Memo- Ranked Ballot Voting
I Department of Administration I
Memorandum
To:
Hopkins City Council
Jim Genellie
From:
Date:
Subject:
February 28, 2006
Ranked Ballot Voting
What changes are being recommended in the Charter?
On November 15, 2005 the Hopkins Charter 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 (RBV)?
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. Ifanyone
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
m~ority of the vote. With modem voting equipment, all of the counting and recounting takes place
rapidly and automatically.
Applying ranked ballot voting to the Hopkins Council elections, where you have multiple candidates
running for multiple offices, is somewhat more complicated but the actual ballot would be similar, in
that a voter would be asked to rank candidates.
Issues to be resolved:
. Should the City of Hopkins adopt ranked ballot voting?
. If the City of Hopkins adopts ranked ballot voting should it apply to the Mayor and the City
Council races?
. If ranked ballot voting is to be used for the City Council races, should the voting system be
changed to accommodate the Hopkins method of electing Council Members, i.e. multiple
candidates running for multiple offices?
. What should the next steps be?
\RBV MEMO.doc
Should the City of Hopkins adopt ranked ballot voting?
A League of Women Voters study of Alternative Voting Systems had this to say about voting
systems that use a ranked ballot:
"Proponents... believe that an election system should balance the intensity of a candidate's
support with the breadth of his or her support. Critics of the Plurality voting system say that
it measures only the amount of intense, core support for a candidate, and breadth of support
is irrelevant, permitting single-interest groups to take over a political party in races with
more than three candidates. Instant Runoff Voting supporters believe that their system
offers 'a compromise between two extremes: it requires sufficient core support to avoid
elimination and enough broad support to win a majority of the votes.'''
According to the Alternative Voting Task Force, the following are some reasons for adopting
Ranked Ballot Voting:
. Too many instances of candidates winning without a majority
. Negative campaigning is rewarded
. Runoff may come closer, but creates more expense for jurisdiction and candidates, same voters
are not voting in both elections
. Current system does not accurately measure intensity of support for the candidates
. Hopkins can be the small step that pilots change on a larger level
History of Hopkins City Elections
Since 1979 there have been 14 municipal elections. How many have been decided by a majority?
Winning Percentage in Hopkins' city elections
2005 2003 2001 1999 1997 1995 1993 1991 1989 1987 1985 1983 1981 1979
Mavor
Winning i -0 ~ ---~------! - ---1----
a::~:~i~tes 1=~:_.l~~:Pt~~J=~:~ i ~:: __~~%_ _~~:t~o:_ 5~%_~~::j_~~::J_~~_o: __~~::_ __~~o~J
Council
Winning
budidates %
i
56% I 66%
41% 1600/;-
I! of candi~t~ __~__-L}__
Unop - Unopposed
42%
31%
6
I
56% ! Unon
54% Unon
4 2
! I,
46% 59% I Unop Unop 2.4% I 68% I 83%
42% -S2% i UDon- UDon- 50% r-SO"o/;-! 77%-
65,225!613
70%
56%
3
59%
57%
4
Mayor - 14 candidates elected
10 unopposed
3 elected by majority
I elected by plurality
City Council - 28 candidates elected
6 unopposed
17 elected by majority
5 elected by plurality
\RBV MEMO doc
2
If the City of Hopkins adopts ranked ballot voting should it apply to the Mayor and the City Council
races?
Ranked ballot yoting works best in elections where multiple candidates are running for a single
office. The Hopkins Alternative Voting Task Force, as well as the Hopkins Charter Commission,
discussed whether to limit the use ofRBV to the Mayor's race. In the end, the Task Force
recommended and the Charter Commission agreed that RBV should be used for both the Mayor and
City Council races.
A desire for a more consistent ballot played a role in this decision. Although both groups recognized
that with the School Board sharing the ballot, different voting systems would still be represented on
the ballot.
If ranked ballot voting is to be used for the City Council races. should the voting system be changed
to accommodate the Hopkins method of electing Council Members. i.e. multiple candidates running
for multiple offices?
Again, RBV works best in elections where multiple candidates are running for a single office. The
Task Force discussed recommending a change in the way that City Council members are elected.
Various options were discussed including adopting a ward system or requiring candidates to
designate which at-large seat they were running for. The Task Force rejected recommending any
changes to the way Council Members were elected. The overwhelming preference was for
modifying RBV to work with the existing method of multiple candidates running for multiple
offices.
The language that was ultimately approved by the Charter Commission, Ordinance 2005-958,
attempted to accomplish this through the following method:
"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."
This method, which is set out in the ordinance that is currently before the City Council, has been
demonstrated to have a possible unintended outcome. Under the current voting system, each voter
gets to vote for two candidates. By using a sequential count for RBV, instead of counting the first
two votes equally, it is possible that a candidate with a majority of the first two votes would not be
elected. Suggestions have been made on methods to amend the ordinance to resolve this issue.
What should the next steps be?
The Hopkins City Council held a public hearing on the Charter Amendment on January 17. The City
Council voted to continue the public hearing until March 6.
The City Council has the following alternatives:
· Close the public hearing on March 6 and vote to approve Ordinance 2005-958 for first reading.
The eventual approval of this ordinance will have to be by a unanimous vote of the City
Council.
\RBV MEMO doc
3
. Close the public hearing on March 6, vote on Ordinance 2005-958 for first reading, but fail to
secure a unanimous vote of the City Council. This action would, in effect, put the issue back
before the Charter Commission. The Charter Commission could consider whether to amend the
ordinance.
. Continue the public hearing until a future date.
There is no proyision under Minnesota Statute 410.12 that permits the City Council to return the
proposed amendment to the Commission without voting on the ordinance that is currently before it.
There is also nothing in the statutes that allows the Charter Commission to unilaterally withdraw an
amendment that has been proposed to the City Council pursuant to 410.12, subdivision 7.
If members of the City Council have concerns with the proposed charter amendment, then the
current ordinance should be voted on. The ordinance would fail to get a unanimous vote and then
the Charter Commission could consider revising the ordinance.
Any change to the language in the charter amendment ordinance will require the Charter
Commission to draft a new ordinance, publication of the ordinance, and a new public hearing.
The City Council always has the option of drafting its own ordinance that amends the Charter.
Charter amendments done in this manner are referred to Charter Commission for review. An
election is required, however, when using this method I.
Attachments:
. Ranked Ballot Voting Timeline
. Ordinance 2005-958
. Draft oflanguage to resolve issues with Ordinance 2005-958
1 Minnesota Statute 410
Amendments proposed by council. The council of any city having a home rule charter may propose charter
amendments to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the charter
commission. Within 60 days thereafter, the charter commission shall review the proposed amendment but before the
expiration of such period the commission may extend the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the city
clerk its resolution determining that an additional time for review is needed. After reviewing the proposed amendment,
the charter commission shall approve or reject the proposed amendment or suggest a substitute amendment. The
commission shall promptly notif'y the council of the action taken. On notification of the charter commission's action, the
council may submit to the people, in the same manner as provided in subdivision 4, the amendment originally proposed
by it or the substitute amendment proposed by the charter commission. The amendment shall become effective only
when approved by the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved it shall be filed in the same manner as other
amendments.
Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or special election and
published as in the case of the original charter. The form of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The
statement of the question on the ballot shall be sufficient to identif'y the amendment clearly and to distinguish the
question from every other question on the ballot at the same time. If 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment are
in favor of its adoption, copies of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the original charter and
the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the
amendment.
\RBV MEMQ.dOC
4
Ranked Ballot Voting - Timeline
May 6, 2003 - The Hopkins City Council approves Resolution 2003-042, urging the
HA V A State Plan Committee to require that any new voting equipment haye the ability
to handle ranked ballot voting and to include an additional "Therefore" clause in the
resolution requiring the City of Hopkins to study the feasibility of including the
upgrading of voting equipment to accommodate alternatiye voting methods if the City
expends funds on voting equipment.
June 22, 2004 - Hopkins Charter Commission approves creation of an "Alternative
August 17, 2004 - Hopkins City Council approyes resolution endorsing the formation of
an "Alternative Voting Task Force."
The Task Force met seyeral times between October 2004 and March of2005.
The Task Force presented a preliminary report to the Charter Commission on April 26,
2005. The Task Force requested an extension to complete its study. The Commission
voted to allow the extension.
The Charter Commission 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 haye a majority
of the votes.
At the September meeting, the Charter Commission yoted 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 fmancially feasible.
On December 20, 2005, the Hopkins City Council accepted Ordinance 2005-958 from the
Charter Commission, ordered that it be published, and set a public hearing for January
17,2006.
There was testimony in favor of Ranked Ballot Voting at the January 17 public hearing.
There was also discussion about whether the charter amendment, as drafted, actually
worked for Council Members as it was supposed to. The public hearing was continued
until March 6. The Council scheduled a discussion of Ranked Ballot Voting for the
February 28 Worksession.
The Alternatiye Voting Task Force met again on February 9, 2006 to discuss the voting
method outlined in Ordinance 2005-958 as well possible changes.
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. ~
G~Raia~te rocoi7ing tho highont HUmBOr of 7oton for ~ p~rticul~r
offico in oloctod. 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 stages 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
rankings 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 majority 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
DRAFT
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 2006-***
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~te recei~ing the Ri~hest number of ~oteo for ~ ?3rticul~r
offioe 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 - SINGLE SEAT.
(a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a majority is
defined as 50% of the ballots cast plus one; (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 stages 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 rankings
are reached.
If a voter casts a ranked-choice ballot but skips a rank, the
voter's choices after the blank rank shall not be counted.
(b) The Mayor 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
DRAFT
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 majority 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 or there is only one continuing
candidate.
(e) 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.
SEC. 4.05.
INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS - MULTIPLE SEATS.
(a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a majority is
defined as 50% of the ballots cast plus one; (2) the first two
choices on the ballot for City Council candidates shall both be
considered as the first or highest ranked choice; (2) a candidate
shall be deemed "continuing" if the candidate has not been
eliminated; (3) a ballot shall be deemed "continuing" if it is not
exhausted; and (4) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted," and not
counted in further stages 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
rankings are reached.
If a voter casts a ranked-choice ballot but skips a rank, the
voter's choices after the blank rank shall not be counted.
(b) 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.
DRAFT
(c) If one or more candidates receives a majority of the
highest ranked choices, those candidates shall be declared elected.
If more than two candidates for Council receive a majority of the
ballots cast, the two candidates receiving the most votes 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. An
elected candidate can never be eliminated. 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 two candidates receive a majority of the
votes from the continuing ballots or there are only two continuing
candidates.
(e) 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.
SEC. 4.06.
INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS - IMPLEMENTATION.
(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.
DRAFT
Section 3. The effective date of this ordinance shall be ninety
days after publication.
First reading:
Second reading:
Date of Publication:
Date Ordinance Takes Effect:
By
Gene Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney Signature
Date