Ranked voting meant to broaden representation
CITY HALL — Elected leaders are scheduled to hear a proposal tonight that would change Santa Monica’s voting structure in a way that proponents say will make the process more democratic.
Members of the non-profit group, Santa Monica Ranked Voting, are set to appear before the City Council to encourage City Hall to switch to an electoral system they say will be more fair and representative of voter wishes. Meanwhile, ranked voting proponents are expected to meet their share of supporters, as well as skeptics, as the council is asked to weigh in on the proposal.
The purpose of ranked or “choice” voting is to allow voters the ability to rate the level of preference they have for candidates seeking office.
More than 60 residents are involved with Santa Monica Ranked Voting, which formally organized before last fall’s election to better inform the public of the system’s method and benefits, said Amy Connolly, a community activist and group spokeswoman.
Connolly’s group is pushing City Hall for an alternative style of voting where residents rank candidates in order of preference. The group hopes to make extinct a practice known as bullet voting, where residents pick just one candidate in order to limit the votes a competitor receives.
Bullet voting has a controversial history, locally. Opponents say it allows sophisticated groups to manipulate elections. Proponents say it’s effective and legal.
Frustrated by the two-party “all or nothing” electoral system, members of Santa Monica Ranked Voting claim elections in the United States would be more effective if citizens can demonstrate which candidates they prefer based on a point system.
Though some Santa Monica voters apparently cared only about state and national races in the last election, others didn’t cast all four votes in the local City Council race because doing so may have hurt their favored candidates, Connolly said, adding her group examined all 66 voting precincts in Santa Monica.
Ranked voting already is used for national races in Australia and Ireland, and local races in Cambridge, Mass., and New York City, according to Steven Hill, an analyst from the nonprofit organization, Center for Voting and Democracy. Last fall, San Francisco used a ranked voting system to hold an instant runoff in its board of supervisors race, thereby saving the city from its usual costly and protracted runoff process.
Ranked voting does have supporters at City Hall, such as City Councilman Kevin McKeown, who has been involved in regional efforts to see it come to fruition.
“The question is how to give Santa Monica voters more power to elect the candidates who'll serve them best,” McKeown said in an e-mail message. “Ranked voting allows more nuanced choices, yet is a very natural way to express preferences, as easy as 1-2-3.”
Last year, McKeown said he worked with State Sen. Debra Bowen, now a candidate for Secretary of State, on her bill SB596, which would establish state-approved methods for conducting ranked voting and instant runoff elections.
McKeown said he’s also been active for several years with the California Voter Empowerment Circle, which includes the League of Women Voters, the ACLU, the NAACP and disabilities rights groups.
McKeown said what drives the effort is a broader attempt to increase voter participation.
“I believe giving voters more power and a better way to more accurately express their preferences will ultimately increase participation and voter turnout, making ours a better democracy,” McKeown said.
However, some councilmembers aren’t sold on the idea. Councilman Herb Katz said he is open to discuss the issue, but he has some reservations about changing the current voting process.
Katz is curious how ranked voting for local office would tie in with the county, state and federal voting system.
“I’m reluctant to make a decision until I’m more informed,” Katz said. “Why do rank voting in just one little city?
“It’s supposed to be more open and fair, and frankly, I’m not sure it is.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 13, 2005. Read the original PDF.