Ranked-choice voting complicates S.F. mayor's race
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle October 23, 2011 04:00 AM
Copyright San Francisco Chronicle. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ![]()
After seven years of preliminaries, San Francisco will finally get a true test of ranked-choice voting as mayoral candidates scramble for position in the winner-doesn't-take-all election system.
Although the system, which asks voters to list their top three choices for mayor, has been used since 2004, the November election for mayor will be unknown territory for candidates, consultants and voters alike.
"We've got a field crowded with credible candidates and an appointed incumbent in the mix," said Eric Jaye, who is running Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting's campaign for mayor. "I don't know if anyone is an expert in this."
There's plenty of incentive for the candidates and their handlers to get up to speed. All they need to remember is the scene of a shell-shocked Don Perata trying to describe how he could lead by almost 10 percentage points after all the votes were counted on election night and still lose to Jean Quan when the ranked-choice system factored in voters' second- and third-place choices.
"I didn't understand it enough," Perata said. "I ran the way I normally would."
"It's a real challenge, since you're really running two elections simultaneously," said Jim Stearns, consultant for state Sen. Leland Yee's run for mayor. "Normally, in a primary you have to identify your base, organize and get them out to vote. But in a ranked-choice election, you have to get beyond your base and identify other potential supporters."
Under ranked choice, if no candidate collects a majority of the first-choice votes in the first round, the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped from consideration and his second-choice votes are added to the totals of the remaining candidates. This continues, round after round, until someone crosses the 50 percent mark.
"All of a sudden, we're talking about seconds and thirds," said John Whitehurst, a political adviser to City Attorney Dennis Herrera's campaign for mayor.
Because each voter can choose three candidates on the ballot, many of the city's dozens of endorsing groups are listing three names, too. That opens the door for Herrera and other candidates to get a second- or third-choice nod from groups where they would never be the first pick.
"In a regular election, we'd normally go after four or five endorsements," Whitehurst said. "Now we go after everything because the cumulative effect can make a difference."
With ranked-choice voting, "you tend to be really nice to the people behind you and slightly less nice to those who are ahead of you," Jaye said. "You want to activate your base without alienating your opponents' supporters."
Not everyone sees that as a good thing. In a lengthy report this month on ranked-choice voting, the environmental group San Francisco Tomorrow complained that the system rewards candidates who are least objectionable, not those who are most popular.
While people point to the Oakland mayor's race as an example of what San Francisco can expect Nov. 8, the background of the two contests is very different, said Corey Cook, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco.
Perata, a political veteran dogged by allegations of corruption, was a polarizing figure in the Oakland race. Quan took advantage of that by working with the other candidates on an "Anyone but Perata" effort that brought her enough second- and third-choice support to win the election.
"A lot of the candidates don't believe that any of the others would be better than Ed Lee," he said. "If you could ask the candidates who was on their ballots, I suspect some of them would have Lee as a second or third choice."
But the biggest wild card in the race is ranked-choice voting itself. While the system has been used since 2004, there are still plenty of questions about how well voters understand how it works.
The city's election department recently sent out a full-color, trilingual postcard to voters, explaining ranked-choice voting. But candidates still run into questions.
Lee, for example, originally liked the idea of ranked-choice voting because it saved the city more than $1 million by eliminating the December runoff. Now he's not so sure.
"As a candidate, I think it's confusing, and a lot of people tell me they're unclear about how it works," he said. "We have to educate people much better about it."
Each voter lists up to three candidates in ranked order: First, second and third choice.
If one candidate gets more than 50 percent of the first-place votes in the first round of counting, he's the winner and there's no need to look at the second and third choices.
But if no one has a majority, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated from the future count and his second-choice votes are distributed to the remaining candidates.
If still no one cracks the 50 percent mark, then the candidate with the second-lowest vote total is eliminated and his second-place votes are distributed. If the voters' second choice already was eliminated, it's the third-choice vote that goes back into the pool.
This continues until one candidate has a majority of the remaining votes. Last November, it took 20 rounds before Malia Cohen finally was elected as supervisor from San Francisco's District 10.
Although the system, which asks voters to list their top three choices for mayor, has been used since 2004, the November election for mayor will be unknown territory for candidates, consultants and voters alike.
"We've got a field crowded with credible candidates and an appointed incumbent in the mix," said Eric Jaye, who is running Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting's campaign for mayor. "I don't know if anyone is an expert in this."
There's plenty of incentive for the candidates and their handlers to get up to speed. All they need to remember is the scene of a shell-shocked Don Perata trying to describe how he could lead by almost 10 percentage points after all the votes were counted on election night and still lose to Jean Quan when the ranked-choice system factored in voters' second- and third-place choices.
"I didn't understand it enough," Perata said. "I ran the way I normally would."
2 simultaneous elections
That won't happen in San Francisco, where candidates already are making adjustments. While appointed Mayor Ed Lee might be the front-runner, there's plenty of strategizing going on."It's a real challenge, since you're really running two elections simultaneously," said Jim Stearns, consultant for state Sen. Leland Yee's run for mayor. "Normally, in a primary you have to identify your base, organize and get them out to vote. But in a ranked-choice election, you have to get beyond your base and identify other potential supporters."
Under ranked choice, if no candidate collects a majority of the first-choice votes in the first round, the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped from consideration and his second-choice votes are added to the totals of the remaining candidates. This continues, round after round, until someone crosses the 50 percent mark.
"All of a sudden, we're talking about seconds and thirds," said John Whitehurst, a political adviser to City Attorney Dennis Herrera's campaign for mayor.
Because each voter can choose three candidates on the ballot, many of the city's dozens of endorsing groups are listing three names, too. That opens the door for Herrera and other candidates to get a second- or third-choice nod from groups where they would never be the first pick.
"In a regular election, we'd normally go after four or five endorsements," Whitehurst said. "Now we go after everything because the cumulative effect can make a difference."
Changing campaign's tone
The need to grab second-place support from voters who might like a rival better means candidates are less likely to slam their opponents. Or at least some of their opponents.With ranked-choice voting, "you tend to be really nice to the people behind you and slightly less nice to those who are ahead of you," Jaye said. "You want to activate your base without alienating your opponents' supporters."
Not everyone sees that as a good thing. In a lengthy report this month on ranked-choice voting, the environmental group San Francisco Tomorrow complained that the system rewards candidates who are least objectionable, not those who are most popular.
While people point to the Oakland mayor's race as an example of what San Francisco can expect Nov. 8, the background of the two contests is very different, said Corey Cook, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco.
Perata, a political veteran dogged by allegations of corruption, was a polarizing figure in the Oakland race. Quan took advantage of that by working with the other candidates on an "Anyone but Perata" effort that brought her enough second- and third-choice support to win the election.
Unpredictable system
But in San Francisco, Lee hasn't alienated large chunks of the electorate, Cook said."A lot of the candidates don't believe that any of the others would be better than Ed Lee," he said. "If you could ask the candidates who was on their ballots, I suspect some of them would have Lee as a second or third choice."
But the biggest wild card in the race is ranked-choice voting itself. While the system has been used since 2004, there are still plenty of questions about how well voters understand how it works.
The city's election department recently sent out a full-color, trilingual postcard to voters, explaining ranked-choice voting. But candidates still run into questions.
Lee, for example, originally liked the idea of ranked-choice voting because it saved the city more than $1 million by eliminating the December runoff. Now he's not so sure.
"As a candidate, I think it's confusing, and a lot of people tell me they're unclear about how it works," he said. "We have to educate people much better about it."
Ranked-choice voting
Here's how it works:Each voter lists up to three candidates in ranked order: First, second and third choice.
If one candidate gets more than 50 percent of the first-place votes in the first round of counting, he's the winner and there's no need to look at the second and third choices.
But if no one has a majority, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated from the future count and his second-choice votes are distributed to the remaining candidates.
If still no one cracks the 50 percent mark, then the candidate with the second-lowest vote total is eliminated and his second-place votes are distributed. If the voters' second choice already was eliminated, it's the third-choice vote that goes back into the pool.
This continues until one candidate has a majority of the remaining votes. Last November, it took 20 rounds before Malia Cohen finally was elected as supervisor from San Francisco's District 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment