CR 06-008 Revision of City Charter Ord 05=958
January 17, 2006
Council Report 2006-008
REVISION OF CITY CHARTER
ORDINANCE 2005-958
Proposed Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Approve Ordinance 2005-958,
for first reading.
This action will continue the process of amending the City Charter.
Overview
The Hopkins Charter Commission met on April 26, September 27 and November 15, 2005. The
Commission discussed changing the method used to elect members of the City Council at all three
meetings.
The Commission voted, on November 15, to recommend the adoption of Ordinance 2005-958 by
the Hopkins City Council. This ordinance would adopt ranked choice, or 'instant runoff,' balloting
for the Mayor and Council.
Primary Issues to Consider
. What changes are being recommended in the Charter?
. What is Ranked Ballot Voting?
. What is the process for amending the City Charter?
Supportinl! Information
. Analysis of the issues.
. Alternatives
. Ordinance 2005-958
. City Attorney's opinion of July 2005.
es A. Genellie
ssistant City Manager
Council Report 2006-008
Page 2
Analvsis of the Issues
What changes are being recommended in the Charter?
In 2004, the City Council, on the recommendation of the Charter Commission, established a
Alternative Voting Task Force to "obtain, study and evaluate data on alternative voting methods
for use in Hopkins." The Task Force presented a preliminary report to the Charter Commission
on April 26, 2005.
The Charter Commission gave the Task Force additional time to complete its report and met
again on September 27. At that time, the Task Force recommended that the Charter
Commission consider adopting ranked choice, or 'instant runoff,' balloting. This method of
voting requires that winning candidates have a majority of the votes.
At the September meeting, the Charter Commission voted to authorize the staff to draft a
resolution and Charter amendment, implementing ranked choice balloting for the Mayor and
Council using two passes of ranked choice balloting for the two council seats.
On November 15, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council
approve Ordinance 2005-958 adopting ranked ballot voting for the Mayor and Council. Ranked
ballot voting would be used in the 2007 election assuming that the City Council determines that
it is technically and financially feasible.
What is Ranked Ballot Voting?
Ranked ballot or "instant runoff' voting is a method of ensuring that the winning candidate
receives a majority of the votes. It provides an alternative to plurality and runoff elections. In a
plurality election, the highest vote getter wins even if s/he receives less than 50% of the vote. In
a runoff election, two candidates advance to a runoff if no candidate receives more than 50% in
the first round.
Voters rank candidates in order of choice: 1,2,3 and so on. It takes a majority to win. If anyone
receives a majority of the first choice votes, that candidate is elected. If not, the last place
candidate is defeated, just as in a runoff election, and all ballots are counted again, but this time
each ballot cast for the defeated candidate counts for the next choice candidate listed on the
ballot. The process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues
until one candidate receives a majority of the vote. With modern voting equipment, all of the
counting and recounting takes place rapidly and automatically.
Because there are two Council Members elected at large in Hopkins, the above process would
be repeated a second time to elect a second Council Member.
Council Report 2006-008
Page 3
What is the process for amending the City Charter?
The City Charter rnay be amended by Ordinance using the following procedure:
Subd. 7. Amendment by ordinance. Upon recommendation of the charter commission the
city council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance. Within one month of receiving a
recommendation to amend the charter by ordinance, the city must publish notice of a public
hearing on the proposal and the notice must contain the text of the proposed amendment. The
city council must hold the public hearing on the proposed charter amendment at least two
weeks but not more than one month after the notice is published. Within one month of the
public hearing, the city council must vote on the proposed charter amendment ordinance. The
ordinance is enacted if it receives an affirmative vote of all members of the city council and is
approved by the mayor and published as in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance
amending a city charter shall not become effective until 90 days after passage and publication
or at such later date as is fixed in the ordinance.
Within 60 days after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition requesting a
referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. Such petition shall be signed by
qualified voters equal in number to two percent of the total number of votes cast in the city at
the last state general election or 2,000, whichever is less. If the city has a system of permanent
registration of voters, only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. If the requisite
petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become effective until it is
approved by the voters as in the case of charter amendments submitted by the charter
commission, the council, or by petition of the voters, except that the council may submit the
ordinance at any general or special election held at least 60 days after submission of the
petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the ordinance. As far as practicable the
requirements of subdivisions 1 to 3 apply to petitions submitted under this section, to an
ordinance amending a charter, and to the filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters.
Alternatives
1. Approve Ordinance 2005-958 for first reading.
2. Do not approve Ordin3pce 2005-958 for first reading and send the proposed ordinance back to
the Charter Commission for further action.
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
3
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 2005-958
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS
UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO M.S.A. CHAPTER 410.12, SUBD. 7
The City Council of the City of Hopkins, upon recommendation of and
from the Hopkins City Charter Commission does hereby ordain and
thus amend and adopt the following changes, deletions, and
amendments of or from the following chapters and sections of the
Hopkins City Charter:
Section 1. Section 2.03, is amended as follows:
Subdivision 3. After the City general election, the City Council
shall, at their next regularly scheduled meeting, meet as the
canvassing board and declare the results of the election. ~
c~ndid~to rooci~in~ tho highoot numbor of ~otco for ~ ~3rtiou13r
office is elected. If the election results in a tie, then the
winner should be determined by lot in the presence of the Council
acting as the canvassing board.
Section 2. Section 4.04, is added as follows:
SEC. 4.04. INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS.
(a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a candidate
shall be deemed "continuing" if the candidate has not been
eliminated; (2) a ballot shall be deemed "continuing" if it is not
exhausted; and (3) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted," and not
counted in further staqes of the tabulation, if all of the
candidates chosen on that ballot have been eliminated or there are
no more candidates indicated on the ballot. If a ranked-choice
ballot gives equal rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall
be declared exhausted at the point of the ballot when such multiple
rankinqs are reached. If a voter casts a ranked-choice ballot but
skips a rank, the voter's vote shall be transferred to that voter's
next ranked choice.
(b) The Mayor and members of the City Council shall be
elected using a ranked-choice, or "instant runoff," ballot. 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;
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. The ballot shall in no way interfere with a voter's ability
to cast a vote for.a write-in candidate.
(c) If a candidate receives a malority of the highest
ranked choices, that candidate shall be declared elected. If no
candidate receives a majority, the candidate who received the
fewest highest ranked choices shall be eliminated and each vote
cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next ranked
candidate on that voter's ballot. If, after this transfer of
votes, any candidate has a majority of the votes from the
continuing ballots, that candidate shall be declared elected.
(d) This process of eliminating candidates and
transferring their votes to the next-ranked continuing candidates
shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the
votes from the continuing ballots.
(e) The members of the city council shall be elected
sequentially. After the first candidate is elected, the votes shall
be recounted, with any ballots marked for the already elected
candidate now counting for the next ranked candidate on each
ballot.
(f) In the event of a tie between two or more candidates
after any round of counting, the candidate to be eliminated shall
be determined by lot.
(g)
campaign
runoff,"
The City Clerk shall conduct a voter education
to familiarize voters with the ranked-choice or, "instant
method of voting.
(h) Ranked choice, or 'instant runoff,' balloting shall be
used for the first municipal election in November 2007 and all
subsequent elections unless the City Clerk certifies to the City
Council no later than four months prior to an election that the
Department will not be ready to implement ranked choice balloting
in that election. Such certification must include the reasons why
the Department is not ready to implement ranked-choice balloting.
The City Council shall have the ability to accept the certification
or to order the Department to implement ranked-choice balloting.
Section 3. The effective date of this ordinance shall be ninety
days after publication.
First reading: January 17, 2006
Second reading: February 7, 2006
Date of Publication: February 16, 2006
Date Ordinance Takes Effect: May 18, 2006
By
Gene Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney Signature Date
TO:
Jim GenelIie, Assistant City Manager
FROM:
WYNN CURTISS, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
July 1, 2005
RE:
Ranked Ballot Voting
The purpose of this memo is to address issues regarding the possible amendment of the
Hopkins Charter ("Charter") to implement/authorize Ranked Ballot Voting (RBV") for the position
of mayor.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
RBV is neither specifically authorized nor prohibited by Minnesota statutes or the Hopkins
Charter and such a system does not appear to contradict any existing provision of either the statutes
or the Charter that would make implementation ofRBV illegal or impossible. While the Charter
amendments needed to authorize and implement RBV could be simple and limited, it appears
prudent to include sufficient detail in the amendments to assure that the RBV system implemented is
of the type intended by the Charter Commission and/or City Council and cannot easily be changed by
future councils.
MUNICIPAL ELECTION LAWS
Municipal elections are subject to various and numerous state statutes as well as the
provisions of the Hopkins Charter. Specifically, Section 4.05 of the Hopkins Charter reads:
GENERAL ELECTION LAWS TO APPLY. Except as herein provided, the general laws of
the State of Minnesota pertaining to registration of voters and the conduct or primary and
general elections shall apply for all the municipal elections of such officials as are specified
in this Charter. The Council may, through ordinances duly adopted in compliance with such
state laws and this Charter, adopt suitable and necessary regulations for the conduct of such
elections.
Nothing in Minnesota's statutes specifically authorizes a city to adopt RBV.
Significantly, however, no Minnesota statute specifically prohibits a city from implementing
RBV. Hopkins actually adopted a form of RBV as part of its original charter in 1947, but it was
repealed in 1959. No Minnesota city currently uses RBV, although several have been considering
it, including Minneapolis, Roseville, Eagan, St. Louis Park and St. Cloud. Although there have
been legal questions raised about the authority of a city to adopt RBV, without referring to or
citing the specific legal supports, it is my opinion that RBV is permissible in a home rule charter
city so long as it is properly provided for in the charter.
SPECIFIC CHARTER AMENDMENTS
1. RBVPROCEDURALDETAlLS
Your memo asked whether amendments to the Hopkins Charter!!!!!.tt set forth in detail the
means to implement RBV. Nothing in the statutes or the Charter appears to mandate that all details
of RBV be in included in the amendment. However, to the extent that the Charter Commission
and/or City Council has a particular method or procedure in mind, such method or procedure
probably ought to be included in the Charter amendment language so a subsequent City Council
cannot simply change the method or procedure by merely amending an enabling ordinance. In
reviewing the information from San Francisco's charter, it seems only a modified version of Section
13.1 02 (b) would be necessary language to include in a proposed amendment for the Charter. (In
addition, Section 4.04 Subd. 2 of the Charter would need to be amended to exclude the mayor from
its provisions) The rest of the details to implement RBV could be adopted by ordinance pursuant to
the authority set out in Hopkins Charter Section 4.05.
2. MANDATORY RBV OR CITY COUNCIL DISCRETION
Your memo also asked whether the charter amendments must reauire RBV for mayoral
elections or whether such amendments could merely authorize the City Council to permit RBV upon
adoption of an ordinance. Again, there is nothing that appears to mandate the language of either
option. However, the issue appears to be whether adoption of one or the other would result in the
imposition of the RBV system intended by the Charter Commission and/or City Council that adopted
the amendment. Regardless of which option is adopted, the revised Charter language probably should
contain enough language to assure that whenever RBV is implemented, it is done in accordance with
the system intended. As noted above, this might mean including language to define RBV, such as the
language in Section 13.102 of the San Francisco charter.
SUMMARY
Although RBV is not specifically authorized by Minnesota statutes or the Hopkins Charter,
such a system is not specifically prohibited nor does it appear to contradict any provision of either
the statutes or the Charter in a way that would make implementation ofRBV illegal or impossible.
While the Charter amendments needed to authorize and implement RBV could be simple and limited
(authorize RBV, mandate is use for the position of mayor, provide no details regarding procedures),
it appears prudent to include as much detail in the amendments as is necessary to assure that the
RBV system implemented is of the nature intended by the Charter Commission and/or City Council
and cannot easily be changed by subsequent City Councils.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter further, please call.
WC
~
The City of Hopkins
Alternative Voting Task Force (A VTF)
Report to
Hopkins Charter Commission
September 27,2005
c.
~-
Introduction
This document is designed to help the Hopkins Charter Commission make a recommendation to
the City of Hopkins on the feasibility of Alternative Voting for City elections. It also will infOllli
the Hopkins School District on the feasibility of an Alternative Voting method in order to
eliminate the State-mandated primary. Additionally, it may inform other Cities who are
investigating Alternative Voting Methods for local elections.
This document has been prepared with input from a number of experts on alternative voting
methods as well as legislative issues. It does not present an argument to immediately adopt an
alternative voting method for upcoming City or School Disuict elections. It is not intended to be
a textbook and does not explain the innermost workings of alternative voting counting methods.
Given the short time frame, this document does not address equipment needs/potential costs of
making any changes. That could be completed in a future phase of work on Alternative Voting,
since cost of equipment does not aftect our recommendation.
This document sets out the facts and the objective results of our research. It addresses:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Why a change should be considered
Recommendation
History of the Altemative Voting discussion in Hopkins
Chronology of Task Force meetings
Criteria and constraints placed on task force for considering voting methods
List of materials prescnted to task force
Next steps
Acknowledgements
.
We welcome comments from all who read this document which can be submitted to
iavalamp@vahoo.com or 952-936-0205. We will make this document available on the City of
Hopkins website at WWw.hoDkinsmn.com.
We hope that this document will bc a helpful tool to all who read it.
The A VTF
September, 2005
,..
':"
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September. 2005
2
c
I. Why a Change Should be Considered
Too many instances of candidates winning without a majOlity ISce At1achmcnt AI
Negative campaigning is rewarded
Runoff may come closer, but creates more expense for jurisdiction and
candidates, same voters are not voting in both elections
CUl1'ent system does not accurately measure intensity of support for the candidates
Hopkins can be the small step that pilots change on a larger level
II. Recommendation
Although we have mixed opinions on whether or not proportional representation is desirable in
Hopkins we agreed to put our differences aside and recommend a voting system that will be
simple to explain, does not significantly impact the way people vote (ability for individual voters
to elect two candidates for two seats), and will be potentially most acceptable to the Charter
Commission, the City Council and the general public.
.
We therefore recommend that a ranked ballot be adopted for Mayor and Council Members and
that Instant Runoff Voting (lR V) be used as the method of counting. In Instant Runoff Voting,
voters are allowed (not required) to rank the candidates in order of preference. The first
preferences are counted and the majority threshold (50%+ I vote) is calculated. If a candidate has
a majority of the votes, that candidate is elected. If no candidate has a majority, the candidate
with the fewest votes is eliminated and the votes cast for that candidate are transfen'ed to the next
ranked candidate on each ballot. This process is repeated until a candidate has a majority of the
continuing votes. In the case of council seats, where two are elected, the votes would be
recounted to elect the second council member, with votes originally counted for the first winner
now counting for the next ranked candidate on each ballot.
We selected this alternative (Altemative F) from six alternatives that we studied and debated.
Please see Altachrnenl 13 for the complete list of alternatives. It should be noted that the
following members of the task force were present for this vote: Dorothy Boen, Sharon Cizek,
Fran Hesch, Steve Lewis, Ten'y Obermaier, Jay Thompson with guests Bruce Kennedy and Tony
Solgard. Agreeing with the vote via e-mail after the meeting were task force members Michael
Freiberg, Jim Genellie, Rob Healey, Representative Steve Simon and observer Bill Hannon.
Although not present for the vote, Representative Steve Simon and Senator Steve Kelley have
been outspoken advocates for Instant Runoff Voting and for the rights of local jurisdictions to
determine their own voting methods.
Furthelmore, we recommend that this alternative be adopted into the Charter, leaving the actual
ballot implementation to the time when it becomes technically and financially feasible.
.)
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September. 2005
3
III. Historv
.
'--~'
At the inception of the Hopkins City Charter in 1947, the City adopted a ranked-ballot method of
voting, the only City in the state of Minnesota ever to use this altemative. That method was in
place until 1959 at which time the lack of voter education, the laborious hand-counting and some
political issues came into play, leading to its demise.
In May of 2003 the Hopkins City Council adopted Resolution 2003-042 that stated:
"resolved that the Hopkins City Council recommends that the Minnesota HA VA State Plan
committee require any new voting equipment, purchased with Federal Funds, have the ability to
handle ranked ballot voting." [See Al1achment CJ
In June of 2004, the Hopkins Charter Commission adopted Resolution 2004-02 recommending
the establishment of an "Alternative Voting Task Force. " In August, the City Council adopted
Resolution 2004-059 establishing the Altemative Voting Task Force. [See Attachment. DJ
IV. Chronolol!V of Task Force Meetings
October...... ..Core group assembled for inu'oductions, to charge the committee, and to decide
who needed to be invited to the task force to ensure a representative group.
November. .. ..Representative group assembled to decide whether or not CUlTent system needed to
be changed, if we should proceed, and how. Consensus was to move forward with original plan
to ddermine the feasibility of Hopkins School Disu'ict adopting an altemative voting system in .'
order to eliminate the mandatory plimary when the number of candidates was more than double
the number of available seats. The group also agreed upon criteria for a desirable voting system
as well as self-imposed, special consu'aints.
January.. .. .... Viewed a Power Point presentation (Making Every Vote Count - available upon
request) by Tony Solgard of FairVote Minnesota which overviewed several voting systems and
focused on Single Transferable Vote which met our criteria and constraints.
February.... .. .Discussed all legislation that would be needed to accomplish our goal r See
Al1aehmenl EJ. feasibility of STY, and completed a mock ranked ballot to demonsu'ate ease of
completion [See AttaehmCIlt F].
March..........Discussed the difficulty to explain the counting method ofSTV, proposed
additional voting methods, considered relaxing our self-imposed consu'aints in order to adopt a
method with a counting method that is easier to explain than STY. Reviewed results of Mock
Ballot using different counting methods.
April............Preliminary report was prepared for and presented to the Hopkins Charter
Commission, asking for an extension until their September 27 meeting. The extension was
granted.
May............Group decided to scale back its scope, focusing on the use of alternative voting
only within the City of Hopkins, not the broader school disu'ict area. Due to this change, Mary
O'Connor (Brooklyn Park) decided not to continue on the task force and Yvonne Selcer (School
.
..0'
@ 1005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September, 1005
4
.
Board Member) decided to remain on the update list, but no longer attend. Jim Rhodes also
dropped off the task force. Updates were presented on the progress of Alternative Voting within
the League of Women Voters ofMN State Study and at the legislature. The LWV ofMN stated
the most support for Instant Runoff Voting being adopted as an alternative voting method [See
Atlachment ClI. News from the legislature on requiring ranked-ballot ready equipment was not
so good, although it doesn't appear the HA V A money will be spent in a way that will prevent the
future use of ranked ballots.
Chronologv of Task Force Meetings (continued)
June............Group discussed whether or not a ranked-ballot was really necessary for council
members, or if it could be acceptable just for Mayor in order to "start somewhere." Long
discussion took place regarding ranked-ballot for council members. including labeling seats and
using an instant runoff method in order to determine the winners of two seats.
August........ .Benefits of ranked-ballot were reviewed and several alternatives for possible
recommendations to the Hopkins Charter Commission were presented. Group voted to present
Instant Runoff Voting for Mayor and City Council members as their recommended alternative
for adoption in to the Charter, but implementation only after the City decided it was ready to
administer the voting method. Plans were made for presenting to the Charter Commission on
September 27.
V. Criteria and Constraints (self-imposed by Task Force members)
. Must be defendable from a legal perspective [See AtlachmcntllJ
. Majority lUles (single seat)
. Ability to be used in non-partisan election
. Ability to be used in multiple-seat elections (potentially i/1 tile future eliminating School
Board Primary and creating consistency in marking ballots for local elections)
. Offers citizens a real choice
. Enables sincere voting I "Spoiler" factor is reduced
. Encow'ages "clean" elections
. Reduces number of ineffective votes
. Assures more fair representation of third parties and unden-epresented groups
VI. List of Materials
The contents of binders compiled and distributed by Jim Genellie were reviewed in order to get
all new members up-to-date. Questions were answered regarding the valious documents listed
below. The following documents had been presented at or subsequent to (via e-mail) the first
meeting:
I) "Criteria for Evaluating Voting Systems," Behind the Ballot Box. A Citizen's Guide to Voting Svstems by
Douglas 1. Amy
2) "Appendix. A Comparison of Selected Electoral Systems," - DUnois Task Force on Political
Representation and Alternative Electoral Systems
3) "Frequently Asked Questions About Instant Runoff Voting," Center for Voting and Democracy
4) "Alternative Voting Systems: Facts and Issues," The League of Women Voters (LWV)
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September. 2005
5
5) "Municipal Voting System Reform: Overcoming the Legal Ohstacles" by Tony Anderson Solgard and
Paul Landskroener. October I. 2002
6) A statistical history of Hopkins Mayoral/Council Elections since 1985 which showed percentage of votes
received by winning candidates
7) Hopkins Charter Commission Resolution 2004-02 recommcnding establishment of the task force
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September. 2005
6
,..
,>>,
\,,~y
.
0'.
'~.-""",
8) The San Francisco experience
a. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) comes to San Francisco
b. Frequently Asked Questions about Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)
c. "New Runoff System in San Francisco Has the Rival Candidates Cooperating" New York Times,
September 30. 2004
d. "For Voters, Choice Is as Easy as 1,2,3" Washington Post. October 12, 2004
e. "New Vote - it's a go" San Francisco Examiner. November 3, 2004
f. "Ranked choice scrutinized" San Francisco Examiner. November II. 2004
Additional documents/presentations included:
9) Ferndale, Michigan
a. "In Ferndale, instant runoff fans are thrilled" Detroit Free Press, November 16. 2004. [See
Altadul1Clll II
10) Ann Arbor, Michigan
a. "Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), History of Use in Ann Arbor, Michigan"
Researched/compiled by Bel\iamin Walter. Huron Valley Greens 1998
II) Cambridge, Massachusetts
a. Description of Proportional Representation
b. Sample Ballot
12) Example of mock ranked ballot (Hesch)
13) Preliminary Report to Charter Commission (Hesch)
14) Legal opinion of Hopkins City Attorney (Cnrtis)
15) Sample Charter Language for Instant Runoff Voting (San Francisco)
16) Potential recommendation alternatives for Task Force to consider (Solgard)
17) Summary of alternatives (Hesch)
Additional E-mails:
I) San Francisco review of IR V article
2) Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) position statement
"Proponents of instant run-off voting claim that the system is needed becanse we must avoid allowing
candidates to be elected with less than 50% of the vote. Additionally, they believe that it wonld allow
people to more freely "vote their conscience", and would avoid having "spoiler" candidates (such as
was said about Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidentialrace)...We don't believe that the issues addressed
by instant run-off voting are problems and therefore see no reason to completely change our method
of voting. For this reason MCCL opposes instant run-off voting."
3) Altemative Ballot Options
Additional mateIials available in Hopkins A VTF librmy npon reqnest:
I) "Making Every Vote Count" (in Hopkins) Power Point. FairVote MN
2) Sample resolution for Cities supporting ranked-ballot and cumulative voting capable voting
eqnipment
VII. Next Stens [See AttachmCllt.l]
. Charter Changes
. City Council approval
. Ballot question
. Media plan and public education
. Equipment acquisition when feasible
. Election official and voter education
e) . Implementation
y . Evaluation
VIII. Acknowledgements
This document was prepared based on the work of the Alternative Voting Task Force convened
by the City of Hopkins.
The task force members involved in the preparation of this document were:
Dorothy Boen, League of Women Voters. Hopkins Chatter Commission
Sharon Cizek, Election Judge, Hopkins
Michael Freiberg, Councilmember, Golden Valley
Robin Garwood, Green Party Representative
Jim Genellie, Assistant City Manager, Hopkins
Rob Healey. Hopkins Citizen
Fran Hesch, Chairperson, Charter Commission, Hopkins
Steve Lewis, Election Judge, Charter Commission, Hopkins
Teny Obermaier, City Clerk, Hopkins
Laura Ronbeck, Elections Official, Minnetonka
Steve Simon, Representative, District 44A
Tony Solgard, President, FairVote Minnesota
Jay Thompson, Hopkins City Council
Other invited task force members and/or contributors
Bill Hannon, Edina Resident
Steve Kelley, Senator, District 44
Bruce Kennedy, Roseville, FairVote MN
Mary O'Connor, Libertatlan, Brooklyn Center
Patrick O'Connor, Elections Official, Hennepin County
Jim Rhodes, FOlmer Representative Disttict 44A
Yvonne Selcer, Board Member, Hopkins School Disuict#270 School
Special thanks to the:
· Hopkins Fire Deparlment for use of their community room and technology
· Hopkins Center for the Arts for use of their meeting.spaces
. Unpat'alleled dedication of the representatives from FairVote Minnesota
· Following individuals who contributed resource information and time:
o Wynn Curtis, City Attorney, Hopkins (legal opinion attached)
o Ann Higgins, League of Minnesota Cities, attending as time pennitted,
representing LMC in her assignment to develop policy recommendations on
election-related topics
o Senator John Matty, Roseville (provided reseat'ch)
· Doug Sunde, E S & S
@ 1005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September, 1005
'.
8
"('.
;"..
Attachments
.
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September. 2005
9
Attachment A - Election Outcomes
Winning Percentage in Hopkins' city elections
2003 2001 1999 1997 1995 1993 1991 1989 1987 1985
Mayor
88'% 64% 81% Unop 65% 42% Unop 56% Unop Unop
Council
66% 42% 56% Unop 46% 59% Unop 81% 54% 68%
60% 31% 54% Unop 42'% 52% Unop 77% 50'Yo 50%
Unop - Unopposed.
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September, 2005
10
.
.
t.
()
o
c
z
o
;=
't
:;
"
5:
nI
SO
CO
m
;0
~
,~
~ ~ ~~ l!i ~
w....>.t\) """ ~ 0
"'''0 ."" 0 .....;:p;. '"
~ ~~ ,'"
"'~O> ,.....~ iOl ......
~""'O> ,."" ""' lOIN
~
~ - -~ - - z
'" "'0> """'''' 0> 0> l>
'" - '" 0""'''' - ~ - r
n
"'~ - ~ - "
!:~ '" "'''"''' ~ '" '"
... w"'''' 0 ;0
m
- '"
'" '" ""'" ~ w '" C
0> - '" w""' 0 ->v 0 ':j
'"
~ ~~ -
"'_<D W W ~ <D <D ~
00"" o"'~ '" ~ w
~
- ~ ~ ~
to t-J"r-) N 0 ~ <D
"0"" 00 .. "' ..
,. .... ~ t.~. '" '"
~"'~ - ~.!!!
..-.... ..."'- '" '"
'" - 0 "'"'''' "' w
'" "''"' '" '" -
--4-./t\)N ~ '" - '" <D
- - ~
"'- ca:"'b - 1.n ""'
(0 .to. ......' "'~O> .. 0>
"'0""' 0",,", ..~ ~
~ (.> l>. Po
~f~~~~~
0> ~
V> ~
,,<'1. c1'
.J
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September, 2005
'"
"
11
(@C ~~) ji&) -II.
f~; ~ :ot~ w !f:rii 0
.~, en ,~: (J1 ;r;j! .....
IWW.....''''" ~
11'", ili'i, ''''''
R~' '" ! ',' (J1 ,-
ilI:II:en("OO,"
"" .,." ..
~:tm ~ ~
'lK co y,p;' ..... ,.:a; 00
!~ '" ~: en ~ 00
'.:;' ~t ....Ji. :$f.' ....a.
'at CO 'C;;; ..... '0;' '"
PI! ..... ;..,.. 0 Yl' CO
}r.t4 ~l;t t..) ~K;.~ ~
-!i(J1, ~
~~.. ..... ~5P' (Q ,~. th
t1~t~....a. ~
B c;?"
~_,.;.: <D
ff01. % ~
$}j en i .....
;l!lil (J1 'c, . en
'W~,:; '~ <<i.~~.; , m~
~.......;th:CA' 01
h'3; '" ;~ ..... ;~ en
,",'..". ',::"~,'
"^~ .
~ .",,, ":M'
~if ;~~~i.
:<.,> '" ~\ .!>o dj' ....,
,~ ...., $: '" 'to) ""
~ ...., 0> ',Of. 0>
~ N .... N N OJ
'" en N '"
if'. "" "" "" "" ""
0 0 0 0 0
(')
o
c
z
(')
r
s:
m
s:
CD
m
;0
~,., .
'Li ~
;gco
;....~ "
1$:~'t w
'~.o
::::~~ CJ1
,~%(:
!/~;' N
'~$ <0
:'$1, .....
~~i~: ~
'~co
',-,.
;<xi
';t w
b,,~
!~!W
>,%y.
<<:-.....:0.. -""
1iM 01
L,'"
?,g::. -:I..
~;tm c.n
~O
.^ ~. '..~:~
i:;;
//, N
'......0
:dJ- -.l.
.,~ m
(')
::j
-<
S:O
)>-n
-<:1:
00
;0-0
2S
Z
CIl
.....
W
.....
N
-n
Z '"
)>
r
;0
m ....
'"
C
~
"'or>
,
N
0
0
~'"
....
en
..,
0
..,
)>
r
""
0
s.
c;l
i[
<
0
ro
en
....
""
o
@ 2005 Prepared for The AVTF Force by Fran Hesch. September. 2005
.
(')
::0
-<
m
r
m
()
..,
6
z
co
()
::j
-<
o
-n
T
6
'lJ
^
Z
co
co
;;,
co
;;,
o
o
12
'.
Attachment B - Six Alternatives
All alternatives below will require voter and election judge education. so they are not listed as separate
challenges.
A. Ranked Ballot for Mavor Onlv:
Advantages:
. No redefinition of council member seats
. Simple way to introduce IRV concept with little change required
. Counting method is easiest to explain
. Reduces ineffective votes
Challenges
. Inconsistent ballot
. Benefits of Instant Runoff Voting counting method not realized for council seats
B. Ranked Ballot for Mavor and Council using Instant Runoff Voting counting method" ranking
council candidates as one pool:
Advantages:
. Consistent Ballot
. Counting method is easy to explain
. Reduces ineffecti ve votes
Challenges:
. Possibility exists that most popular second choice candidate does not win ( may be seen as an
advantage of this method by some - hybrid of majority rules with proportional representation)
. Significantly changes the way people elect candidates
C. Ranked Ballot for Mavor and Council using Instant Runoff Voting counting method ranking
for individual council seats (Le. labeling seats):
Advantages:
. Consistent Ballot
. Benefits of Instant Runoff Voting counting method realized for all seats
. Majority mles
. Counting method is easy to explain
. Reduces ineffective votes
Challenges:
. Requires creating unique conncil seats such as labeled, unique terms, specific representation (ie
geographic, multi-family dweller, etc.)
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September. 2005
13
D. Ranked Ballot for Mavor and Council using Single Transferable Vote counting method:
Advantages:
. Consistent Ballot
. Benefits of Single Transferable Vote counting method realized for all scalS
. No redefinition of council member scats
. Reduces ineffecti ve votes
Challenges
. Counting method is difficult to explain
. Residents have single vote that is split between candidates
. Hand counting is not feasible
. Could be too much, too soon
E. Ranked Ballot for Mayor and Council, counting the first two choices individually, then
redistributing choices 3-x, with x being the number of candidates running.
Advantages:
. Consistent Ballot
. No redefinition of council member seats
. Majority mles
. Reduces ineffective votes
Challenges
. Counting method is a bit harder to explain than for single seat or for Alternative F
. People who wish to change to proportional representation system will not be satisfied by this
method
F. Ranked Ballot for Mayor and Council using two passes of IRV for two council seats.
Advantages:
. Consistent Ballot
. No redefinition of council member seats
. Majority mles
. Reduces ineffective votes
Challenges
. Counting method is a bit harder to explain than for single seat, but still fairly easy
. People who wish to change to proportional representation system will not be satisfied by this
method
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September, 2005
.-..
'.':
~:.
14
i.
Attachment C - Elections Resolution
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin Connty, Minnesota
RESOLUTION 2003-042
\Vhcrcas, the Hopkins City Council recognizes that there arc alternative voting systems such as
ranked ballot voting; and
Whereas, the Federal Government has made funds available to the states for u.pgrading votmg
equipment through the Help America Vote Act (RA VA); and
\\l}lereas. the State of Minnesota has established a committee to make recommendations on hO\\
lhese F oderal funds should be spent;
)JO\v Therefore bE' it resolved that the Hopkins City Council reconuncnds that the I\1imlesota
HA V A State Plan commiUee require any TIO\\o" voting equipment, purchased wIth Federal
Funds, have the ability to handle ranked ballot voting;
And Be it also resolved that should the City of Hopkins expend funds for voting equipment in
the future, at the time of the expenditure it shall be detennined jf it is feasible to upgrade
lhe voting equipn1ent to allow for ranked ballot voting.
Adopted by the City Council ofthe City of Hopkins this sixth day of May 2003.
By4:~~~
SWEOFMNNESOTA }
OOUKIYOF IiBiNEPItf ss.
<mOF"""",""
f. THE UNDERSIGNED TEnny OBBlMAIER ClERK OF tHE
. 0fTY0F HOPlaHS. HENNEPIN COUNTY, M1NNESOTAAND<:os'hXlWC
~~~AHOR IN~~~~~I1)'~H:r~
ANDOOPY E ORIGl D. FPRf:i!lliIMiD
AHDON OF 1
I 'al
FDlEcnyOF~
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September, 2005
15
Attachment D - Task Force Resolution
CITY OF HOPKl~S
Hennepin County. Minnesota
RESOLUTION l004-059
Whereas, the Hopkins City Council recognizes that there are alternative voting systems such as
ranked ballot voting; and
Whereas, tbese altemath.c voting systems may improve voter turnout and reduce negative
campaigning; and
\\11ereas, t.l-te Hopkins Charter Commission has recommended that a Task Force be established to
consider <:lltemativc voting system 5;
Now Therefore be it resolved that the Hopkins City Council endorses the formation of an
"Altcmative Voting Task Force," The Council furthers encourages citizens 10 SetTe on
and support the Task Force.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopbns this Ii'l day of August 2004.
By ~~~~fJ/
w
Terry O~.,naier. City Clerk
STATE OF r.~INNESOTA }
COUNfYQF HENNEPH, 55
CITY t)F ttOPKrl-lS
CI'i'\'OF~P~sift~?~~~Wt.')0~~~\'!R;'lFA!fI\IEH~LE~K OF THE
g;IHr;.$EALAll:.: Rt(O'li)~Gf SJ,IO,1"'1 ;~~~?~~~I~\~WvO"~~
AND ~~~ QR I-c'f1womti is'' TttuC ~f~::I( r'f."E'Cl TAA.'~SCPlPT
ANPONF1.~~NTHf.~f.06'~c.IN,ll\ y F' R~IEnf.Ofj>RE<;Ei:.\'ED
/ A ?'14"..(~
;/ ? 'Cl.EtlKOFTHECITY FHOf>KIN~
.
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September, 2005
16
'.
Attachment E
Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force
Legislative and Policy Considerations
Draft February 22,2005
Goal: Eliminate the mandatory primary in school district election if more than two candidates are running for each
seat within the Hopkins School District throngh the use of a ranked-ballot method of voting.
Jurisdiction Charter Primary Election Wards? Mayor/Chair # Ranked Changes
Year Terms Member -Ballot
Terms w/o Le~
Hopkins Yes No Odd No Two-year term (1+4) Yes Charter,
Municipal Voter-elected Staggered. Firmware
Four-vear term
Minnetonka Yes Contingent Odd 4 wards. Four-year (1+6) Yes Charter.
if 3 or 2 at- term Staggered Firmware
more large Voter-elected 2. at large run
candidates w/mayor, 4
next cycle
Four-vear term
Gnlden No No Odd No Two-year tenn (1+4) No Statute:
Valley Municipal Voter-elected Staggered. Elections.
Four-vear term Firmware
Hopkins N/A Contingent Odd No Member - 0) Staggered Four- No Statute:
School on # of elected yeartenn- 4 Primary &
District seatsl annually seatsl3 seats Elections
candidates
Hennepin N/A Yes Even 7 Member - 0) Staggered FOllr- No Statnte:
County elected year term - 4 Elections
seatsl3 seats (Enuinment)
How to amend a home rule city charter:
Review the charter to determine whether there are any existing rules regarding the subject you want to amend.
Amendments may originate in one of five ways:
. The Charter Commission may. on its own initiative, propose an amendment to the voters at an election at
which it mnst receive at least 51 percent of the vote to be adopted.
. At least five percent of the number of registered voters who voted in the last State general election may
sign a petition stating the proposed amendment. In this case. the Charter Commission must submit the
proposed amendment to the voters.
. The Charter Commission may recommend the Council amend the charter by ordinance. This would be
approved on Iy by the City Council, and not by a city-wide election, nnless two percent of the voters in the
last State general election petition for a referendum
. The City Council may propose an amendment, subject to Commission review. to the voters.
. In Cities with populations ofless than 10,000, the Council may propose and vote on amendments by
ordinance without Charter Commission review.
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September, 2005
17
Attachment F /.
Preference Voting
Transfer Weight_
Rank appetizers in order of preference (3 will be elected)
1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice 4th choice
Crab Cakes 0 0 0 0
ShrimD Cocktail 0 0 0 0
Stuffed Mushrooms 0 0 0 0
Nachos with Cheese 0 0 0 0
Buffalo Chicken Win2s 0 0 0 0
!Fruit Plate 0 0 0 0
!Artichoke DiD/ChiDS 0 0 0 0
IWrite-in: 0 0 0 0
Rank soup in order of preference (2 will be elected)
1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice 4th choice
Corn Chowder 0 0 0 0 .
Clam Chowder 0 0 0 0
Minestrone 0 0 0 0
Chicken Wild Rice 0 0 0 0
Vel!etable Beef 0 0 0 0
Cream of Mushroom 0 0 0 0
Write-in: 0 0 0 0
Rank rnain course in order of preference (1 will be elected)
1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice 4th choice
Grilled Salmon 0 0 0 0
Filet Mil!non 0 0 0 0
Roasted Chicken 0 0 0 0
Pan-Fried Walleye 0 0 0 0
Write-in: 0 0 0 0
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September, 2005 18
.
eJ
.!
At-Large Ballot
Vote for up to three appetizers
Vote for up to two soups
orn Chowder
lam Chowder
inestrone
hicken Wild Rice
e etable Beef
ream of Mushroom
Vote for one
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September. 2005
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
19
Attachment G - League of Women Voters
Yahoo! ;\ h~l; - ,~1' ,J,~'i~::',,f;:- ::r .:;) c';)ii~
:)~~~e '.I!
"" '~i
: ' , ' . , ,J," .,1 \' 1'''I~r>: t>,'r'
;'1 IT,ll-r 10 r>.C'L ~mr l'C-'.'1i"J't ,m Ifknw/,",' ~ "li'I,':.: <;, ,I,'m~ rt, ,;/'"<'1 "1"d m:.r,' U~.:I";J;'~ i()I"'I'III~
:;:~~:~;'J' ':~:I~ ~;::::~~~~;':"~~:~~::';'~'~;:';~''';;,t~~'<,::{;~:({JI!g, ": 1,.,.",,:1 '~',',,: ",,,:n;; /,," ,,,,I ;','l'II
!:,-,'."I':rh",
I \V\'j.",,1N :,lIrrO;!S lnw,n: Rw,n'" \'OIlU~~ ORV} 1(' del', loe:,l Hl :\I;1lc ll'liew% ,I) ~11lg!c ~L::L1
cl~"C;l').lf.. j.\\'vl~1N S(l!'i'illt,th i'ph1'lri,~;ai ~'"\~1,,,.1t'1;''' ~\l'l1<1'''Il'''p:lhtiC's t(\ :.:I',,,,,,. IJ.'V 'M
Ill":.: ~",n j(lo.::li d.:o,:{i(>lh i. \';:V!d">: \Ur!,,'!1~ 1I.1\.-'lU:I(';" n!~'1 ~',h'L \{1("1 H' ,;':pl.lll" 110\\ \ "t,., ~r.:
t:;h:ll;.((-.J .';i1i h<l\'I. a .:;.n,il.!:ll~ \\~:1' 11:1 .:11-,'1',11: 1.'\\ \'!.;:', al~t; ~llplJ..lI \~ It... op;i>JlI.o t.'.)!,"1:;"
i:j,' 1.....- o~-;jw pI,:!,:! '~1 '.,,1Ir,~ ~,'"k,\ ,,_<\ ,i,,:;, 1:;); ~t';;:';'-' ,',npr~'\ .11 1:,': J" ~'<',ml, ," C('lld{)r~':1
:~, :!1~I:.l:J\:\ <.: \,l,til);l sv~i~-m~
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September. 2005
20
:.
'-".'
.
Attachment I - City Attorney Ranked Ballot Memo
TO:
Jim Genellie, Assistant City Manager
FROM:
WYNN CURTISS, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
July 1,2005
RE:
Rauked Ballot Voting
The purpose of this memo is to address issues regarding the possible amendment of the
Hopkins Charter ("Charter") to implement/authorize Ranked Ballot Voting (RBV") for the
position of mayor.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
RBV is neither specifically authorized nor prohibited by Minnesota statutes or the
Hopkins Charter and such a system does not appear to contradict any existing provision of either
the statutes or the Ch31ter that would make implementation of RBV illegal or impossible. While
the Ch31ter amendments needed to authorize and implement RBV could be simple and limited, it
appears prudent to include sufficient detail in the amendments to assure that the RB V system
implemented is of the type intended by the Charter Commission and/or City Council and cannot
easily be changed by future councils.
MUNICIPAL ELECTION LAWS
Municipal elections are subject to various and numerous state statutes as well as the
provisions of the Hopkins Ch31ter. Specifically, Section 4.05 of the Hopkins Chatter reads:
GENERAL ELECTION LAWS TO APPLY. Except as herein provided, the general laws
of the State of Minnesota pertaining to registration of voters and the conduct or primary
and general elections shall apply for all the municipal elections of such officials as 3l'e
specified in this Charter. The Council may, through ordinances duly adopted in
compliance with such state laws and this Ch31ter, adopt suitable and necessary
regulations for the conduct of such elections.
Nothing in Minnesota's statutes specifically authOlizes a city to adopt RBV.
Significantly, however, no Minnesota statute specifically prohibits a city from implementing
RBV. Hopkins actually adopted a fOlm of RBV as part of its Oliginal charter in 1947, but it was
repealed in 1959. No Minnesota city cun'ently uses RBV, although several have been
considering it, including Minneapolis, Roseville, Eagan, St. Louis P31'k and St. Cloud. Although
there have been legal questions raised about the authority of a city to adopt RBV, without
referring to or citing the specific legal supports, it is my opinion that RBV is permissible in a
home rule charter city so long as it is properly provided for in the charter.
SPECIFIC CHARTER AMENDMENTS
I. RBV PROCEDURAL DETAILS
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September. 2005
21
Your memo asked whether amendments to the Hopkins Charter must set forth in detail I_
the means to implement REV. Nothing in the statutes or the Charter appears to mandatc that all
details of REV be in included in the amendment. However, to the extent that the Charter
Commission andlor City Council has a particular method or procedure in mind, such method or
procedure probably ought to be included in the Charter amendment language so a subsequent
City Council cannot simply change the method or procedure by merely amending an enabling
ordinance. In reviewing the information from San Francisco's charter, it seems only a modified
version of Section 13.102 (b) would be necessary language to include in a proposed amendment
for the Charter. (In addition, Section 4.04 Subd. 2 of the Charter would need to be amended to
exclude the mayor from its provisions) The rest of the details to implement REV could be
adopted by ordinance pursuant to the authority set out in Hopkins Charter Section 4.05.
2. MANDATORY REV OR CITY COUNCIL DISCRETION
Your memo also asked whether the charter amendments must require REV for mayoral
elections or whether such amendments could merely authorize the City Council to permit REV
upon adoption of an ordinance. Again, there is nothing that appears to mandate the language of
either option. However, the issue appears to be whether adoption of one or the other would result
in the imposition of the REV system intended by the Charter Commission andlor City Council
that adopted the amendment. Regardless of which option is adopted, the revised Charter
language probably should contain enough language to assure that whenever REV is
implemented, it is done in accordance with the system intended. As noted above, this might
mean including language to define REV, such as the language in Section 13.102 of the San .
Francisco charter. . ]'
SUMMARY
Although REV is not specifically authOLized by Minnesota statutes or the Hopkins
Ch31ter, such a system is not specifically prohibited nor does it appe31' to contradict any
provision of either the statutes or the Charter in a way that would make implementation of REV
illegal or impossible. While the Charter amendments needed to authOLize and implement REV
could be simple and limited (authorize REV, mandate is use for the position of mayor, provide
no details reg31'ding procedures), it appears pLUdent to include as much detail in the amendments
as is necess31'y to assure that the REV system implemented is of the nature intended by the
Ch31ter Commission andlor City Council and cannot easily be changed by subsequent City
Councils.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter further, please call.
WC
-
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch. September, 2005_
22
Attachment I - Ferndale, Michigan
In Ferndale, instant runoff fans are thrilled
BY BILL LAITNER
DETROIT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
November 16, 2004
H work.ed fine in San Francisco's city election this month. s[l.\'ing ta\':paycrs money and
another trip to the polls in December.
It's credited ,\."ith electing AIm Arbor's iirst and only A.frican-American mayor in 1975 --
causing oppOnell{S to repeal1he law two years later.
Now this unusual but simple way to vote ~- called instant runoff voting u is back in
Michigan, passing by a 70 percent to .30 percent margin in Femda1e this month
That result got the attention ora tlmtk tank in Wa'ihington, D.C., and from clection-
minded professors of govemment.
In I\,iichigan, it tro-itled a tiny group of ref0I111crs, who include libeml Green Party
reguhrrs who hold vegetarian Jlotlucks in Femdale and conscrvati'\.e Lihertarians in
outstate 1Vfichigan. They want 10 change what they sa)' is a moribund process that re-
elects i.ncumbents with numbing regularity_
Now, this far~flung coalition wants other Michiganders to adopt the system, which lets
voters rank choices instead of casting a single \'ote in a given race. In Femdale, the new
voting process could apply to races for mayor and City Council as soon as No\'ember
2005, said City Clerk Karen Pedro,
Behind Ferndale's approval were four political mavericks who used old-fashioned signs
and door-lo-door chats. Now they're loading up computer Web sites -- like their own.
W\\'\\'.f'irv.org -- and sending mass e-mails to link supporters ill a dozcn cOll1ll1umties of
southeast Michigan, said Blian Wilgenbusch, 27, of Oak Park.
"Our n::xl step is deciding where to go next;' said \Yilgcnbusch. a General !\lotors Corp.
cm'ironmental engineer. His ChOlCC? Ann Arbo!.
Kathryn BlUner, 25, ofFcmdalc, a Green Party member attending law scbooL said the
group's ultimate goal "is to take this to a higher level, lo the Slale someday."
A lw-e ofthe voting system is its advantage in races with more than two candidates, said
Howard Ditkoff, 30, of Oak Park. a softw-are consultant who campaigned dOO1.~to~door in
Femdalc.
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September, 2005
23
l1J'\obody knew \:rhat 'we were talking about. But they did understmd the spoiler issue,"
Ditkoff said. "I'd say, The system works fairly well when you have two people numing.
But \\.hen there's a third, it splits the vote. And you can get a willner without a majOlity
"All ofa sudden, a light would go OIl. Theid say, tOh :yeah!' 11
Then Dilko IT would spout hislory: the election of 1992, when Ross Perol split the
conservative vote, helping to give Democrat Bin Clinton a victory but not a majority, and
the one in 2000, when Ralph Nader s?lit the liberal vote and nudged George W. Bush to
victory.
Both elections would've tumcd out differently wirh the runoff system, said Rob Richie,
cxecutiye director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, a nonprofit group in
'Vashington, D.C., founded by fonner Republican Congressman John Anderson.
Californians call the system ranked-choice voting, anu it worked smool!11y in its historic
first trial in San Francisco, said professor Rich DeLeon of San Flffi1Cisco State
UniVel'SllY, author of several books on voting. One effecl began happening well before
any votes \Veft: cast, he said.
!lOur elections here are known for really brutal campaigns:' DeLeon said. Yet, tllis year.
campaigns wc-re shockingly positive. Candidates in the crowded races for Board of
Supervisors toned down the negatives to avoid alienating anyone who nl~ght fi12.ke them a
second or third choice, DeLeon said.
"! have to say, it wa, really strange. They actually stuck pretty much to the isslles."
Contuct BILL LAITl'o.'ER at 248-351-3297.
Copyright ~ 2004 Detroit Free Press Inc.
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September, 2005
'.
.!
,../
24
Attachment J
Implementing an Alternative Voting Method
1. Charter amendment
a. Propose proven voting method
b. Make contingent on readiness
i. Technology
ii. Training
iii. Education
c. Communicate "why" to voters, media, opinionmakers
i. Benefits, not mechanics
ii. What's changed since 1959?
2. Technology
a. Upgrade optical scanner programming
i. Research technology development requirements
ii. Work with vendor on state certification
b. Acquire vote-counting software
i. ES&S application
ii. Independent source (e.g. Voting Solutions)
c. Plan for professional support
i. Research, training, & education
ii. Ballot design
iii. Election Day support
iv. Reporting results to voters and to general public
3. Training
a. City Clerk - U'ain the u'ainer
b. Election judges and poll workers
c. Elected officials and city staff
4. Education
a. Public forums with mock elections
b. Internal media (mailings, website, cable TV)
c. Public media (news coverage of fOlUms)
5. Reporting results
a. Release results in steps, using graphics
b. Be prepared for larger public interest in this election
@ 2005 Prepared for The A VTF Force by Fran Hesch, September. 2005
25