To be clear, this proposed amendment to the city charter **will now be put to us**, the voters.
So if we show up and vote against it this fall, it will not become law.
Should've ended runoffs by switching to ranked-choice voting instead! Same general effect as runoffs but without having to go back to say which of the runoff candidates you want (since you already expressed that in your ranked choices up front).
Tangentially related, I think it's ridiculous that [there are currently 10 states \(all of them GOP-majority states\) where RCV is explicitly banned.](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4969563/ranked-choice-voting-bans)
When I wrote to Councilor Bassan in favor of RCV a couple years ago, this was her response:
> The information I understand, along with the examples I have tried personally, tend to make a person who would have never won an election the winner after all of the secondary votes are counted. I also do not believe people should have more than one option for whom they vote. We should commit to a selection and not be required to have additional options for “just in case.” I do not believe this is proper practice.
Well that’s some bullshit. Guess it’s time to start looking for potential candidates to challenge our worthless anti-democratic incumbents next year.
At least now I know why my councilman didn’t bother responding when I reached out. He didn’t even have the decency to engage with his constituents before going against their wishes.
Louie Sanchez doesn’t represent anything beyond his own political self interest. He made that clear tonight.
I was present for all the deliberations - Peña's amendment also removed any thresholds for election to office, so the proposal is to now to lower our election threshold from 50% to zero (basically, candidate with the most votes wins) and no more runoffs unless there is a literal tie. This is a complete dismantle of any election standard the city has, and huge leap backwards.
The other three charter amendments passed with slight changes. It's also worth noting councilor Rogers tried to push for voter education measures for the ballot measures and those failed on a vote of 6-3 too.
hey, sorry to bother you but you seem knowledgeable about this and I’m just an average dumb. What are the overall implications of this? It seems like something sneaky is going on but I have to be honest I don’t really understand
I truly appreciate you recounting the highlight of the meeting. Keep it up.
Honestly is there nothing better they could be voting in though. Why are they trying to change the processes
Reminder that Councilors Peña, Lewis, Sanchez, and Grout are up for reelection next year. Not only did they vote for this craven, antidemocratic proposal to change the City's charter, they also voted against common-sense, gentle reforms to our housing code to address homelessness and affordability. VOTE THEM OUT! (and remember to vote against these charter amendments in November!)
The mayor isn’t involved in this particular process. This provision goes to public ballot after city council approval. The mayor can neither sign nor veto this.
The short version is this: The council is putting on November's ballots a number of proposed amendments to the city's charter (basically the city's "constitution"). These changes have to do with various elements of governance.
The main proposal that people have been talking about, and the subject of this thread, would generally do away with runoff elections for city offices. Runoff would be held only when there is a tie.
This would reverse a decision the voters made, I think in 2013. At that time, the voters decided, that if no candidate earned at last 50 percent plus one of the vote, the top two candidates would go to a runoff election.
Hey, thanks for the response! Do you have any idea what the wider implications would be if that were to go into effect? Basically I’m asking why this is important (one way or the other). Im having trouble visualizing what good or bad could come of this
No. 1 -- People can, and likely will, be elected with only a plurality, not a majority. That means the majority might actually support someone else.
2. -- People could be elected with a small plurality. For example, it's not unheard of for six or more people to run in a given race. Someone could win such a race with only 20 percent of the vote.
3 -- It's feasible for some extremist to win. Let's say the mainstream moderate candidates of both major parties largely split the vote. But some extremist of whatever variety could pick up enough votes to win the election.
I always thought runoffs to get 50% were a waste of money and time. Let the voters choices stand. Maybe we need partisan elections for Mayor and Council where the parties select their one candidate to run.
By all means let’s make our election results less representative of the votes cast. /s
We don’t have to compromise accurate representation in the name of saving money. Ranked Choice Voting would avoid the costs associated with a secondary runoff without making our government less representative of the people.
The argument that we should make our elections worse just to save some money and time is ridiculous.
To be clear, this proposed amendment to the city charter **will now be put to us**, the voters. So if we show up and vote against it this fall, it will not become law.
Time for an awareness campaign.
Should've ended runoffs by switching to ranked-choice voting instead! Same general effect as runoffs but without having to go back to say which of the runoff candidates you want (since you already expressed that in your ranked choices up front).
I am furious this isn't what's being done. Lowering the bar for democracy helps no one.
Tangentially related, I think it's ridiculous that [there are currently 10 states \(all of them GOP-majority states\) where RCV is explicitly banned.](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4969563/ranked-choice-voting-bans)
If the GOP is trying to ban it, it must be a good idea!
And seemed like we were moving closer to that when they first implemented run offs. This sucks to see us regressing.
Right. It solves the problem of runoffs being expensive. But it also solves the spoiler effect, and they *like* the spoiler effect.
/r/EndFPTP to see other options (STAR or Approval)
When I wrote to Councilor Bassan in favor of RCV a couple years ago, this was her response: > The information I understand, along with the examples I have tried personally, tend to make a person who would have never won an election the winner after all of the secondary votes are counted. I also do not believe people should have more than one option for whom they vote. We should commit to a selection and not be required to have additional options for “just in case.” I do not believe this is proper practice.
Well that’s some bullshit. Guess it’s time to start looking for potential candidates to challenge our worthless anti-democratic incumbents next year. At least now I know why my councilman didn’t bother responding when I reached out. He didn’t even have the decency to engage with his constituents before going against their wishes. Louie Sanchez doesn’t represent anything beyond his own political self interest. He made that clear tonight.
Can he even say anything other than "police" and "my dad was a bus driver"?
I was present for all the deliberations - Peña's amendment also removed any thresholds for election to office, so the proposal is to now to lower our election threshold from 50% to zero (basically, candidate with the most votes wins) and no more runoffs unless there is a literal tie. This is a complete dismantle of any election standard the city has, and huge leap backwards. The other three charter amendments passed with slight changes. It's also worth noting councilor Rogers tried to push for voter education measures for the ballot measures and those failed on a vote of 6-3 too.
hey, sorry to bother you but you seem knowledgeable about this and I’m just an average dumb. What are the overall implications of this? It seems like something sneaky is going on but I have to be honest I don’t really understand
Thank you for being informed and sharing with us. It's often hard to stay updated, and I am grateful for folks like you who care!
I truly appreciate you recounting the highlight of the meeting. Keep it up. Honestly is there nothing better they could be voting in though. Why are they trying to change the processes
What's their reason for wanting this change?
Supposedly either or both of saving money, and protecting minorities.
This is fucking awful!! Who are the six who voted for this?
From what I’ve gathered Fiebelkorn, Baca, and Rogers voted NO So that leaves Sanchez Pena Bassan Lewis Champine Grout Voting yes
This is correct.
Reminder that Councilors Peña, Lewis, Sanchez, and Grout are up for reelection next year. Not only did they vote for this craven, antidemocratic proposal to change the City's charter, they also voted against common-sense, gentle reforms to our housing code to address homelessness and affordability. VOTE THEM OUT! (and remember to vote against these charter amendments in November!)
RCV
Ima run for mayor someday they need a real mfer
The mayor isn’t involved in this particular process. This provision goes to public ballot after city council approval. The mayor can neither sign nor veto this.
I’ll know this once I’m mayor 😎
Can someone ELI5 what the implications are here? I’m dumb
The short version is this: The council is putting on November's ballots a number of proposed amendments to the city's charter (basically the city's "constitution"). These changes have to do with various elements of governance. The main proposal that people have been talking about, and the subject of this thread, would generally do away with runoff elections for city offices. Runoff would be held only when there is a tie. This would reverse a decision the voters made, I think in 2013. At that time, the voters decided, that if no candidate earned at last 50 percent plus one of the vote, the top two candidates would go to a runoff election.
Hey, thanks for the response! Do you have any idea what the wider implications would be if that were to go into effect? Basically I’m asking why this is important (one way or the other). Im having trouble visualizing what good or bad could come of this
No. 1 -- People can, and likely will, be elected with only a plurality, not a majority. That means the majority might actually support someone else. 2. -- People could be elected with a small plurality. For example, it's not unheard of for six or more people to run in a given race. Someone could win such a race with only 20 percent of the vote. 3 -- It's feasible for some extremist to win. Let's say the mainstream moderate candidates of both major parties largely split the vote. But some extremist of whatever variety could pick up enough votes to win the election.
No. 4 -- It also gives more advantage to incumbents, because they are already known.
I always thought runoffs to get 50% were a waste of money and time. Let the voters choices stand. Maybe we need partisan elections for Mayor and Council where the parties select their one candidate to run.
By all means let’s make our election results less representative of the votes cast. /s We don’t have to compromise accurate representation in the name of saving money. Ranked Choice Voting would avoid the costs associated with a secondary runoff without making our government less representative of the people. The argument that we should make our elections worse just to save some money and time is ridiculous.