Tag: Instant Runoff Voting

Categories
Editorial Opinion

On Saving IRV

President Trump’s act of political sabotage by his cavalier scuttling on Tuesday afternoon of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more familiarly known as “the Iran Nuclear Deal,” is not the only ongoing case of official political vandalism. There is some in our own midst.

There is, for example, the fact that important local initiatives passed overwhelmingly by popular referendum within the past decade are in grave peril of being abrogated. A press conference held Tuesday morning at the IBEW Union Hall by a bipartisan citizens’ group calling itself Save IRV Memphis noted for the record that a 2008 city referendum in favor of IRV (Instant Runoff Voting, aka Ranked Choice Voting) had passed by a 71 percent vote in its favor. In a nutshell, what the IRV process would do is eliminate the costly and ill-attended runoff elections required under the present system in district elections without a first-round majority winner.

In the words of a Save IRV Memphis press release, “IRV requires only one trip to the polls, yet still elects officials with broad bases of support. Voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority of the first place votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those ballots are redistributed according to the preferences of the voter.”

Recounting subsequent history, the group pointed out that various opponents of the process, both locally and in the state capital of Nashville, had, through artificial obstacles, including overt misinformation campaigns, contrived to delay implementation of the process ever since; and that a new county Election Coordinator Linda Phillips had swept these misconceptions aside and scheduled a trial of the IRV or RCV process for next year’s Memphis city election.

Thereupon, as the Save IRV group indicated, the incumbent members of the current Memphis City Council adopted a policy of blocking the IRV process at all costs, voting unanimously for a new referendum on the subject this November and meanwhile underhandedly instructing city lobbyists to try to get the General Assembly in Nashville to pass legislation voiding the process statewide. Luckily the legislative sabotage effort failed.

What caused the council to act so perversely? Former Councilman Myron Lowery, one of the IRV supporters at the IBEW press conference, provided the answer: incumbent protection, pure and simple. The council members acted against IRV for the same reason they have attempted to subvert another prior citizen referendum establishing a limit of two terms for elected city officials. Lowery, the longest-serving African-American council member ever, also debunked a spurious claim that IRV would be counter to the political needs of blacks. “Race has nothing to do with this process,” Lowery said, conclusively disposing of this red herring.

We wish godspeed to the campaign launched Tuesday by Lowery and the other participating members of the Save IRV group, including spokesperson Theryn C. Bond; Tami Sawyer and Sam Goff, the Democratic and Republican candidates for the District 7 County Commission seat; and lawyer John Marek. The bipartisan nature of the Save IRV movement is further indicated by the support given it by Democratic 9th District congressman Steve Cohen and GOP state Senate majority leader Mark Norris.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

New Actions Against Ranked Choice Voting

Local supporters of Ranked Choice Voting – aka Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) – are alarmed by what would seem to be two simultaneous threats to the process, both scheduled for action on Tuesday.

1. The Memphis City Council, which voted 11-0 in December to establish a referendum on the November ballot to repeal IRV, has scheduled a supplementary discussion on the matter during a 2 p.m. executive committee session on Tuesday.

The December vote was in effect to give Memphis voters an opportunity to rethink and offset their positive vote in a 2008 referendum to authorize IRV, a process which would allow the selection of a winner in a race in which no candidate had attained a majority.  Voters would be asked to rank their candidate choices in order of preference in order to facilitate a resampling of votes that would obviate the need for an expensive and likely ill-attended runoff election.

Interestingly, the process — used in several elections elsewhere in the nation — is also akin to the ranking process used by members of the Motion Picture Academy to select winners in Academy Awards categories.

The Election Commission has scheduled a trial of the process in the city election of 2019. Should the anti-RCV referendum prevail in November, that trial would be canceled.

(2) Also on Tuesday, in what could be a more direct challenge to RCV, the state Senate State and Local Government committee in Nashville is, according to its published agenda, scheduled to consider SB 2271, which, in the language of the bill summary, would “prohibit….a county or municipality from using instant runoff voting for purposes of conducting a primary, general, or special election.”

The bill is sponsored by state Senator Ken Yager (R-Kingston), chairman of the Senate State and Local Government Committee, and is a companion bill to HB 638, sponsored by state Rep. Mark White (R-Memphis), which was introduced in the 2017 legislative session.

When local RCV supporter Aaron Fowles first learned of the legislation, he inquired of the Ingram Group, an organization which is a registered agent of the City of Memphis for lobbying in Nashville, as to the origins of the bill. Fowles said a member of the firm confirmed that Ingram had been commissioned by the City Council to lobby on behalf of the anti-RCV bill. (The lobbyist, Sam Reed, also confirmed this fact to the Flyer.)

Fowles said he was called the next day by Allan Wade, counsel for the City Council. Fowles summarized that conversation in a memorandum which he later circulated at large. Among the excerpts:

“He [Wade] told me that he understood I’d called the council’s lobbyist and that if I had questions I should direct them to him and not speak with the lobbyists, whom he called employees. I answered simply that I could call whomever I chose, to which he responded that I could kiss his ass….[H]e suggested that my interfering with city business might be considered a ‘tort’ and that he was putting me ‘on notice.’

Fowles said he regarded the conversation with Wade as evidence that the Council, not content with trying to nullify RCV via referendum, was “now directing taxpayer dollars to get it defeated and intimidating citizens to defend that expenditure. Furthermore, the council is working to subvert a referendum that is already in progress.”

Said Fowles: “An oft-repeated refrain during the initial IRV debate was that the city council was giving the voters a second chance to state whether or not they want IRV in local elections. With the employment of these lobbyists the city council is working to actively take that chance away.”

Fowles also noted an additional complication in the fact of a second November referendum authorized by the Council, one that would prohibit all runoff elections of any kind whatsoever.

Categories
Politics Politics Beat Blog

Instant Runoff Advocate Reacts to Council Vote for Anti-Runoff Referendum

The following is an exchange between Allan Wade, counsel for the Memphis City Council, and Steve Mulroy, a University of Memphis law professor, former Shelby County Commissioner, and leading advocate of instant runoff voting for local elections. The exchange relates to an ordinance — passed 11-2 by the Council on Tuesday — establishing a referendum that could eliminate all runoff voting in city elections. Mulroy’s reference to being “out of the country” refers to a sabbatical law fellowship of his, now ongoing in Canberra, Australia.

From: Allan Wade
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 11:07:27 AM
To: Steven John Mulroy (smulroy); Boyd, Berlin; Bibbs, Carlos; jim.strickland@memphistn.gov; Alan Crone
Cc: Edmund.Fordjr@memphistn.gov
Subject: RE: Text Of Ballot For IRV
Good morning—I have been requested to inquire whether your organization, Fair Vote, has a position on the referendum ordinance eliminating run-offs in Council district races? And, if Fair Vote is supportive will it contribute to an information campaign for that Item?

Mr. Wade:

Steve Mulroy

I’m out of the country. It was early morning when I first saw your email. I decided to wait til I got to my office and pen a proper response on a desktop rather than try to use my iPhone. I was unaware from your message that this was time sensitive, or that the Council was actively debating the plurality measure as you wrote.

I’ve since been told that you informed the Council that I was unresponsive to your email, or gave you the cold shoulder, or the like. If this is so, this is an unfair characterization, and I hope that you will convey this response to the Council before they vote. Since the sponsor asked for my position, it is only fair that you timely and accurately convey it.

My organization is not Fairvote. It is Save Instant Runoff Memphis, made up of scores of Memphis residents who favor IRV for the unique conditions of Memphis. Fairvote is a national organization that we consult with, just as Councilman Ford consulted extensively with a California-based national opponent of IRV (who often prefers to remain anonymous).
I very much appreciate Councilwoman Swearengen inquiring as to our position and inviting us to participate in a public education campaign. Please thank her for that courtesy.
Respectfully, though, we oppose the plurality ordinance. The reasons were spelled out in “Respect the Voters,” a guest editorial I published in the Memphis Flyer last month.

In a nutshell, plurality creates the “spoiler” effect—i.e., if too many candidates representing the majority view enter the race, their vote is split, and a candidate squeaks by with 39% of the vote who actually is the LEAST-PREFERRED candidate of the majority. This is how Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in 2016, even though most Republican primary voters ranked him pretty far down the list. Plurality is fraught with problems from a minority vote dilution perspective in a city or district with a black majority. Plurality also is subject to manipulation; an established candidate can recruit another candidate to enter the race and split the vote of the other side. We have all seen examples of both phenomena in Memphis elections in the last few decades.
IRV eliminates both these problems, and ensures the majority’s will in a given district, while also avoiding the problems of 5% participation, minority vote dilution, and disadvantage to lesser-funded candidates present with regular runoffs in Memphis—arguments familiar to those who listened to the December debate on Councilman Ford’s ordinance.
Most important, Memphis voters voted for IRV at a 71% rate in 2008, and only obstructionism by those in power has prevented its implementation. IRV should be given a chance to succeed or fail before we consider replacing it with a plurality for all system.
Finally, it should be noted that the plurality ordinance directly conflicts with Councilman Ford’s ordinance. Having both on the November referendum ballot will cause voter confusion. If both were to pass in November, there would be legal uncertainty. At a minimum, the Council should decide on one or the other and stick with one in November.
Again, we appreciate the Council seeking our views. If the plurality ordinance gets on the ballot, Save Instant Runoff Voting Memphis will urge the public to vote “NO,” just as it will with Councilman Ford’s December ordinance.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Respect the Voters

In 2008, in a series of referendum votes, Memphis voters made clear how they wanted Memphis City Council elections to work. This year, the city council is systematically disrespecting the voters’ preferences through a series of votes for referendum do-overs this November. The result will be voter confusion at best and, at worst, the entrenchment of incumbents in an undemocratic system.

Currently, the council consists of seven members elected from single-member districts, and six members elected from “Super Districts” electing three members each. In the single-member districts, if no one candidate gets a majority, the top two vote-getters advance to a separate runoff round six weeks later. As described by John Marek in these pages last December, these expensive runoffs typically have only 5 percent turnout, a turnout that is disproportionately white and affluent.

In the Super Districts, no majority is required. A candidate can win with 38 percent of the vote if she has more votes than the other five candidates. This “plurality” system can allow the majority to split its votes among several similar candidates, allowing the least-preferred candidate of the majority to squeak by with 38 percent of the vote.  That’s how Donald Trump, who polling showed would have lost in head-to-head contests against candidates like Mario Rubio and Ted Cruz, won the early primaries to become the front-runner and eventual Republican nominee. 

It’s a system subject to manipulation and collusion. An established candidate can recruit a “shill” candidate to enter the race and split the opposition’s voting bloc, allowing him to prevail with a bare plurality. The plurality system is arguably an even worse system than regular runoffs.

The solution to both problems, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2008, is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), where voters rank their first, second, and third choices. This ensures a majority winner, without the need for an expensive, low-turnout second election. It saves time and money, boosts participation, makes the electorate more representative of the district as a whole, and discourages negative campaigning (because candidates want to be the second choice of their opponents’ base and will be loathe to alienate them with mudslinging). IRV is slated to be phased in for single-member districts in the next city council election in 2019, with eventual implementation in all city council districts thereafter.

Last December, before IRV even had a chance to be tried once, the council voted to place a repeal of IRV on the November referendum ballot. Now, the council is about to add another competing referendum on the ballot: a proposal  to use plurality voting for all city council elections, even the single-member districts that have used regular runoffs. Both measures would kill IRV if approved by voters in November. 

Currently, there is no announced plan to withdraw the December “regular runoff” referendum measure in deference to the plurality plan (though that, of course, could change).

If you’re confused about how two contradictory measures can be on the ballot side by side, you won’t be alone. It will cause needless voter confusion in November. Some local commentators have suggested that if both are on the ballot, and they both pass, the plurality measure would make the regular runoff measure moot. That’s not at all clear: The language of the two measures is directly in conflict. Passing both would cause legal uncertainty.

The mess underscores how desperate some council incumbents are to eliminate Instant Runoff Voting, which opens up opportunities for lesser-known, lesser-funded candidates to enter the system.

Also illustrative of the incumbency protection is yet another referendum measure about to pass, which would undo another 2008 referendum result: In 2008, referendum voters said they wanted council members limited to two terms. Again, before there’s even been a chance to put that into effect, council members are pushing a referendum measure which would extend that from two terms to three terms. Conveniently, it applies to current council members.

The consistent theme here is that many city council members don’t care what the voters decided in 2008. They know better, and they’re going to push through referenda to craft a council election system most congenial to them.

We should reject all these proposals, give IRV a chance, and respect what the voters said in 2008.

Steve Mulroy is a University of Memphis law professor and a former Shelby County Commissioner.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Making the case for instant runoff voting.

In 2008, 71 percent of Memphis voters agreed by referendum to rid ourselves of expensive low-turnout runoff elections through instant runoff voting (IRV). If implemented, this would save taxpayers $250,000 a year, and it would end run-off elections with as much as an 85 percent turnout drop-off from the general election.

Instant runoff voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference as opposed to only being able to vote for one candidate. Once the votes are tallied, if no candidate has a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The votes of the eliminated candidate would then be transferred to those citizens’ second choice for the seat. The votes are then re-tallied, and this process continues until a candidate has a majority of the votes, hence no need for the costly and mostly ignored runoff.

IRV has been implemented in 11 cities. Where IRV has been used, it has resulted in the election of more minority and female candidates—but only candidates supported by a majority of a district’s voters. It has also led to more positive campaigning. If you’re an IRV candidate, you want to be the first choice of your base and the second choice of your rival’s base. Thus, you don’t want to do attack-ad, mudslinging campaigns. As a former council candidate myself, I can tell you that our city’s elections would benefit from candidates having to not only garner their own base, but also get along well with their opposition.

IRV also increases opportunities for first-time, lesser-funded, lesser-known candidates. You don’t have to worry about “throwing away your vote” on a favorite underdog; you can rank the underdog first, and a “safer,” more established candidate second.

Why was the will of Memphis voters ignored until possibly now? Election Commissioners and others on the state level claimed that the “touch-screen” voting machines were not capable of allowing instant runoff voting, even though that was not actually the case. Recently hired county election administrator Linda Phillip has recognized IRV can be done with our current machines, and she plans to implement IRV in 2019 for the seven single-member-district City Council races.

Now that the election commission has become part of the solution instead of part of the problem, incumbents worried about how IRV will affect the status quo are attempting to put their concerns in front of the concerns of Memphis voters by forcing an already debated and decided issue back onto the ballot. Councilman Edmund Ford Jr. and other elected officials are attempting to end IRV before voters even get a chance to use the method that they overwhelmingly supported in 2008.

Well-funded interest groups contribute heavily to candidates, and these groups are able to buy local elections for much cheaper than they are able to buy state and federal seats because of the low turnout. It should come as no surprise that workers’ rights and labor interests have faded in influence over the past 40 years. While much attention has been given to the buying of elections on the state and federal level, it is rarely discussed on the local level. Special interests like Wall Street don’t stop at Congress; they go after local government control as well.

The Memphis City Council really has no business interfering with a process already chosen by the voters in 2008, and it is an attack on democracy and Memphians’ rights that IRV was not available during the 2011 or 2015 elections. Let us come together and demand that IRV be implemented in 2019.

In the wake of Citizens United v. FEC and numerous restrictive voter ID laws that were passed across the country, elections are being bought and votes are being suppressed. The affront to IRV is no different except for the fact that we can actually do something about it since it is a local issue. IRV provides a more democratic system that will more truly represent the will of our city’s voters at a much cheaper rate.

For more information, please visit saveirvmemphis.com. Please email the entire council at IRV@saveirvmemphis.com, and ask them to respect the will of the voters and vote no on repeal.

John Marek is is a Memphis attorney, local activist, and former campaign manager for Congressman Steve Cohen.