Loading...
04-30-13 Charter Commission Regular MeetingCITY OF HOPKINS CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA April 30, 2013 6:00 p.m. Raspberry Room - Hopkins City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting 4. Reports Update regarding Ranked Ballot Voting 5. Old Business 6. New Business 7. Adjournment ATTACHMENTS:  Charter Commission Roster  Minutes of the April 24, 2012 Charter Commission meeting  Star Tribune Article: “Fast vote tally in Minneapolis? Maybe not” 12/26/2012  Star Tribune Article: “Minneapolis short $385,000 for 2013 elections” 2/28/2013  Star Tribune Article: “Ranked-choice voting hurts Minneapolis minorities” 3/5/2013  Star Tribune Article: “Minneapolis voting method does not hurt minorities” 3/10/2013  H.F. 367 – Ranked choice voting bill  Charter Commission Questions from April 24, 2012  Fair Vote analysis of Hopkins RBV method Charter Commission Roster - 2013 FIRST NAME LAST NAME TERM EXPIRES Dorothy Boen 8/2/2015 David Day 8/2/2015 Roger Gross 8/2/2015 Fran Hesch 6/16/2014 Karen Jensen 6/16/2014 Roger Johnson 5/5/2014 Steve Lewis 8/2/2015 Jerre Miller 9/26/2008 Emily Wallace-Jackson 3/5/2012 UNAPPROVED 1 Minutes of the Hopkins Charter Commission April 24, 2012 The Hopkins Charter Commission met on April 24. Present were Commission members Dorothy Boen, David Day, Roger Gross, Fran Hesch, Karen Jensen, Roger Johnson, Steve Lewis, Jerre Miller, Emily Wallace-Jackson and staff members Jim Genellie and Kris Luedke. The meeting was brought to order at 6:30 p.m. by the Chair of the Commission, Emily Wallace-Jackson. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting Commissioner Hesch moved and Commissioner Day seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the May 2, 2011 meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. Election of Officers Commissioner Boen nominated Commissioner Wallace-Jackson for Chair, Commissioner Hesch seconded the nomination. Commissioner Wallace-Jackson was reelected by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Lewis nominated Commissioner Jensen for Vice-Chair. Commissioner Boen seconded the nomination. Commissioner Jensen was reelected by a unanimous vote. Reports Mr. Genellie reported that Emily Wallace-Jackson's term expired. She agreed to be reappointed. Old Business Mr. Genellie brought forward two amendments to the Charter. The proposed changes were first submitted at the May 2, 2011 Charter Commission meeting. The Commission then scheduled a second meeting for May 16, 2011 to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Charter amendments. Unfortunately there was not a quorum at the May 16, 2011 meeting so no action was taken. Section 3.03 of the City Charter requires that an ordinance be passed to amend an existing ordinance. Hopkins, like most cities, combines its ordinances into a City Code. Staff proposed that language referencing the City Code be added to Section 3.03. UNAPPROVED 2 In addition, Section 3.03 currently requires that the ordinance or section being amended shall be referred to by "title, date of passage, and section number or numbers." Since the City Code is a compilation of all the ordinances, a given section may have been amended a number of times by a variety of ordinances. It is difficult to pick out a single "date of passage." Simply using the title and section numbers will make it clear as to what part of the code is being amended or repealed. Section 4.02 of the Charter spells out how someone becomes a candidate for city office. It also establishes the filing period by stating how many days prior to the election an affidavit will be accepted. The state of Minnesota changed the filing dates in 2010 to accommodate the federal requirements to mail absentee ballots 45 days prior to the election. Rather than amend the Charter to adopt the new timelines, staff proposed deleting this language. Section 4.03 of the Charter applies general election laws to Hopkins unless there is different language in the Charter. By deleting the filing period in the Charter, the City's filing period will automatically match that required by the State of Minnesota. Commissioner Gross moved and Commissioner Jensen seconded a motion to adopt Charter Commission Resolution 2012-01 recommending that the Hopkins City Council adopt Ordinance 2012-1045 amending the City Charter. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lewis then asked about replacing voting machines. Kris Luedke reported that Hennepin County is looking at replacing voting machines, possibly in 2013. Several Commissioners remembered that the Charter Commission had gone on record as recommending that any new voting machines be ranked ballot ready. Commissioner Hesch also asked if the state law regarding Ranked Ballot voting still contained language that would allow an alternative to Single Transferable Voting Single Transferable Voting (STV) for multiple seat elections. Commissioner Jensen requested that the Commission be reminded about why the previous Charter Amendment Ordinance establishing ranked ballot voting in Hopkins was not adopted. Mr. Genellie said that he would provide the Commission with information on these three items. Commissioner Hesch moved and Commissioner Jensen seconded a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:48 p.m. Fast vote tally in Minneapolis? Maybe not Article by: STEVE BRANDT Star Tribune December 26, 2012 - 8:57 PM It's coming down to a race against the calendar to determine whether Minneapolis voters again in 2013 will wait longer and pay more to get their ranked-choice city election results. Although advances in voting machine technology make it easier to read the ranking of voter preferences in Minneapolis, the hurdle is that needed software isn't ready or certified for ranked voting, according to election experts. That makes it problematic whether a change to speed tabulation will be in place by November, when the mayor and 25 other local offices are up for grabs. The pace of ballot-counting will determine whether voters get results in hours or the count drags on for weeks, as it did when ranked-choice voting debuted in 2009. That year, it took Minneapolis 18 days after the election to declare the last winner because a laborious hand count was required to tally the hundreds of combinations of first, second and third choices selected by voters in a race. If there was no clear winner on first choices, the lowest candidates were eliminated and second- or third- choice votes redistributed to the remaining candidates. Advocates say ranking candidates gives voters more choice and helps ensure that more voters support the eventual winner rather than the traditional winner-take-all approach. How fast automation can happen also has implications for a handful of cities from Duluth to Red Wing, where local officials have looked into adopting the unconventional voting system. Minneapolis estimated two years ago that a hand count in 2013 would cost $133,000 more than an automated count, and that amount would balloon if turnout returns to normal after 2009's light voting. Races for City Council, Park and Recreation Board, and Board of Estimate and Taxation are on next year's ballot. $5 million set aside Hennepin County has set aside $5 million for 2013 to replace hundreds of aging precinct-level vote counters used by its cities. It's trying to accommodate the needs of Minneapolis, its only city where voters rank candidates. But accomplishing that requires cooperation by many players, according to Rachel Smith, the county's elections manager. Smith hopes to brief the County Board by the end of January on a timeline. She hopes the county will be negotiating with one or more makers of voting systems by late winter or early spring. Time squeeze ahead That suggests a time squeeze, given that Assistant City Clerk Grace Wachlarowicz said the city's drop-dead date for knowing which equipment will be used is the end of March, even if it's delivered later. Election officials are just beginning to turn their attention to the equipment purchase after wrapping up presidential election duties that have consumed most of the fall. City and county officials plan to meet soon, but Smith said that cooperation from the secretary of state's office and possibly the Legislature are needed to expedite an improvement in ranked-choice counting. "It's a great possibility that the appropriate approvals could take place" for buying and using the new voting systems in 2013, Wachlarowicz said. "But it's a very tight timeline," she added. Voting equipment is now much closer to meeting the needs of cities like Minneapolis, and St. Paul, which also uses rankings for city elections, said Jeanne Massey, executive director of FairVote Minnesota, the leading advocate for voters ranking candidates. StarTribune - Print Page http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=184877601 1 of 2 4/4/2013 8:48 AM Voting machines and software typically need federal certification and approval by the secretary of state. But the secretary of state's office doesn't test new voting systems for ranked-choice voting because that's not specified in Minnesota law. So that job is likely to fall to the city, Smith said. Software development is lagging At least three makers have produced voting equipment that is compatible with ranked voting, but their accompanying software lags, according to Massey. To buy voting equipment that represents at least some improvement over 2009 for ranked-choice tallying will require concerted effort by the city, county, state and perhaps the Legislature, Smith said. Council Member Cam Gordon, who heads the council's Election Committee, said he's looking forward to huddling with Hennepin County soon on the issue. "I'm hoping that we could get this done for the 2013 election," he said. "But if we don't get some good information early next year, my hope could change." Steve Brandt • 612-673-4438 Twitter: @brandtstrib © 2011 Star Tribune StarTribune - Print Page http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=184877601 2 of 2 4/4/2013 8:48 AM Minneapolis City Clerk Casey Carl, standing in center in January 2012. Glen Stubbe, Dml - Star Tribune Minneapolis short $385,000 for 2013 elections Article by: Steve Brandt Star Tribune February 28, 2013 - 2:17 PM With still-fresh memories of long voting lines in November and slow vote tallies from the last Minneapolis elections in 2009, the city took steps Wednesday aimed at improving voting this fall. But it may have aimed short on the money to get the job done. City Clerk Casey Carl told the City Council’s Elections Committee on Wednesday that he’s short $385,000 of the nearly $1.7 million that’s needed to properly run the more expensive ranked-choice voting method the city uses for municipal elections. Election costs will run even higher this year than last year, when the city had a massive 82 percent presidential election turnout, he said. That’s despite an expected smaller turnout for the 22 races and a probable charter referendum. Ranked-choice balloting debuted in 2009 but cost the city five times more than traditional voting. This year the city also has to train workers on expected new voting equipment. Carl said that he can cover the still-needed funds if he’s allowed to shift $385,000 that his office saved last year by keeping four positions vacant. But the council deferred that request to a late March budget session. Meanwhile, the committee, which consists of all 13 council members — although only nine attended — gave the go-ahead to a number of efforts to improve voting after 2012 problems that left lines that took hours and caused confusion in some precincts. A panel of outsiders will help the city devise standards to measure the suitability of polling places, the clerk’s office will review the number and locations of polling places, and plans will be developed to target voter outreach to areas with low turnout, high minority populations or more ranked-choice voting errors. But the big question looming over municipal voting this year is whether the city can shorten how long it takes to count ballots. It took 15 days in 2009 to hand-count ballots and allocate second- and third-choice votes where required to determine a winner. Casey said one big way to simplify counting is to eliminate the requirement for counting all voter choices in races where it’s clear that a candidate won on first-choice votes alone, as Mayor R.T. Rybak did with 74 percent in 2009. Another big improvement would be getting new voting equipment that could automate much of the counting process. Hennepin County has set a deadline of Friday for proposals for replacing its voting equipment, which Minneapolis and other cities will use. Such equipment is awaiting state certification that it meets requirements of state election laws, but the state has said it’s up to the city to test the equipment to make sure it works properly for ranked-choice voting. The committee voted to seek clarification of what that means. Carl said he asked last year for an extra $250,000 to cover 2013 election costs but got just $100,000 more from the mayor and City Council. He said he’s upping the request because it’s now clear that workers will need more training now that there will be new equipment and because he expects that the mayoral race to succeed the retiring Rybak will draw more voters. Steve Brandt • 612-673-4438 Twitter: @brandtstrib StarTribune - Print Page http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=193706061 1 of 2 4/4/2013 8:47 AM Illustration: Ballot box. Fred Matamoros, MCT/New Tribune Ranked-choice voting hurts Minneapolis minorities Article by: DEVIN RICE March 5, 2013 - 9:30 PM Steve Brandt’s Feb. 28 article (“Funds for election come up short”) addressed only one of the serious shortcomings of Minneapolis’ ranked-choice voting system (RCV). Brandt pointed out that Minneapolis will need $1.7 million to “properly run” the system, which costs five times more per vote than traditional voting, according to the article. What is more important is the potential disenfranchisement the RCV system inflicts on minority and less-affluent voters. According to official Minneapolis election reports from its first RCV election in 2009, 6.4 percent of all ballots cast contained an error. Even more alarming, 27 percent of the ballots cast in the predominantly East African/Somali precinct in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood contained ballot errors. In the Fifth Ward, an area of north Minneapolis with an African-American adult population of more than 50 percent, the voter error rate was more than 14 percent. In other predominately African-American, Latino/Hispanic and Native American voting precincts, the incidence of error was nearly 20 percent. Yet in the most affluent areas around the chain of lakes in south Minneapolis, the ballot error rate was 2 percent. Affluent areas had a proportionally higher voter turnout and lower ballot error rates than other parts of the city. As a result, precincts with large low-income and minority populations counted less than white/affluent voting precincts. That’s not a fair vote at all. This pattern merits the full attention of legislators, City Council members, city election officials and all people concerned with voting rights. RCV advocates are now attempting to pass state legislation to permit any city, county, school district or township to adopt RCV by referendum or by unanimous vote of their elected governing bodies. RCV advocates argue it should simply be a matter of local choice. Sounds simple? Wrong! The claims of these proponents merit strict scrutiny and are highly suspect, based on Minneapolis’ 2009 election. Our state Supreme Court ruled that RCV was constitutional on its face, but reserved judgment as to its constitutionality “as applied.” The court’s decision cited seven arguments that the city of Minneapolis and FairVote, the organization promoting RCV, made to justify the decision to permit the method. Four of those arguments proved to be false, based on the 2009 election results. The city and proponents of RCV said: • RCV would save money because of the need for only one election. Brandt’s article proves otherwise. • RCV would increase voter turnout. There were 46,000 votes cast in 2009, the lowest turnout in a city election since 1913 (seven years before women were allowed to vote). Voter turnout fell by 34 percent in 2009. • RCV would eliminate plurality winners and ensure majority winners. This claim also proved untrue. In the Park and Recreation Board’s Fifth District, the incumbent won with just 46.1 percent. • RCV would promote minority representation. This was perhaps the most serious failure. Census data from 2010 reflect a city that is 40 percent ethnic/racial minorities. The number of minority office holders in city municipal offices decreased in the StarTribune - Print Page http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=195463981 1 of 2 4/4/2013 8:51 AM 2009 election. In the Park Board “at large” race, an incumbent African-American female, the top vote-getter in the 2005 election, lost the 2009 RCV election. Using traditional election methods, 27 percent of the legislators from Minneapolis are minority and 44 percent of Minneapolis school board members are minority. Of Minneapolis’ 25 municipal elected officials, only two (or 8 percent) are minority. You be the judge of which election method works best in this state for minority groups. It would be extremely unwise to open the entire state up to such a suspect method of voting. Certainly no one should accept the stated reasons for using RCV as true. They simply have not been proven. Minneapolis voters adopted RCV after being told that it would save money, increase turnout, eliminate plurality winners and increase minority representation. All four claims were false. Voting ought to be clear and simple. RCV is neither. Voting should give each citizen an equal chance to be heard. The great American experiment was and still is our democracy. By my measure, the 2009 election was a failed experiment. Let’s see what RCV does in 2013 and then determine if it has a role in our precious democracy. -------- Devin Rice is a member of the Minneapolis Charter Commission. © 2011 Star Tribune StarTribune - Print Page http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=195463981 2 of 2 4/4/2013 8:51 AM Lauren Miller, 5, left, was more than happy to hold up her mother Quinne Miller 's "I voted" sticker at the first precinct at the Urban Research and Outreach Center in North Minneapolis, MN, early Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Elizabeth Flores, Star Tribune Minneapolis voting method does not hurt minorities Article by: Jeanne Massey March 10, 2013 - 10:09 PM Counterpoint Devin Rice’s March 6 commentary “Ranked-choice does minority voters no favors”was a masterwork of selective interpretation. Its claims demand a closer look at Minneapolis election data and a heavy dose of context. Rice’s concern for historically underrepresented voters is appreciated, but it is belied by some key facts. The ballot errors on which he centered his arguments were corrected, and each of these ballots was ultimately counted. In the entire 2009 election, only one ballot was not counted, and the error on this ballot had nothing to do with ranked-choice voting (RCV). That’s remarkable. Absolutely, higher rates of initial errors in some precincts suggest the need for clearer ballots and more targeted voter education and outreach, but that’s true no matter what voting system we use. The old system that Rice favors also results in voter error. In fact, the elections with the highest spoiled ballot rates are even-year partisan primaries, in which voters mistakenly vote across party lines. Error rates have reached as high as 22 percent in the Fifth Ward of Minneapolis (compared with 7 percent in the RCV election). Keep in mind that the voting machines can catch these errors and provide the voter with the opportunity to correct them. Overall, the RCV debut in Minneapolis was a resounding success, with 95 percent of all polled Minneapolis voters — and 97 percent of voters of color — finding it simple to use. Citing a Star Tribune report, Rice also repeated the aggregate cost of the 2013 election, much of which is unrelated to RCV and would also occur under a traditional election (expenses related to new equipment, increased election judge costs with anticipated higher turnout and contingency funds for unanticipated expenses). Over time, the reduced expense of the eliminated primary is anticipated to yield savings to the city. As to the concern that RCV does not produce majority winners, the winner — in a single-seat race — is always the candidate with the majority of continuing ballots in the final round. In some situations, as in the case Rice points to, this is a plurality of initial ballots cast because some voters express only one preference and don’t have a candidate in the race in the final round of counting. This is the will of the voter. Many of RCV’s benefits are gradual. Among these is its potential to increase minority representation in government. So while Rice can dismiss this phenomenon after one RCV election cycle, we’re unwilling to do so. In San Francisco, where RCV has been in place for a decade, voters are now enjoying rich diversity in city government: All seven citywide officials and nine of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors are people of color. In Oakland, the city’s first female and Asian-American was elected mayor with second-choice votes under RCV. Outspent 5 to 1, she showed that the way to win an RCV election was not by raising the most money but by having the savviest strategy for securing second- and third-choice votes. As to voter turnout, 2009 — an election year with a popular incumbent mayor — was always expected to be a low-turnout year. Competitive races, not voting method, drive turnout. What RCV does is maximize voter participation by eliminating unrepresentative primaries (which communities of color attend StarTribune - Print Page http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=196616051 1 of 2 3/11/2013 1:01 PM in disproportionately low numbers). For example, in 2005 (before RCV was enacted), general-election turnout was nearly three times greater than primary turnout (8 percent compared with 21 percent) in the Fifth Ward — which is predominately people of color — compared to two times greater for the city overall (15 percent to 30 percent). RCV mitigates this inequity by holding one election in November, when turnout is higher and more diverse. Much more telling of RCV’s potential to heighten voter engagement will be this year’s wide-open mayoral race and richly competitive City Council race; I look forward to dissecting the 2013 elections with Rice in November. Every city that’s tried RCV has a core, vocal group of people defending the status quo. No voting system is perfect, but RCV comes much closer to correcting longstanding inequities in our political process. It is supported by a wide range of leaders from communities of color. We believe Minneapolis and St. Paul are on the right path and look forward — this election cycle and beyond — to helping ensure that all voters are heard. ____________ Jeanne Massey is executive director of FairVote Minnesota. © 2011 Star Tribune StarTribune - Print Page http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=196616051 2 of 2 3/11/2013 1:01 PM Charter Commission Questions At the April meeting, Commission members had three questions regarding ranked ballot voting: 1. Several Commissioners remembered that the Charter Commission had gone on record as recommending that any new voting machines be ranked ballot ready. 2. Commissioner Hesch also asked if the state law regarding Ranked Ballot voting still contained language that would allow an alternative to Single Transferable Voting Single Transferable Voting (STV) for multiple seat elections. 3. Commissioner Jensen requested that the Commission be reminded about why the previous Charter Amendment Ordinance establishing ranked ballot voting in Hopkins was not adopted. 1. The Commission recommended and the City Council adopted a Resolution recommending that any new voting machines have the ability to handle ranked ballot voting. A copy of Resolution 2003-042 is attached. 2. Legislation has been proposed that would allow the use of Ranked Ballot or Instant Runoff Voting by cities, counties, townships, and school districts. This legislation has never been passed by the Minnesota Legislature. The last bill to be introduced was in May of 2011. It did contain the following provision: (b) A home rule jurisdiction that adopts a ranked-choice voting system in its charter may adopt this chapter by reference in an ordinance, but is not required to do so. Nothing in this chapter prevents a home rule jurisdiction from adopting another voting method in its charter. 3. The Commission did pass a charter amendment ordinance in 2005. By the time in got before the City Council in 2006, a possible problem with the ordinance was discovered. Ranked ballot voting (RBV) works best with multiple candidates running for a single seat. Hopkins' municipal elections involve multiple candidates running for multiple seats. The Commission tried to modify RBV to allow for multiple candidates running for multiple seats. 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, however, was 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 was possible that a candidate with a majority of the first two votes would not be elected. The City Council also had concerns about the cost of adopting a new voting system. On March 6, 2006, the Hopkins City Council rejected Ordinance 2005-958. FairVote Board of Directors: John Anderson (Chair) ○ Edward Hailes ○ Cynthia Terrell ○ William Redpath Nikolas Bowie ○ Erin Bowser ○ Cynthia Gibson ○ Antonio Gonzalez ○ Hendrik Hertzberg Jesse Jackson Jr. ○ Malia Lazu ○ Laura Liswood ○ Pete Martineau ○ Nina Moseley ○ Clay Mulford Krist Novoselic ○ Ken Ritchie ○ Rashad Robinson ○ Katherine Spillar ○ David Wilner July 31, 2007 To: Jeanne Massey, FairVote Minnesota From: Rob Richie, Executive director of FairVote Re: My concerns with the proposed Hopkins model We have discussed my concerns with the ranked choice voting method that has been proposed in Hopkins. It’s very encouraging to see the city’s leaders exploring innovative voting methods in general and ranked ballots in particular, but I’ve come to see their approach as highly problematic. I explain my concerns in the form of a memo. Here is my understanding of the proposed system. 1. Voters could vote for up to as many candidates as seats in the first choice column. 2. Voters have the option to rank one alternate choice in the second choice column and another alternate choice in the third choice column. 3. Votes in the first choice column are tallied. If any candidate has enough votes to win (typically understood as appearing one more than one-half of the ballots cast), that candidate wins. 4. If not all seats are filled, then the last-place candidate is eliminated. Any ballot ranking that candidate on the first choice row is then examined to see the first alternate choice (the candidate in the second choice row on that ballot). If that candidate already has been elected or eliminated, the next alternate choice is examined. An additional vote is counted for the first “continuing” candidate among alternate choices. 5. This process continues until all seats are filled. Here are my concerns about the system in rough order of importance. 1. The system creates incentives for voters truncate their ranked choices, undercutting the goal of electing majority winners. The basic flaw is that ranking a lower choice can contribute directly to the defeat of your top choice. 2. The system increases the potential for voter error – either in voters casting invalid ballots or in voting against their interests by not fully understanding the implications of the system. 3. The system presents greater complexity in hand-tallying ballots if a hand-count is necessary to resolve a controversy over the results. Perverse incentives and ambiguity about how to measure voter intention Instant runoff voting and other variations of it detailed below meet the following important conditions, but the Hopkins plan does not:  Voters should have at least as much voter power as in the system being replaced.  Voters should have every incentive to rank as many candidates as they wish – meaning that ranking a lower choice should not contribute to the defeat of a higher choice The Center for Voting and Democracy 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 610 Takoma Park, MD 20912 - (301) 270-4616 (301) 270–4133 (fax) ·info@fairvote.org www.fairvote.org FairVote Board of Directors: John Anderson (Chair) ○ Edward Hailes ○ Cynthia Terrell ○ William Redpath Nikolas Bowie ○ Erin Bowser ○ Cynthia Gibson ○ Antonio Gonzalez ○ Hendrik Hertzberg Jesse Jackson Jr. ○ Malia Lazu ○ Laura Liswood ○ Pete Martineau ○ Nina Moseley ○ Clay Mulford Krist Novoselic ○ Ken Ritchie ○ Rashad Robinson ○ Katherine Spillar ○ David Wilner  The system should not hurt a voter who doesn't understand the system and follows the instructions as they are provided I want to emphasize that I am a rather pragmatic person as I pursue reforms, which is why we have gone along with variations of the traditional approach to instant runoff voting, such as the 40% victory threshold that North Carolina wanted to preserve when using IRV to replace primary runoffs and its decisions to reduce the field to two immediately after the first count. But the Hopkins proposal is something I would oppose. Here are examples of problems, none of which would happen with a traditional instant runoff voting system or other possible variations of it. Note that any particular example of a problem may seem picayune, but each example points to a basic flaw tied to the fact that the voter is losing flexibility and power they have in the current Hopkins system (generally linked to the fact that voters in the current Hopkins system can cast votes in the runoff with the benefit of knowing what has happened in the first round). 1. Loss of voter power due to not understanding ballot: The first example is simple. In a two- seat race, suppose a voter casts a classic IRV ballot, with one candidate in the first choice column and one each in the next two columns. We would have to count that ballot as a conscious decision to "bullet vote" in the first-choice count, but there's no guarantee that this was the voter's intention – the voter indeed may have wanted to have the second choice counted too. By not understanding the system, that voter has weakened their vote. 2. Loss of voter power due to system’s inflexibility: The second example is more problematic. Let's say it is a simple two-seat race with three candidates. As a voter, you choose two candidates in the first choice column. Suppose that the third candidate wins a seat in the first round of counting, leaving one remaining seat to be filled in the instant runoff. Your two candidates advance to the second round, competing for the 2nd seat. You are now voting for both of these candidates in the runoff round, canceling out the impact of your vote (e.g., it has the same effect of you not voting at all). True, at least one candidate you supported is guaranteed to win, but if there had been a real runoff, they would have had a chance to differentiate between those two candidates and pick the one they prefer. Furthermore, under the proposal, that voter would be casting two votes in the second round in an election for one seat, whereas in a regular runoff each voter would have had only one vote – the same number of votes as seats. 3. Creating incentives to not rank candidates: The third example flows from these examples – again using a simple race with three candidates competing for two seats. They relate to this system’s basic problem of a lower choice contributing to the defeat of a higher choice. Suppose I very much like one candidate (indeed, let’s say you ARE that candidate) and can tolerate a second candidate, but you really don’t like the third candidate. In the current Hopkins system, you might well cast a vote for yourself and not anyone else – or at least you would be tempted to do so. You would hope to win in the first election then cast a vote for your second choice in the runoff between that candidate and your last choice. (I assume there is a tradition of such “bullet voting” in Hopkins – it certainly is common in the winner-take-all multi-seat elections I’ve observed.) But if you only rank one person in the first row, you forfeit your chance to defeat your last choice. And if you rank your second choice in the second row, you risk having that FairVote Board of Directors: John Anderson (Chair) ○ Edward Hailes ○ Cynthia Terrell ○ William Redpath Nikolas Bowie ○ Erin Bowser ○ Cynthia Gibson ○ Antonio Gonzalez ○ Hendrik Hertzberg Jesse Jackson Jr. ○ Malia Lazu ○ Laura Liswood ○ Pete Martineau ○ Nina Moseley ○ Clay Mulford Krist Novoselic ○ Ken Ritchie ○ Rashad Robinson ○ Katherine Spillar ○ David Wilner choice count against you if it’s instead the least favorite candidate who wins in the first row. So rationally you should vote for yourself and not rank anyone else, even though this may contribute to the election of your least favorite choice. Bottom line: if people bullet vote in Hopkins now, you would probably see a lot of truncated ballots with no alternate choices indicated in the proposed new system. 4. Inability to know voter’s intention and count ballot accordingly: The fourth example is designed to show how it could be hard to know what a voter intended to do. Suppose you have six candidates running for two seats. You rank a single person in the first choice row, then a second and third choice in the subsequent rows. We assume the person wants to bullet vote, and in the first round, we only count their first choice. Suppose that candidate then loses (e.g., is the last-place finisher), and the five remaining candidates advance to the second round. It’s not clear at this point what to do – do you count the first alternate choice AND the second alternate choice? What if the person really would have wanted to bullet vote again for their second alternate choice, but would want their third choice to count if that second choice has lost. There’s no way to know – but the voter could have done just what they really wanted in the current system. 5. The sincere voter who loses to the tactical voter: Suppose some voters have figured out the incentives to not rank additional candidates while others haven’t. The second group blithely does just as the instructions suggest, giving alternate rankings. The first group bullet votes. The first group has just won a big edge in electing their favorite candidate, as they won’t cancel their vote out by supporting anyone else, while the second group does. This flaw exists with the current system, but does not exist with IRV. Increased potential for voter error The proposed Hopkins system is definitely more complex. Rather than the classic “it’s as easy as one-two-three” message that has contributed to 99.9% of ballots being valid in Burlington (VT) and less than 1% voter error in many places like Ireland and San Francisco, one has to say something like “vote a full slate in your first choice row, then one alternate for each additional row.” Rather than say “rank only one candidate in each row”, you have to qualify that message with “except in the first row.” You almost certainly will see more voter error – either undervotes in the first row (people voting for one when they really would have meant to vote for two) or overvotes in the second row (voting for two people in that row as well). Greater complexity in hand-tallying ballots It is always good to have the capacity to do a hand-count if necessary – if the machines break down, if there is a controversy demand a hand recount, and so on. The algorithm for doing a hand-count of the proposed Hopkins system, even with only two seats being elected, is exhausting to even think about. A single ballot essentially may often need to be counted for two different candidates at the same time, meaning that one needs to have a series of rows of ballots grouped not by candidate, but by pairings of candidates. Once candidates start getting eliminated, the number of potential piles needed to handle different options increases dramatically. It would be hard to do right, hard to make sure one is doing it right and opaque to observers FairVote Board of Directors: John Anderson (Chair) ○ Edward Hailes ○ Cynthia Terrell ○ William Redpath Nikolas Bowie ○ Erin Bowser ○ Cynthia Gibson ○ Antonio Gonzalez ○ Hendrik Hertzberg Jesse Jackson Jr. ○ Malia Lazu ○ Laura Liswood ○ Pete Martineau ○ Nina Moseley ○ Clay Mulford Krist Novoselic ○ Ken Ritchie ○ Rashad Robinson ○ Katherine Spillar ○ David Wilner Better Alternatives for Hopkins In light of these problems, I strongly would urge Hopkins to explore alternatives. Two are non- winner-take-all systems, while two are winner-take-all. All of them avoid the contradictions and complexities that are present with the current Hopkins proposal. Here are brief descriptions. Non-winner-take-all options 1. Classic choice voting (a.k.a. single transferable vote): Used in Scotland cities this year and in Cambridge (MA), this system involves voters ranking candidates, and ballots counting initially as one vote for voters’ first choices. A victory threshold is established that is the fewest number of ballots that only the winning number of candidates can obtain – in a two- seat race, this is one vote more than one-third of the vote. Any candidate winning more than the victory threshold is elected. Excess ballots are counted toward the next choice on each ballot (ideally every ballot is recounted at an equally reduced value). If there are seats still to fill and no candidate is beyond the threshold, the last-place candidate is eliminated and ballots counted for the next choice at full value. 2. The “bottoms-up” choice voting system: Bottoms-up is like choice voting except there is no victory threshold and no recounting of “excess ballots.” Last-place candidates are eliminated and their ballots counted for the next choice candidate until two candidates remain. Those candidates are elected. Winner-take-all options 1. Classic multi-seat instant runoff voting: In the traditional multi-seat instant runoff voting (IRV) election, the ballot looks just like the one used with choice voting and bottoms-up – voters rank their choices 1, 2, 3 and so on. An IRV tally is used to elect the first seat by a majority of 50% plus one. After that seat is elected, a second IRV tally is conducted, but this time without the first winner. (Any ballot ranking that candidate as a first choice is recounted immediately for the next choice on the ballot.). 2. Combined plurality ballot and instant runoff ballot: In this system, which is the closest to what Hopkins has proposed, the voter sees the candidates listed twice. In the first list, they cast one vote per person, up to the number of votes as seats, just as they do now. In the second listing, they rank the candidates in order of choice as in a classic IRV vote, starting with their choices that they made in the first list. To determine winners, the plurality vote in the first list is used. Candidates are elected according to the rule currently used in Hopkins. But if one or both seats are unfilled, then the IRV rankings are used just to elect the remaining seats as they are with a classic multi-seat IRV count. This proposal has the benefit of potentially electing both seats immediately in the plurality vote and not having to do an IRV count. At the same time, it avoids problems with the current Hopkins proposal involving voters losing power and flexibility. The chief downside is the voter education hurdle of making sure voters handle it well. Evidence from similar ballots used by overseas voters in various states in runoffs suggest that voters can handle this potential hurdle; a sample ballot is included.