City Measure Proposes Instant Runoff Voting

Berkeley citizens will have a chance to change the nature of their city's elections this spring, when voters will decide whether to implement instant runoff voting in their mayoral, City Council and auditor races.

Although the details of the system have yet to be finalized, Measure I, which will appear on the March 2 ballot, could institute a system of ranking candidates in order of preference, instead of the city's traditional voting method of selecting just one candidate.

Supporters of instant runoff voting say if Berkeley follows in the footsteps of cities like San Francisco and Cambridge, Mass., it could cut election costs in half, increase voter participation, and make elections fairer and more civil.

"People can vote for who they truly admire, but if they feel like that's impractical, they can use their second choice on someone who might really win," said Councilmember Miriam Hawley.

If Measure I passes, the new system would not be activated until the 2006 elections, at the earliest.

The measure would bar Berkeley from implementing instant runoff voting until Alameda County follows suit, because the county's voting machines are not equipped to handle the new voting system.

Otherwise Berkeley would have to hold its elections on a different day than county elections, which could decrease voter turnout and cost the city money.

And the county would not adopt the system until the state does, said Brad Clark, Alameda County registrar of voters.

"In my mind, it's being done backwards," Clark said. "People should be going straight to the state to push for instant runoff instead of just getting local jurisdiction."

Measure I only technically authorizes the city to start pushing for their new system with state and county officials.

Supporters say instant runoff

voting could save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars by avoiding the second election usually necessary in traditional voting.

Traditional elections are expensive-$300,000 for mayoral runoff elections and $100,000 for each council district. Berkeley spent $90,000 on the December 2002 elections for a City Council seat.

"It's quicker. Everyone counts their vote and it produces a winner," said UC Berkeley Political Science professor Merrill Shanks. "But whether people really like the consequences is a different matter."

Proponents of the system maintain that instant runoff voting could draw more residents to the booths, because voters whose first-place candidate is dropped could still have their voices heard.

It could also encourage voters to choose their favorite candidate-not just who they think is most likely to win.

But instant runoff voting is confusing and there are too many different variations of the system, said councilmember Gordon Wozniak, who won his seat in the December 2002 runoff.

If there are many candidates in an election, citizens could see their votes get dropped entirely unless they rank every candidate, Wozniak said.

And voters who do give every candidate a number rank could be voting haphazardly for candidates about whom they know nothing.

"There are fundamental flaws in this system," Wozniak said. "A voting system should be simple and transparent. Instant runoff voting is very complex and not so transparent."

Tags: