Should the City of Davis consider adopting choice voting, also known as instant runoff or preference voting, as the system to elect City Council members?
The voters instead of voting for the same number of candidates as seats would rank order their preferences regardless of the number of candidates. The votes are then counted and transfered until a winner is declared.
In one method, the first place votes for all candidates would be be counted. The candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated, and those votes would be transferred to voters’ second choices. The process would continue until the number of remaining candidates is equal to the number of open seats. There are some other more complicated methods as well.
Since it was an advisory vote, and therefore non-binding, there was no organized opposition against it. There was no ballot statement against nor did anyone run a campaign against it. I was a bit concerned given those facts, that Councilmember Lamar Heystek, a strong proponent of the measure and choice voting, would cite public support as a reason to go forward. I do not think the public has really had the kind of informed debate needed to make a decision. Nor do I think that the council has had that kind of discussion or research. Nevertheless, they appear to be moving forward with this proposal with the goal of implementing it.
While I am not necessarily opposed to it in concept, I have a lot of concerns about how it would run and whether the average voter would be able to know understand what it was they were doing while in the ballot and casting their vote and how their votes would be tallied.
Some have suggested that this would aid smaller candidates, I would like to see some of the research about how many of the “smaller” candidates or “underdogs” have won under a choice voting system versus a more traditional system.
Moreover, I would like to see based on existing systems, a full discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of choice voting.
In short, I think despite of the election, I do not feel very well informed on the issue of choice voting and whether its professed strengths actually exist when we examine them empirically. Moreover, I have a number of concerns about both the application of and the effect of implementing this system.
Finally, I have a question as to why we should prefer a new system of voting over this one? Are we looking for different outcomes? More competitive elections? To advantage one type of candidate over others? Lots of questions, and in my mind, very few answers given the dynamics of an advisory vote.
The issue of choice voting aside, in order to even get to choice voting, the city of Davis has to become a charter city–although there is a longshot measure in the Assembly that would enable cities to enact choice voting without becoming charter cities.
The process of just selecting the mechanism to become a charter city became very heated last night at the city council meeting. The Mayor first tried to remove the issue from a subcommittee and place it in the body as a whole. The proposed subcommittee for a charter city was going to be Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek, both of whom were the strongest proponents for choice voting.
Mayor Greenwald however tried to switch Councilmember Heystek with herself on the committee with the logic being that while Heystek was an expert on choice voting, she was more familiar with how to draw up a city charter. Given the course of the debate, the council majority rejected this move.
The meeting as a whole was marred by a large amount of petty bickering between councilmembers over small procedural items. Mayor Greenwald also had very strong objection to a proposed meeting over the operations of the city council. She refused to participate without some sort of professional facilitator.
Overall the tone of the meeting was bitter and contentious–largely unnecessarily so. There are legitimate concerns over this council majority redrawing the city’s charter. The fear being that the council would help institutionalize and further its own majority. One of the items that has drawn that fear would be having a direct election of the mayor every two years. One city of Davis’ size that I am very familiar has just such a system, San Luis Obispo. It is not clear to me that this is an incredible disadvantage to slow growthers and progressives. In San Luis Obispo there seems to be a relatively even split between the more development friendly mayors and the more slow growth and environmentally friendly mayors.
Nevertheless this is a situation that progressives should be watching very carefully to see the progress of the charter. Mayor Greenwald has some legitimate concerns about this process, but I think any attempt to blatantly advantage the other side would be fairly transparent and if that is the case, could easily be noted and defeated one way or another. Becoming a charter city would also give some advantages to those of us who are interested in stronger police reform.
I remain skeptical on the issue of choice voting, though many people that I support are strong proponents of it. I would like to see an real open debate on the strengths and the weaknesses before we simply ratify what it is that we think the voters supported.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Doug:
“In November of 2007, Davis voters passed Measure L”
Did you really mean 2006 or earlier?
Doug:
“In November of 2007, Davis voters passed Measure L”
Did you really mean 2006 or earlier?
Doug:
“In November of 2007, Davis voters passed Measure L”
Did you really mean 2006 or earlier?
Doug:
“In November of 2007, Davis voters passed Measure L”
Did you really mean 2006 or earlier?
I think they confused with the 1917 City Council meeting from last night…
It is fixed.
I think they confused with the 1917 City Council meeting from last night…
It is fixed.
I think they confused with the 1917 City Council meeting from last night…
It is fixed.
I think they confused with the 1917 City Council meeting from last night…
It is fixed.
The public discussion concerning choice voting in its several possible
forms has been inadequate to date but was enough for Measure L which only approved going forward with the next step. The citizens of Davis hopefully will have ample opportunity learn about it before voting to change to a choice voting system. There is a history of ideas being “studied”( eg surface water for Davis)moving step by step to inevitability but continuing down the choice voting/charter city road probably does not offer this threat.
The public discussion concerning choice voting in its several possible
forms has been inadequate to date but was enough for Measure L which only approved going forward with the next step. The citizens of Davis hopefully will have ample opportunity learn about it before voting to change to a choice voting system. There is a history of ideas being “studied”( eg surface water for Davis)moving step by step to inevitability but continuing down the choice voting/charter city road probably does not offer this threat.
The public discussion concerning choice voting in its several possible
forms has been inadequate to date but was enough for Measure L which only approved going forward with the next step. The citizens of Davis hopefully will have ample opportunity learn about it before voting to change to a choice voting system. There is a history of ideas being “studied”( eg surface water for Davis)moving step by step to inevitability but continuing down the choice voting/charter city road probably does not offer this threat.
The public discussion concerning choice voting in its several possible
forms has been inadequate to date but was enough for Measure L which only approved going forward with the next step. The citizens of Davis hopefully will have ample opportunity learn about it before voting to change to a choice voting system. There is a history of ideas being “studied”( eg surface water for Davis)moving step by step to inevitability but continuing down the choice voting/charter city road probably does not offer this threat.
My concern was comments made last night by people I normally agree with that this should be a done deal because the people have spoken. I’m willing to listen to ideas about choice voting, but I do not think it is a done deal or should be treated as such. That is why my concerns enter this picture.
My concern was comments made last night by people I normally agree with that this should be a done deal because the people have spoken. I’m willing to listen to ideas about choice voting, but I do not think it is a done deal or should be treated as such. That is why my concerns enter this picture.
My concern was comments made last night by people I normally agree with that this should be a done deal because the people have spoken. I’m willing to listen to ideas about choice voting, but I do not think it is a done deal or should be treated as such. That is why my concerns enter this picture.
My concern was comments made last night by people I normally agree with that this should be a done deal because the people have spoken. I’m willing to listen to ideas about choice voting, but I do not think it is a done deal or should be treated as such. That is why my concerns enter this picture.
West Sacramento recently implemented a separately elected mayor’s office with a two-year term – I hate to be a cynic, but it just allows the machine to crank out additional direct mail campaigns and spin things like “Mayor Smith was the first mayor directly elected by the people.”
The council-manager system is effective, and allows for expert professional staff, to recieve direction from councilmembers who bring “real constituent” perspective to leadership.
West Sacramento recently implemented a separately elected mayor’s office with a two-year term – I hate to be a cynic, but it just allows the machine to crank out additional direct mail campaigns and spin things like “Mayor Smith was the first mayor directly elected by the people.”
The council-manager system is effective, and allows for expert professional staff, to recieve direction from councilmembers who bring “real constituent” perspective to leadership.
West Sacramento recently implemented a separately elected mayor’s office with a two-year term – I hate to be a cynic, but it just allows the machine to crank out additional direct mail campaigns and spin things like “Mayor Smith was the first mayor directly elected by the people.”
The council-manager system is effective, and allows for expert professional staff, to recieve direction from councilmembers who bring “real constituent” perspective to leadership.
West Sacramento recently implemented a separately elected mayor’s office with a two-year term – I hate to be a cynic, but it just allows the machine to crank out additional direct mail campaigns and spin things like “Mayor Smith was the first mayor directly elected by the people.”
The council-manager system is effective, and allows for expert professional staff, to recieve direction from councilmembers who bring “real constituent” perspective to leadership.
“The process of just selecting the mechanism to become a charter city became very heated last night at the city council meeting. The Mayor first tried to remove the issue from a subcommittee and place it in the body as a whole.”
Sue’s point, one that I completely agree with, was that rather than push this issue off to a subcommittee, where it would be discussed and studied in private, the discussion of moving to a charter city is a big one and thus the entire discussion should be among the entire council and in front of the public.
However, Sue was pouring on the vinegar so much last night that she had no chance to persuade her colleagues of this important point. Having spoken with Sue in person a number of times, and having found her friendly and charming, I’m perplexed why she behaves so abrasively over every small, even petty issue with her colleagues.
Sue should try to use a little more honey to catch flies. Lamar does that and he is far more effective on the council.
“The proposed subcommittee for a charter city was going to be Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek, both of whom were the strongest proponents for choice voting.
Mayor Greenwald however tried to switch Councilmember Heystek with herself on the committee with the logic being that while Heystek was an expert on choice voting, she was more familiar with how to draw up a city charter. Given the course of the debate, the council majority rejected this move.”
That was the strangest vote I can ever recall in the Davis City Council. Sue had so annoyed Ruth, Don and Stephen that they would not allow her to replace Lamar on the subcommittee, even though Lamar wanted Sue to replace her. The majority was entirely wrong in voting against Sue’s motion — if Lamar was willing to have Sue take his spot, it should have been allowed. But in my opinion, their stubborness was fully understandable, because Sue’s behavior — constantly interrupting the others and always speaking out of turn when others had the floor — was so unfriendly.
“The meeting as a whole was marred by a large amount of petty bickering between councilmembers over small procedural items.”
This may be the most dysfunctional council I have ever seen. Even worse than the one in which Suzy Boyd was the 1-4 mayor, losing just about every vote. I think this council really makes the case for why the council itself should choose the mayor, not automatically handing the gavel to the top vote-getter from two years prior.
“Overall the tone of the meeting was bitter and contentious–largely unnecessarily so.”
True.
“I remain skeptical on the issue of choice voting, though many people that I support are strong proponents of it. I would like to see an real open debate on the strengths and the weaknesses before we simply ratify what it is that we think the voters supported.”
While I strongly favor ‘choice voting,’ I think it needs to be fully fleshed out and debated. Measure L should not be seen as a complete mandate. If it requires us to move to a charter city, it might be worth forgetting about ‘choice voting.’ Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that if we do adopt ‘choice voting,’ and then the people of Davis don’t like it, there would be nothing stopping us from reverting back to ‘first-past-the-post’ voting.
Also, you note that some think that ‘choice voting’ would help fringe candidates. That is completely wrong. It really impairs the ability of fringe candidates from affecting elections the way they now do. The main thing ‘choice voting’ would do is it would remove the problem in Davis of having too many candidates from one party diluting their parties votes, while the other party concentrates all of its votes into its smaller number of candidates.
“The process of just selecting the mechanism to become a charter city became very heated last night at the city council meeting. The Mayor first tried to remove the issue from a subcommittee and place it in the body as a whole.”
Sue’s point, one that I completely agree with, was that rather than push this issue off to a subcommittee, where it would be discussed and studied in private, the discussion of moving to a charter city is a big one and thus the entire discussion should be among the entire council and in front of the public.
However, Sue was pouring on the vinegar so much last night that she had no chance to persuade her colleagues of this important point. Having spoken with Sue in person a number of times, and having found her friendly and charming, I’m perplexed why she behaves so abrasively over every small, even petty issue with her colleagues.
Sue should try to use a little more honey to catch flies. Lamar does that and he is far more effective on the council.
“The proposed subcommittee for a charter city was going to be Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek, both of whom were the strongest proponents for choice voting.
Mayor Greenwald however tried to switch Councilmember Heystek with herself on the committee with the logic being that while Heystek was an expert on choice voting, she was more familiar with how to draw up a city charter. Given the course of the debate, the council majority rejected this move.”
That was the strangest vote I can ever recall in the Davis City Council. Sue had so annoyed Ruth, Don and Stephen that they would not allow her to replace Lamar on the subcommittee, even though Lamar wanted Sue to replace her. The majority was entirely wrong in voting against Sue’s motion — if Lamar was willing to have Sue take his spot, it should have been allowed. But in my opinion, their stubborness was fully understandable, because Sue’s behavior — constantly interrupting the others and always speaking out of turn when others had the floor — was so unfriendly.
“The meeting as a whole was marred by a large amount of petty bickering between councilmembers over small procedural items.”
This may be the most dysfunctional council I have ever seen. Even worse than the one in which Suzy Boyd was the 1-4 mayor, losing just about every vote. I think this council really makes the case for why the council itself should choose the mayor, not automatically handing the gavel to the top vote-getter from two years prior.
“Overall the tone of the meeting was bitter and contentious–largely unnecessarily so.”
True.
“I remain skeptical on the issue of choice voting, though many people that I support are strong proponents of it. I would like to see an real open debate on the strengths and the weaknesses before we simply ratify what it is that we think the voters supported.”
While I strongly favor ‘choice voting,’ I think it needs to be fully fleshed out and debated. Measure L should not be seen as a complete mandate. If it requires us to move to a charter city, it might be worth forgetting about ‘choice voting.’ Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that if we do adopt ‘choice voting,’ and then the people of Davis don’t like it, there would be nothing stopping us from reverting back to ‘first-past-the-post’ voting.
Also, you note that some think that ‘choice voting’ would help fringe candidates. That is completely wrong. It really impairs the ability of fringe candidates from affecting elections the way they now do. The main thing ‘choice voting’ would do is it would remove the problem in Davis of having too many candidates from one party diluting their parties votes, while the other party concentrates all of its votes into its smaller number of candidates.
“The process of just selecting the mechanism to become a charter city became very heated last night at the city council meeting. The Mayor first tried to remove the issue from a subcommittee and place it in the body as a whole.”
Sue’s point, one that I completely agree with, was that rather than push this issue off to a subcommittee, where it would be discussed and studied in private, the discussion of moving to a charter city is a big one and thus the entire discussion should be among the entire council and in front of the public.
However, Sue was pouring on the vinegar so much last night that she had no chance to persuade her colleagues of this important point. Having spoken with Sue in person a number of times, and having found her friendly and charming, I’m perplexed why she behaves so abrasively over every small, even petty issue with her colleagues.
Sue should try to use a little more honey to catch flies. Lamar does that and he is far more effective on the council.
“The proposed subcommittee for a charter city was going to be Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek, both of whom were the strongest proponents for choice voting.
Mayor Greenwald however tried to switch Councilmember Heystek with herself on the committee with the logic being that while Heystek was an expert on choice voting, she was more familiar with how to draw up a city charter. Given the course of the debate, the council majority rejected this move.”
That was the strangest vote I can ever recall in the Davis City Council. Sue had so annoyed Ruth, Don and Stephen that they would not allow her to replace Lamar on the subcommittee, even though Lamar wanted Sue to replace her. The majority was entirely wrong in voting against Sue’s motion — if Lamar was willing to have Sue take his spot, it should have been allowed. But in my opinion, their stubborness was fully understandable, because Sue’s behavior — constantly interrupting the others and always speaking out of turn when others had the floor — was so unfriendly.
“The meeting as a whole was marred by a large amount of petty bickering between councilmembers over small procedural items.”
This may be the most dysfunctional council I have ever seen. Even worse than the one in which Suzy Boyd was the 1-4 mayor, losing just about every vote. I think this council really makes the case for why the council itself should choose the mayor, not automatically handing the gavel to the top vote-getter from two years prior.
“Overall the tone of the meeting was bitter and contentious–largely unnecessarily so.”
True.
“I remain skeptical on the issue of choice voting, though many people that I support are strong proponents of it. I would like to see an real open debate on the strengths and the weaknesses before we simply ratify what it is that we think the voters supported.”
While I strongly favor ‘choice voting,’ I think it needs to be fully fleshed out and debated. Measure L should not be seen as a complete mandate. If it requires us to move to a charter city, it might be worth forgetting about ‘choice voting.’ Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that if we do adopt ‘choice voting,’ and then the people of Davis don’t like it, there would be nothing stopping us from reverting back to ‘first-past-the-post’ voting.
Also, you note that some think that ‘choice voting’ would help fringe candidates. That is completely wrong. It really impairs the ability of fringe candidates from affecting elections the way they now do. The main thing ‘choice voting’ would do is it would remove the problem in Davis of having too many candidates from one party diluting their parties votes, while the other party concentrates all of its votes into its smaller number of candidates.
“The process of just selecting the mechanism to become a charter city became very heated last night at the city council meeting. The Mayor first tried to remove the issue from a subcommittee and place it in the body as a whole.”
Sue’s point, one that I completely agree with, was that rather than push this issue off to a subcommittee, where it would be discussed and studied in private, the discussion of moving to a charter city is a big one and thus the entire discussion should be among the entire council and in front of the public.
However, Sue was pouring on the vinegar so much last night that she had no chance to persuade her colleagues of this important point. Having spoken with Sue in person a number of times, and having found her friendly and charming, I’m perplexed why she behaves so abrasively over every small, even petty issue with her colleagues.
Sue should try to use a little more honey to catch flies. Lamar does that and he is far more effective on the council.
“The proposed subcommittee for a charter city was going to be Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek, both of whom were the strongest proponents for choice voting.
Mayor Greenwald however tried to switch Councilmember Heystek with herself on the committee with the logic being that while Heystek was an expert on choice voting, she was more familiar with how to draw up a city charter. Given the course of the debate, the council majority rejected this move.”
That was the strangest vote I can ever recall in the Davis City Council. Sue had so annoyed Ruth, Don and Stephen that they would not allow her to replace Lamar on the subcommittee, even though Lamar wanted Sue to replace her. The majority was entirely wrong in voting against Sue’s motion — if Lamar was willing to have Sue take his spot, it should have been allowed. But in my opinion, their stubborness was fully understandable, because Sue’s behavior — constantly interrupting the others and always speaking out of turn when others had the floor — was so unfriendly.
“The meeting as a whole was marred by a large amount of petty bickering between councilmembers over small procedural items.”
This may be the most dysfunctional council I have ever seen. Even worse than the one in which Suzy Boyd was the 1-4 mayor, losing just about every vote. I think this council really makes the case for why the council itself should choose the mayor, not automatically handing the gavel to the top vote-getter from two years prior.
“Overall the tone of the meeting was bitter and contentious–largely unnecessarily so.”
True.
“I remain skeptical on the issue of choice voting, though many people that I support are strong proponents of it. I would like to see an real open debate on the strengths and the weaknesses before we simply ratify what it is that we think the voters supported.”
While I strongly favor ‘choice voting,’ I think it needs to be fully fleshed out and debated. Measure L should not be seen as a complete mandate. If it requires us to move to a charter city, it might be worth forgetting about ‘choice voting.’ Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that if we do adopt ‘choice voting,’ and then the people of Davis don’t like it, there would be nothing stopping us from reverting back to ‘first-past-the-post’ voting.
Also, you note that some think that ‘choice voting’ would help fringe candidates. That is completely wrong. It really impairs the ability of fringe candidates from affecting elections the way they now do. The main thing ‘choice voting’ would do is it would remove the problem in Davis of having too many candidates from one party diluting their parties votes, while the other party concentrates all of its votes into its smaller number of candidates.
The main thing ‘choice voting’ would do is it would remove the problem in Davis of having too many candidates from one party diluting their *party’s votes, while the other party concentrates all of its votes into its smaller number of candidates.
The main thing ‘choice voting’ would do is it would remove the problem in Davis of having too many candidates from one party diluting their *party’s votes, while the other party concentrates all of its votes into its smaller number of candidates.
The main thing ‘choice voting’ would do is it would remove the problem in Davis of having too many candidates from one party diluting their *party’s votes, while the other party concentrates all of its votes into its smaller number of candidates.
The main thing ‘choice voting’ would do is it would remove the problem in Davis of having too many candidates from one party diluting their *party’s votes, while the other party concentrates all of its votes into its smaller number of candidates.
while i’m rather ambivalent about choice voting in city elections (if less so for statewide and federal elections), i’m personally more in favor of district elections combined with a citywide elected mayor, both to make council elections cheaper and easier to run as well as to make sure that all neighborhoods have at least some representation on the council.
i found the choice voting exploratory commmission (no the actual name)’s comment on district elections most revealing, essentially saying that they would make the council “too divisive.” this suggests to me that if that’s the case, that there’s something out there that needs addressing. if there are tensions between neighboorhoods in the city, that divisiveness is better off being expressed through the city government, than disregarded, tamped down or ignored.
i do agree that a charter city debate should not be done hastily or by some appointed commission, but rather drawn out in a couple of years’ worth of heated letters to the editor, council debates, and farmer’s market soapboxing. given this city’s penchant for public debate, i would feel cheated if we didn’t get to hash it out for years, in all possible forae.
while i’m rather ambivalent about choice voting in city elections (if less so for statewide and federal elections), i’m personally more in favor of district elections combined with a citywide elected mayor, both to make council elections cheaper and easier to run as well as to make sure that all neighborhoods have at least some representation on the council.
i found the choice voting exploratory commmission (no the actual name)’s comment on district elections most revealing, essentially saying that they would make the council “too divisive.” this suggests to me that if that’s the case, that there’s something out there that needs addressing. if there are tensions between neighboorhoods in the city, that divisiveness is better off being expressed through the city government, than disregarded, tamped down or ignored.
i do agree that a charter city debate should not be done hastily or by some appointed commission, but rather drawn out in a couple of years’ worth of heated letters to the editor, council debates, and farmer’s market soapboxing. given this city’s penchant for public debate, i would feel cheated if we didn’t get to hash it out for years, in all possible forae.
while i’m rather ambivalent about choice voting in city elections (if less so for statewide and federal elections), i’m personally more in favor of district elections combined with a citywide elected mayor, both to make council elections cheaper and easier to run as well as to make sure that all neighborhoods have at least some representation on the council.
i found the choice voting exploratory commmission (no the actual name)’s comment on district elections most revealing, essentially saying that they would make the council “too divisive.” this suggests to me that if that’s the case, that there’s something out there that needs addressing. if there are tensions between neighboorhoods in the city, that divisiveness is better off being expressed through the city government, than disregarded, tamped down or ignored.
i do agree that a charter city debate should not be done hastily or by some appointed commission, but rather drawn out in a couple of years’ worth of heated letters to the editor, council debates, and farmer’s market soapboxing. given this city’s penchant for public debate, i would feel cheated if we didn’t get to hash it out for years, in all possible forae.
while i’m rather ambivalent about choice voting in city elections (if less so for statewide and federal elections), i’m personally more in favor of district elections combined with a citywide elected mayor, both to make council elections cheaper and easier to run as well as to make sure that all neighborhoods have at least some representation on the council.
i found the choice voting exploratory commmission (no the actual name)’s comment on district elections most revealing, essentially saying that they would make the council “too divisive.” this suggests to me that if that’s the case, that there’s something out there that needs addressing. if there are tensions between neighboorhoods in the city, that divisiveness is better off being expressed through the city government, than disregarded, tamped down or ignored.
i do agree that a charter city debate should not be done hastily or by some appointed commission, but rather drawn out in a couple of years’ worth of heated letters to the editor, council debates, and farmer’s market soapboxing. given this city’s penchant for public debate, i would feel cheated if we didn’t get to hash it out for years, in all possible forae.
“Finally, I have a question as to why we should prefer a new system of voting over this one?”
Hi Doug,
I recommend that you read this op-ed for a summary of why we should prefer choice voting:
http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=media&article=263
As for empirical data, you can go here to see data and analyses of six recent choice voting elections at UC Davis:
http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=asucd
At UC Davis before choice voting, one slate often won 5-6 out of the 6 available seats, even though only 40-50% of voters supported that slate. After choice voting, the collection of winning candidates became much more balanced, with 2-3 candidates from two slates winning, and often an independent winning as well. These results mirrored the diversity of the electorate much more closely than under the old FPTP (“first past the post”) system.
If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Thanks,
Chris Jerdonek
jerdonek@gmail.com
(415) 286-2238 (cell)
“Finally, I have a question as to why we should prefer a new system of voting over this one?”
Hi Doug,
I recommend that you read this op-ed for a summary of why we should prefer choice voting:
http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=media&article=263
As for empirical data, you can go here to see data and analyses of six recent choice voting elections at UC Davis:
http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=asucd
At UC Davis before choice voting, one slate often won 5-6 out of the 6 available seats, even though only 40-50% of voters supported that slate. After choice voting, the collection of winning candidates became much more balanced, with 2-3 candidates from two slates winning, and often an independent winning as well. These results mirrored the diversity of the electorate much more closely than under the old FPTP (“first past the post”) system.
If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Thanks,
Chris Jerdonek
jerdonek@gmail.com
(415) 286-2238 (cell)
“Finally, I have a question as to why we should prefer a new system of voting over this one?”
Hi Doug,
I recommend that you read this op-ed for a summary of why we should prefer choice voting:
http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=media&article=263
As for empirical data, you can go here to see data and analyses of six recent choice voting elections at UC Davis:
http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=asucd
At UC Davis before choice voting, one slate often won 5-6 out of the 6 available seats, even though only 40-50% of voters supported that slate. After choice voting, the collection of winning candidates became much more balanced, with 2-3 candidates from two slates winning, and often an independent winning as well. These results mirrored the diversity of the electorate much more closely than under the old FPTP (“first past the post”) system.
If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Thanks,
Chris Jerdonek
jerdonek@gmail.com
(415) 286-2238 (cell)
“Finally, I have a question as to why we should prefer a new system of voting over this one?”
Hi Doug,
I recommend that you read this op-ed for a summary of why we should prefer choice voting:
http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=media&article=263
As for empirical data, you can go here to see data and analyses of six recent choice voting elections at UC Davis:
http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=asucd
At UC Davis before choice voting, one slate often won 5-6 out of the 6 available seats, even though only 40-50% of voters supported that slate. After choice voting, the collection of winning candidates became much more balanced, with 2-3 candidates from two slates winning, and often an independent winning as well. These results mirrored the diversity of the electorate much more closely than under the old FPTP (“first past the post”) system.
If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Thanks,
Chris Jerdonek
jerdonek@gmail.com
(415) 286-2238 (cell)
the complicated thing in a nonpartisan city race, where there are only vague factions if at all, and nothing coming close to the cohereance and branding of an ASUCD slate, is that it’s far harder to make out who is being underrepresented or overrepresented in a given election. still, it can’t hurt.
the complicated thing in a nonpartisan city race, where there are only vague factions if at all, and nothing coming close to the cohereance and branding of an ASUCD slate, is that it’s far harder to make out who is being underrepresented or overrepresented in a given election. still, it can’t hurt.
the complicated thing in a nonpartisan city race, where there are only vague factions if at all, and nothing coming close to the cohereance and branding of an ASUCD slate, is that it’s far harder to make out who is being underrepresented or overrepresented in a given election. still, it can’t hurt.
the complicated thing in a nonpartisan city race, where there are only vague factions if at all, and nothing coming close to the cohereance and branding of an ASUCD slate, is that it’s far harder to make out who is being underrepresented or overrepresented in a given election. still, it can’t hurt.
which parties are you speaking of, rich? i’ve only seen a couple of greens, and maybe two republicans (three if stan forbes is calling himself a republican or an independent at the time) ever run for citywide politics. mostly davis politics is a debate within the democratic party. or do you mean parties in the loose sense of “moderates” vs. “progressives”?
which parties are you speaking of, rich? i’ve only seen a couple of greens, and maybe two republicans (three if stan forbes is calling himself a republican or an independent at the time) ever run for citywide politics. mostly davis politics is a debate within the democratic party. or do you mean parties in the loose sense of “moderates” vs. “progressives”?
which parties are you speaking of, rich? i’ve only seen a couple of greens, and maybe two republicans (three if stan forbes is calling himself a republican or an independent at the time) ever run for citywide politics. mostly davis politics is a debate within the democratic party. or do you mean parties in the loose sense of “moderates” vs. “progressives”?
which parties are you speaking of, rich? i’ve only seen a couple of greens, and maybe two republicans (three if stan forbes is calling himself a republican or an independent at the time) ever run for citywide politics. mostly davis politics is a debate within the democratic party. or do you mean parties in the loose sense of “moderates” vs. “progressives”?
or do you mean parties in the loose sense of “moderates” vs. “progressives”?
That is exactly what I mean. I don’t know when this divide became a true schism. But it’s very clear that we now have two distinct factions in Davis. What I like to call the LEFT vs THE FAR LEFT.
Of course, not all voters in town identify with one or the other faction. And a person like Sue Greenwald, despite her reliably far left-wing approach, has many personal friends who support her for non-idelological reasons. But among those who run for office and win, they seem always to be lined up in one or the other camp.
When Lamar Heystek ran and lost in 2004, he seemed to be outside of either faction. And though he did not win, he did rather well. I thought at the time — though I’d probably do well to look over the voting patterns to see if my theory holds water — that the big impact of Lamar’s campaign was to help elect Stephen Souza.
In that race, Sue Greenwald took first place fairly easily. Don Saylor was comfortably in second. But the race for third was very close.
Here are the votes for the 3 progressives, followed by the votes for the 3 moderates:
Sue Greenwald 8,284
Stan Forbes* 6,384
Mike Harrington 6,348
Don Saylor 7,503
Stephen Souza 6,997
Donna Y. Lott 6,305
So why did the moderate faction (which favored Covell Village) win two seats and the progressives (who all opposed CV) only win one? Consider how many votes Lamar Heystek (also anti-CV) garnered:
Lamar Heystek 4,539
My guess is that if we had had ‘choice voting’ in 2004, either Forbes or Harrington would have come in second. But, their votes were diluted due to the presence of a 4th, crypto-progressive in that race, Lamar. (JJ Charlesworth was also on that ballot, but I don’t think he had any impact on the final outcome.)
—-
*Forbes, I believe, is more of a chameleon than an ideological ‘progressive’. If he sits near progressives, he takes on their colors. But I don’t think he really is one of them.
or do you mean parties in the loose sense of “moderates” vs. “progressives”?
That is exactly what I mean. I don’t know when this divide became a true schism. But it’s very clear that we now have two distinct factions in Davis. What I like to call the LEFT vs THE FAR LEFT.
Of course, not all voters in town identify with one or the other faction. And a person like Sue Greenwald, despite her reliably far left-wing approach, has many personal friends who support her for non-idelological reasons. But among those who run for office and win, they seem always to be lined up in one or the other camp.
When Lamar Heystek ran and lost in 2004, he seemed to be outside of either faction. And though he did not win, he did rather well. I thought at the time — though I’d probably do well to look over the voting patterns to see if my theory holds water — that the big impact of Lamar’s campaign was to help elect Stephen Souza.
In that race, Sue Greenwald took first place fairly easily. Don Saylor was comfortably in second. But the race for third was very close.
Here are the votes for the 3 progressives, followed by the votes for the 3 moderates:
Sue Greenwald 8,284
Stan Forbes* 6,384
Mike Harrington 6,348
Don Saylor 7,503
Stephen Souza 6,997
Donna Y. Lott 6,305
So why did the moderate faction (which favored Covell Village) win two seats and the progressives (who all opposed CV) only win one? Consider how many votes Lamar Heystek (also anti-CV) garnered:
Lamar Heystek 4,539
My guess is that if we had had ‘choice voting’ in 2004, either Forbes or Harrington would have come in second. But, their votes were diluted due to the presence of a 4th, crypto-progressive in that race, Lamar. (JJ Charlesworth was also on that ballot, but I don’t think he had any impact on the final outcome.)
—-
*Forbes, I believe, is more of a chameleon than an ideological ‘progressive’. If he sits near progressives, he takes on their colors. But I don’t think he really is one of them.
or do you mean parties in the loose sense of “moderates” vs. “progressives”?
That is exactly what I mean. I don’t know when this divide became a true schism. But it’s very clear that we now have two distinct factions in Davis. What I like to call the LEFT vs THE FAR LEFT.
Of course, not all voters in town identify with one or the other faction. And a person like Sue Greenwald, despite her reliably far left-wing approach, has many personal friends who support her for non-idelological reasons. But among those who run for office and win, they seem always to be lined up in one or the other camp.
When Lamar Heystek ran and lost in 2004, he seemed to be outside of either faction. And though he did not win, he did rather well. I thought at the time — though I’d probably do well to look over the voting patterns to see if my theory holds water — that the big impact of Lamar’s campaign was to help elect Stephen Souza.
In that race, Sue Greenwald took first place fairly easily. Don Saylor was comfortably in second. But the race for third was very close.
Here are the votes for the 3 progressives, followed by the votes for the 3 moderates:
Sue Greenwald 8,284
Stan Forbes* 6,384
Mike Harrington 6,348
Don Saylor 7,503
Stephen Souza 6,997
Donna Y. Lott 6,305
So why did the moderate faction (which favored Covell Village) win two seats and the progressives (who all opposed CV) only win one? Consider how many votes Lamar Heystek (also anti-CV) garnered:
Lamar Heystek 4,539
My guess is that if we had had ‘choice voting’ in 2004, either Forbes or Harrington would have come in second. But, their votes were diluted due to the presence of a 4th, crypto-progressive in that race, Lamar. (JJ Charlesworth was also on that ballot, but I don’t think he had any impact on the final outcome.)
—-
*Forbes, I believe, is more of a chameleon than an ideological ‘progressive’. If he sits near progressives, he takes on their colors. But I don’t think he really is one of them.
or do you mean parties in the loose sense of “moderates” vs. “progressives”?
That is exactly what I mean. I don’t know when this divide became a true schism. But it’s very clear that we now have two distinct factions in Davis. What I like to call the LEFT vs THE FAR LEFT.
Of course, not all voters in town identify with one or the other faction. And a person like Sue Greenwald, despite her reliably far left-wing approach, has many personal friends who support her for non-idelological reasons. But among those who run for office and win, they seem always to be lined up in one or the other camp.
When Lamar Heystek ran and lost in 2004, he seemed to be outside of either faction. And though he did not win, he did rather well. I thought at the time — though I’d probably do well to look over the voting patterns to see if my theory holds water — that the big impact of Lamar’s campaign was to help elect Stephen Souza.
In that race, Sue Greenwald took first place fairly easily. Don Saylor was comfortably in second. But the race for third was very close.
Here are the votes for the 3 progressives, followed by the votes for the 3 moderates:
Sue Greenwald 8,284
Stan Forbes* 6,384
Mike Harrington 6,348
Don Saylor 7,503
Stephen Souza 6,997
Donna Y. Lott 6,305
So why did the moderate faction (which favored Covell Village) win two seats and the progressives (who all opposed CV) only win one? Consider how many votes Lamar Heystek (also anti-CV) garnered:
Lamar Heystek 4,539
My guess is that if we had had ‘choice voting’ in 2004, either Forbes or Harrington would have come in second. But, their votes were diluted due to the presence of a 4th, crypto-progressive in that race, Lamar. (JJ Charlesworth was also on that ballot, but I don’t think he had any impact on the final outcome.)
—-
*Forbes, I believe, is more of a chameleon than an ideological ‘progressive’. If he sits near progressives, he takes on their colors. But I don’t think he really is one of them.
Heystek ran more as a moderate in 2004, he even appeared on fliers with Souza-Saylor. Don’t forget the Gidaro issue.
Heystek ran more as a moderate in 2004, he even appeared on fliers with Souza-Saylor. Don’t forget the Gidaro issue.
Heystek ran more as a moderate in 2004, he even appeared on fliers with Souza-Saylor. Don’t forget the Gidaro issue.
Heystek ran more as a moderate in 2004, he even appeared on fliers with Souza-Saylor. Don’t forget the Gidaro issue.
“When Lamar Heystek ran and lost in 2004, he seemed to be outside of either faction. And though he did not win, he did rather well.”
I would say “independent,” not moderate or progressive. He definitely changed 2 years later when he went whole hog for the progressive agenda.
However, even in 2004, the looming Covell Village issue was the central dividing point. I think Saylor and Souza were quiet in their support of it, but they were clearly in that camp. Donna Lott, by contrast, was an early and outspoken advocate for Covell Village, and they may have hurt her chances (since, as we now know, the vast majority in Davis did not support the project).
However, Lamar was clear in 2004: he opposed Covell Village. He was joined in this by Sue Greenwald, Forbes and Harrington.
It very well may be the case that Lamar had no impact on the 2004 outcome. I really don’t know. However, considering that the town went against Covell Village 60-40 in 2005, but it elected pro-CV candidates 2:1 in 2004, my guess is that the 3 “progressives” running as progressives were hurt on the margins by a strong “independent” campaign by Lamar.
I don’t blame Heystek for this. It was the system’s doing, not his. And even though I would prefer the so-called progressives in Davis to not win elections, I feel much more strongly that our election winners should be true representatives of the votes, not just winners do to a faulty ‘first-past-the-post’ system. Choice Voting would entirely solve this problem.
Further, if there ever were a very strong third party or independent council candidate in Davis, he/she might be helped by Choice Voting, too, when 3 seats are open.
Imagine this example: 3 progressives run, 3 moderates run, and 1 strong independent runs.
If the strongest preference for roughly 1/3 of voters in Davis is the leading progressive, for a different 1/3 it is the leading moderate, and for a different 1/3 it is the independent, under Choice Voting, each of those factions would get one winner.
However, under our current voting system, it might turn out that the pro-moderate voters and the pro-progressive voters would cancel each other out, so that the minority in town that feels unconnected to the two major factions would completely decide the election. Thus, you could get a result like this, if most of the second and third votes of the town’s independents swung to the three moderates:
MOD 1
MOD 2
MOD 3
IND 1
PRO 1
PRO 2
PRO 3
Would that really represent the choice of the Davis voters? No. The electorate was divided in thirds and yet one faction took all of the seats. That can happen by accident — it has happened in some of our elections — and it is just how the current system works. That is why we ought to consider Choice Voting.
“When Lamar Heystek ran and lost in 2004, he seemed to be outside of either faction. And though he did not win, he did rather well.”
I would say “independent,” not moderate or progressive. He definitely changed 2 years later when he went whole hog for the progressive agenda.
However, even in 2004, the looming Covell Village issue was the central dividing point. I think Saylor and Souza were quiet in their support of it, but they were clearly in that camp. Donna Lott, by contrast, was an early and outspoken advocate for Covell Village, and they may have hurt her chances (since, as we now know, the vast majority in Davis did not support the project).
However, Lamar was clear in 2004: he opposed Covell Village. He was joined in this by Sue Greenwald, Forbes and Harrington.
It very well may be the case that Lamar had no impact on the 2004 outcome. I really don’t know. However, considering that the town went against Covell Village 60-40 in 2005, but it elected pro-CV candidates 2:1 in 2004, my guess is that the 3 “progressives” running as progressives were hurt on the margins by a strong “independent” campaign by Lamar.
I don’t blame Heystek for this. It was the system’s doing, not his. And even though I would prefer the so-called progressives in Davis to not win elections, I feel much more strongly that our election winners should be true representatives of the votes, not just winners do to a faulty ‘first-past-the-post’ system. Choice Voting would entirely solve this problem.
Further, if there ever were a very strong third party or independent council candidate in Davis, he/she might be helped by Choice Voting, too, when 3 seats are open.
Imagine this example: 3 progressives run, 3 moderates run, and 1 strong independent runs.
If the strongest preference for roughly 1/3 of voters in Davis is the leading progressive, for a different 1/3 it is the leading moderate, and for a different 1/3 it is the independent, under Choice Voting, each of those factions would get one winner.
However, under our current voting system, it might turn out that the pro-moderate voters and the pro-progressive voters would cancel each other out, so that the minority in town that feels unconnected to the two major factions would completely decide the election. Thus, you could get a result like this, if most of the second and third votes of the town’s independents swung to the three moderates:
MOD 1
MOD 2
MOD 3
IND 1
PRO 1
PRO 2
PRO 3
Would that really represent the choice of the Davis voters? No. The electorate was divided in thirds and yet one faction took all of the seats. That can happen by accident — it has happened in some of our elections — and it is just how the current system works. That is why we ought to consider Choice Voting.
“When Lamar Heystek ran and lost in 2004, he seemed to be outside of either faction. And though he did not win, he did rather well.”
I would say “independent,” not moderate or progressive. He definitely changed 2 years later when he went whole hog for the progressive agenda.
However, even in 2004, the looming Covell Village issue was the central dividing point. I think Saylor and Souza were quiet in their support of it, but they were clearly in that camp. Donna Lott, by contrast, was an early and outspoken advocate for Covell Village, and they may have hurt her chances (since, as we now know, the vast majority in Davis did not support the project).
However, Lamar was clear in 2004: he opposed Covell Village. He was joined in this by Sue Greenwald, Forbes and Harrington.
It very well may be the case that Lamar had no impact on the 2004 outcome. I really don’t know. However, considering that the town went against Covell Village 60-40 in 2005, but it elected pro-CV candidates 2:1 in 2004, my guess is that the 3 “progressives” running as progressives were hurt on the margins by a strong “independent” campaign by Lamar.
I don’t blame Heystek for this. It was the system’s doing, not his. And even though I would prefer the so-called progressives in Davis to not win elections, I feel much more strongly that our election winners should be true representatives of the votes, not just winners do to a faulty ‘first-past-the-post’ system. Choice Voting would entirely solve this problem.
Further, if there ever were a very strong third party or independent council candidate in Davis, he/she might be helped by Choice Voting, too, when 3 seats are open.
Imagine this example: 3 progressives run, 3 moderates run, and 1 strong independent runs.
If the strongest preference for roughly 1/3 of voters in Davis is the leading progressive, for a different 1/3 it is the leading moderate, and for a different 1/3 it is the independent, under Choice Voting, each of those factions would get one winner.
However, under our current voting system, it might turn out that the pro-moderate voters and the pro-progressive voters would cancel each other out, so that the minority in town that feels unconnected to the two major factions would completely decide the election. Thus, you could get a result like this, if most of the second and third votes of the town’s independents swung to the three moderates:
MOD 1
MOD 2
MOD 3
IND 1
PRO 1
PRO 2
PRO 3
Would that really represent the choice of the Davis voters? No. The electorate was divided in thirds and yet one faction took all of the seats. That can happen by accident — it has happened in some of our elections — and it is just how the current system works. That is why we ought to consider Choice Voting.
“When Lamar Heystek ran and lost in 2004, he seemed to be outside of either faction. And though he did not win, he did rather well.”
I would say “independent,” not moderate or progressive. He definitely changed 2 years later when he went whole hog for the progressive agenda.
However, even in 2004, the looming Covell Village issue was the central dividing point. I think Saylor and Souza were quiet in their support of it, but they were clearly in that camp. Donna Lott, by contrast, was an early and outspoken advocate for Covell Village, and they may have hurt her chances (since, as we now know, the vast majority in Davis did not support the project).
However, Lamar was clear in 2004: he opposed Covell Village. He was joined in this by Sue Greenwald, Forbes and Harrington.
It very well may be the case that Lamar had no impact on the 2004 outcome. I really don’t know. However, considering that the town went against Covell Village 60-40 in 2005, but it elected pro-CV candidates 2:1 in 2004, my guess is that the 3 “progressives” running as progressives were hurt on the margins by a strong “independent” campaign by Lamar.
I don’t blame Heystek for this. It was the system’s doing, not his. And even though I would prefer the so-called progressives in Davis to not win elections, I feel much more strongly that our election winners should be true representatives of the votes, not just winners do to a faulty ‘first-past-the-post’ system. Choice Voting would entirely solve this problem.
Further, if there ever were a very strong third party or independent council candidate in Davis, he/she might be helped by Choice Voting, too, when 3 seats are open.
Imagine this example: 3 progressives run, 3 moderates run, and 1 strong independent runs.
If the strongest preference for roughly 1/3 of voters in Davis is the leading progressive, for a different 1/3 it is the leading moderate, and for a different 1/3 it is the independent, under Choice Voting, each of those factions would get one winner.
However, under our current voting system, it might turn out that the pro-moderate voters and the pro-progressive voters would cancel each other out, so that the minority in town that feels unconnected to the two major factions would completely decide the election. Thus, you could get a result like this, if most of the second and third votes of the town’s independents swung to the three moderates:
MOD 1
MOD 2
MOD 3
IND 1
PRO 1
PRO 2
PRO 3
Would that really represent the choice of the Davis voters? No. The electorate was divided in thirds and yet one faction took all of the seats. That can happen by accident — it has happened in some of our elections — and it is just how the current system works. That is why we ought to consider Choice Voting.