your continued support of having Instant Runoff\nelections,\n\nDavid Holtzman, Founder\nLos Angeles Voters For Instant Runoff Elections.\n\n[note: Last Saturday, the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles decided\nto pursue education about instant runoff voting, and possible advocacy\nof IRV (in concurrence with the Pasadena Area League), as an official\npart of the LWVLA program that begins this year. So IRV is by no means\na dead issue for the balance of this year. L.A. VoteFIRE and other\norganizations will be working with LWVLA to educate voters and the\npublic about instant runoffs, to help us be prepared for action when the\nCity Clerk presents his report. More on this in the next L.A. VoteFIRE\nupdate!]\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nInstant runoffs might be fix for voter fatigue\nBy Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writer\n\nLos Angeles Times, June 11, 2007\n\nhttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-localgovtqa11jun11,1,3096499.sto\nry\n\nLet's begin by agreeing that the Los Angeles City Council's Rules and\nElections Committee is not exactly Comedy Central.\n\nThat's not saying committee Chairman Eric Garcetti isn't a host with a\nsense of humor. He is. But hey, it's Rules and Elections. Short of\npassing out whoopee cushions and nachos, you can only do so much.\n\nBut this Wednesday's meeting may be different because the committee is\ngoing to discuss instant runoff voting. If you're tired of the endless\nelectioneering in the city, this is a good thing.\n\nAnd the problem?\n\nAs attentive readers may recall, this column believes that perpetually\nlow turnout in city elections is due, in part, to the city's insistence\non holding elections in March of odd-numbered years. Any wonder that\nturnout in this year's election was just 11% and even lower during the\nMay runoffs?\n\nThat means city elections follow directly on the heels of far sexier\ngeneral elections in November of even-numbered years. The result:\nElection season feels like hockey season. It never ends.\n\nLook at the next couple of years. Voters will have the presidential\nprimary in February, the state primaries in June and the general\nelection in November to decide the presidency.\n\nThen, four months later in Los Angeles, in March 2009, eight council\nseats and the citywide offices of controller, city attorney and mayor\nwill be up for grabs - with possible runoffs to follow in some of those\nraces.\n\nThat's five elections in 15 months. Uncle!\n\nWould instant runoff be easier on voters?\n\nSome experts say it would. It's already being used in San Francisco,\nOakland and Berkeley.\n\nInstead of picking one candidate, voters would be asked to rank three by\norder of preference. Those rankings, in turn, would determine the\nwinner.\n\nLet's look at a hypothetical council election involving three\ncandidates: Charlie Brown, Lucy Van Pelt and Pigpen.\n\nAfter the votes are tallied, Lucy received 45%, owing to her pledge to\ninstitute a Great Pumpkin eradication program. Pigpen somehow manages\n40% and Charlie Brown - always the loser - gets 15%.\n\nBecause no candidate received a majority, the election would enter an\ninstant runoff phase. The first step would be to eliminate the\nlast-place finisher and redistribute those votes according to whom\nvoters picked second.\n\nIn other words, if Charlie Brown was your first choice and Lucy your\nsecond, then Lucy would get your vote. If Lucy gets enough of those\nsecond-place votes to put her over the 50% mark, she wins.\n\nThe pros and cons of instant runoff:\n\nThe New America Foundation, which is pushing the proposal in cities\nacross the country, says Los Angeles could save money with instant\nrunoffs, having spent $30.9 million to administer separate runoff\nelections since 1993.\n\nThat's not to mention all the fundraising and campaign promises - not\nall well thought out - that accompany runoffs.\n\nMore important, the foundation says that candidates vying to be\nsomeone's second or third choice would stick to the issues more\nclosely - and sometimes even build coalitions around issues.\n\n"Local elections are some of the most important in terms of having an\nimpact on your daily life," said Lynne Serpe, deputy director of the\nfoundation's political reform program. "I think that elections have\nbecome so negative and nasty that people tune out and turn off."\n\nThere is, of course, a con side. Runoffs can be logistically difficult,\nand eliminating the May general election could also mean denying voters\na chance to get to better know the two finalists. Also, it could mean\nthat candidates could win even without a majority vote.\n\nThe Rules and Elections panel is only going to discuss the idea. But\nCouncilman Jose Huizar - who isn't on the committee - very much wants to\nsee the issue move forward for a council vote.\n\nHuizar predicts his colleagues will go for the idea "if we can make the\ncase that we can save a whole lot of money and it will cut down on the\nmadness and negative campaigning."\n\nAnd, Huizar added, it would also help if he can show that instant runoff\nvoting won't affect his colleagues' futures.\n\nStay tuned.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLos Angeles may vote for change\nInstant runoffs, new dates some proposals for combating low turnout\nBY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer\n\nL.A. Daily News, June 14, 2007\n\nTo entice Angelenos back to the polls after record-low turnouts in\nrecent years, the city is mulling a host of changes, including new\nelection dates, more mail-in voting and instant runoff voting.\n\nIn this year's elections, 10 percent of registered voters participated\nin the March primary and 7 percent turned out for the May general\nelection.\n\nThe reason?\n\nIn a hearing Wednesday, voter education groups cited voter fatigue from\ntoo many elections, complicated initiatives, language barriers, negative\ncampaigning, lack of interest in local races and a growing belief that\nvoting doesn't matter.\n\n"We really need to bring back what the importance is of local\nelections," said Jimmy Valentine with the African American Voter\nRegistration, Education and Participation Program. "Your council\nmembers, your school board members, those are the ones that figure in\nyour daily lives in your community."\n\nOne proposal to increase voter turnout - or at least reduce voter\nfatigue - is instant runoff voting. The system, now used in San\nFrancisco, allows voters to rank the candidates in order of preference.\n\nTo determine the winner, officials tally first-choice candidates. If a\ncandidate has a majority, he or she wins. If there is no majority, the\nlast place candidate is eliminated and ballots that listed the candidate\nas the first choice are recounted using the second choice. That\nelimination and recount process is continued until a candidate gets a\nmajority of votes.\n\nSupporters said instant runoff voting would be cheaper since there's\nonly one election and it could increase participation, since the number\nof voters tends to decrease in local elections between the primary and\nfinal election.\n\nCouncilman Jose Huizar said he began pushing instant runoff voting after\nthe last election when he went to vote for the community college board\ntrustee runoff, and was told only two other people (beside him and his\nwife) had voted.\n\n"I asked myself, wasn't I just here a few months ago to vote for this\nperson?" Huizar said.\n\nSo far the proposal has support from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and\nseveral City Council members, but it's still in the discussion phase and\nwould require changing the city charter and election code.\n\n[note: the Mayor has not actually expressed his formal support for IRV.\nThis was an editing error by the Daily News. Apparently, the proposal\nthe mayor supports is vote-by-mail elections.--DAH]\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLetters to the Editor: Make votes really count\nRe "Instant runoffs might be fix for voter fatigue," June 11\n\nLos Angeles Times, June 15, 2007\n\nhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-friday15.4jun15,1,7897\n861.story\n\nBased on the low turnout and high cost of the recent city runoff\nelection - which involved only two school board seats and one community\ncollege position and cost taxpayers about $8 million - the Los Angeles\nCommunity College District has endorsed the concept of change in our\nelectoral system. We have resolved to investigate instant-runoff voting\nand look forward to the City Council's deliberations on a proposal by\nCouncilmen Eric Garcetti and Jose Huizar.\n\nIn San Francisco and other Bay Area cities, the instant runoff has\nproved effective for saving taxpayer dollars and increasing voter\nparticipation.\n\nMONA FIELD\nEagle Rock\n\nThe writer is a trustee of the Los Angeles Community College District.\n\n[note: to use IRV for LACCD elections would require a change in state\nlaw, as LACCD elections are not governed by the L.A. City Charter.\nPending state legislation sponsored by Californians for Electoral Reform\nmay address this issue.--DAH]\n\n\nThanks for the timely article. One clarification is needed: With\ninstant-runoff voting, majority support for the winner is assured\nwithout a separate election.\n\nAlso, because voter turnout in the separate runoffs is usually less than\nin the primary, the majority support with an instant runoff would\nusually represent a majority of more voters.\n\nThe Los Angeles City Council should lead the way in the county by using\nan instant runoff to help fix the current system, which costs taxpayers\nand candidates too much and leaves voters tired and covering their ears.\n\nWith an instant runoff, voters simply rank the candidates, indicating\nwho should get their vote if their favorite is eliminated, enabling\ninstantaneous runoffs.\n\nThis system would take the nastiness out of campaigns because candidates\nwould seek to get high rankings from their opponents' supporters.\n\nCAROLE BRADLEY\nAltadena\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nEditorial: Instant runoff voting is worth a look\nLocal agencies can spend less on elections because the primary and\nrunoff occur simultaneously, which would mean less voter fatigue.\n\nL.A. Daily Breeze editorial, June 15, 2007\n\nThe last two elections supervised by the Los Angeles City Clerk's Office\nproduced dismally low turnouts. Only 10 percent of registered voters\ntook part in the March primary election, and the May runoff election\ndrew only about 7 percent.\n\nThe problem isn't unique to the city of Los Angeles. Many local\nelections in the South Bay seem to attract fewer and fewer voters.\n\nA timely hearing held this week in the city of L.A. focused needed\nattention on ways to improve voter turnout. One of the possible reforms\nis instant-runoff voting, which has been successful in cities like San\nFrancisco.\n\nIn most jurisdictions, one can select one candidate per elected\nposition. If there are many candidates vying for one or two positions,\nthat usually means a runoff election is necessary for a candidate to\nsecure a majority.\n\nUnder the instant runoff system, however, voters can rank candidate\npreferences (first choice, second choice and so on). If a candidate wins\na majority in the first-choice category, he wins outright. But if no\ncandidate wins a majority, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and\nhis voters' second choices are added to the tally. Gradually, less\npopular candidates are eliminated until a candidate wins a majority of\npreferences.\n\nThe concept might be confusing at first, but it has advantages. These\nadvantages include:\n\nCost. Local agencies can spend less on elections because the primary and\nrunoff occur simultaneously.\n\nDemocracy. Supporters say that using preferences is more democratic\nthan, say, city council elections which allow some candidates to win\nwith 25 percent pluralities - or less.\n\nLess voter fatigue. Some observers suggest that so many special\nelections have been held in California in recent years that voters are\nstaying away from the polls. If that's true, instant runoffs would\nreduce the strain and increase turnouts.\n\nMore positive campaigns. The theory is that candidates would be less\ninclined to go negative in order to do well in the second-choice\ncategory. So the emphasis would be less on personalities and more an\nissues.\n\nWe're not saying that instant runoffs are right for every jurisdiction.\nBut as Debra Bowen, the secretary of state and former South Bay state\nsenator, said recently, instant runoffs could be ideal in races such as\nthis month's 37th Congressional District election, which has a field of\n17 candidates.\n\nCharter cities can now use the instant runoff system, but state\nlegislation would be required to extend this choice to general law\ncities and other jurisdictions. Simply put, public agencies need such\noptions to improve voter turnout and to strengthen democratic\ninstitutions.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nQ&A | LOCAL GOVERNMENT\nBy Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writer\n\n>From the Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2007\n\nhttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-localgovtqa18jun18,1,6307777.sto\nry\n\n[...]\n\nHow did the big discussion of instant runoff voting go in the City\nCouncil's Rules and Elections Committee last Wednesday?\n\nWe teased that discussion here last week, not knowing the meeting would\nturn into a three-hour-plus example of what happens when you put voter\nrights activists in front of a microphone - they literally can't stop\ntalking.\n\nThe result of the meeting was that City Clerk Frank Martinez is going to\nspend the next six months penciling a report on various ways to help\nimprove turnout and reduce the cost of city elections.\n\nOn the list of items Martinez will analyze are consolidating city\nelections with November general elections, going to all mail-in ballots\nand instant runoff voting, among others. A handful of elected officials\nhave expressed support for instant runoff, but there won't be a\nmeaningful debate on the issue until next year.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nTo unsubscribe, write to admin@marinrankedvoting.org and ask to be removed from \nthe news list. For more information, visit http://tinyurl.com/bwl2f.\n\nAdd put up http://groups.yahoo.com/group/davidquinleymaringpcouncil\nOF THE http://groups.yahoo.com/group/comcampusgreens\nOF THE http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gpcaucusofcalsacc\nOF THE SC of www.campusgreens.org \n https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/13/18435305.php SUMMARY:Monthly Marin Ranked Voting Meeting>San Rafael