RANKED-CHOICE
VOTING:
EASY FOR VOTERS, ANGST FOR ACTIVISTS
San Francisco voters and political activists alike are beginning to focus
on the new ranked-choice voting (IRV or instant runoff voting) procedure that
will be used in November’s election of City Supervisors. While the process
appears complicated, voters should find voting for their first, second, and
third choices for Supervisor relatively easy. Some political activists, however,
appear almost paralyzed with angst when considering how best to endorse candidates
or to handle their campaigns.
Voters should find the procedure very familiar. They will use the same paper
ballots and the same optical-scan voting equipment that have been in place
since 2000. They will be given a separate ballot card for the Supervisors’
race in their district, and they will mark their choices by connecting the
head and tale of the arrow pointing to their choice, as they have done in
all recent elections. The only difference is that they will be given the opportunity
to vote for their first, second, and third choices for Supervisor. The list
of candidates will be repeated three times and will be labeled as first choice,
second choice, and third choice. The voter’s only task will be to decide
whether to vote for only one candidate or for up to three ranked choices.
Voters will be able to familiarize themselves with the ballot design and instructions
by using the sample ballot in the Voter Information Pamphlet that will be
mailed to each registered voter prior to Election Day. But they may be curious
to know how the votes will be counted.
The counting procedure appears complicated but is mechanically simple. The
first-choice votes are counted first, and if a candidate receives a majority
(50% plus 1), he is elected. If no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice
votes, the candidate who receives the fewest number of first-choice votes
is eliminated, and votes cast for the eliminated candidate are transferred
to the voter’s next-choice candidate. The votes are then recounted.
If any candidate receives a majority of the remaining votes, that candidate
is elected. If no candidate receives a majority of the remaining votes, the
process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until
one candidate receives a majority.
The Department of Elections prefers to call the new system of voting ranked-choice
voting rather than instant runoff voting for a very good reason: the results
of the election will not be known instantly. The Department must process all
ballots—ballots cast at polling places, absentee ballots, and provisional
ballots—before determining whether any candidate received a majority
of the first-choice votes. And it must do this before it can determine whether
the process of eliminating and transferring votes will be necessary. This
could take up to three weeks, but the election is still “instant”
in the sense that the votes have been cast and no runoff will be necessary,
a savings of up to a million dollars.
While voters should have little difficulty with the new system, political
activists, political parties, and other organizations that endorse candidates
are finding it very complicated. Some are unsure whether to endorse one candidate
or to rank their preferences. If they believe, as does the Democratic Party,
that their obligation is to inform the voters, are they obliged to rank candidates
or will they confuse the voters? Will they dilute their support of their first-choice
candidate by listing three? Will the candidates abuse their endorsements by,
perhaps, stating in their literature that they are endorsed by an organization
and failing to include that they are a third choice? What sanctions can the
organizations invoke if that happens?
San Francisco is embarking into new territory this election cycle, and the
Monday-morning quarterbacking after the election should be interesting and
informative indeed.
It is likely that, except for some grumbling about having to wait several
weeks for the results to be announced, voters will take the new system in
stride, but activists will set about rewriting their political handbooks to
include lessons learned.
At last, THE LAST OF STYROFOAM PACKAGING?
The City of San Francisco is finally giving some attention to one of the most
persistent and non-biodegradable packaging materials, Polystyrene Foam or
Styrofoam. The Department of the Environment has decided to request that the
City Purchasing Department to take steps to eliminate this very toxic and
ozone-destroying material from the packaging that is used by the City’s
vendors. The City hasn’t figured out the details yet and they have a
long way to go to match Berkeley’s ordinance that prohibits the use
of Polystyrene Foam in all food packaging.
First, the Purchasing Department will inform its vendors and urge them to
use more benign packaging material. Eventually, they will have to demand it
to be in accordance with the City Conservation Ordinance which, among other
things, requires that significantly less garbage be shipped to the Altamont
landfill. Styrofoam is light and reduces in size. But to make it worthwhile
to Styrofoam recyclers, vast amounts of this material have to be collected,
then crushed to take up less landfill space.
It would not be wise even to consider making used Styrofoam into other products,
considering the damage this material has already caused to the ozone layer.
For instance, a City at the southern tip of Chile, Aranas, is suffering from
the effects of ozone depletion. Their inhabitants have a color-coded weather
reporting system that advises when people may go out and what kind of covering
is required. Most days it is safe to go out for only about two hours a day.
Sometimes, the hole in the ozone is so severe that it takes only seven minutes
to burn the skin of unprotected inhabitants.
For over ten years Denise D’Anne, SFT board member, has been advising
the Department of the Environment on the need to eliminate Styrofoam packaging
material. Finally, she feels vindicated that her efforts are beginning to
bear fruit.
A Living Classroom out-of doors? Great. But please find another site.
A new controversy is forming around the subject of a Living Classroom for
environmental education to be built by the non-profit Literacy for Environmental
Justice (LEJ). The issue is not about the project itself, but about the location
and the monies intended to fund it. Originally to be located on Heron’s
Head in the Bayview/Hunters Point area, over $1.5 million has been amassed
to build this structure. After three years of planning and a cost of $200,000,
the nonprofit group LEJ decided that the Port-owned site at Heron’s
Head was inappropriate. They looked around and, with no public input, chose
an open space, a critical natural area hilltop in McLaren Park with a view
of the South Bay, as their alternate site, a site surrounded by nature and
never before built upon. Recreation and Parks Department have been contacted
and amazingly, they are willing to entertain using this location for the 3,000
sq. ft. project.
We should all be interested in this change of venue as a matter of respect
for two communities: one, the people of the Bayview/Hunters Point who were
the intended beneficiaries of the $13 million in State mitigation money for
the years of environmental hazards that the power plant power plants have
caused in that district, $900,000 of which was awarded to LEJ for this project;
and two, the neighborhoods around Visitation Valley and the Portola district
who neither support having this money leave the Bayview district nor the use
of McLaren Park’s open space for a building.
The City struggles to get enough money to buy open space for the benefit of
its people and of the natural world’s inhabitants. Does it make sense
to turn around and build anything on it - especially a pristine hilltop we
should all be proud to have intact in our public park system? We support the
work of LEJ and know there must be a suitable place in the Bayview for the
Living Classroom.
TAKE A WALK IN THE PRESIDIO
This summer, the time has come for you to get out and observe the birds and
other natural treasures of Tennessee Hollow in the Presidio. On a recent Saturday.
Josiah Clark led a group of walkers and would-be birders, pointing out Pygmy
Nuthatch, Allen's Hummingbird and Hooded Oriole. He also brought the group
up-to-date about the current and upcoming restoration projects that aim to
connect the Tennessee Hollow Watershed to the marsh at Crissy Field.
Josiah Clark grew up in San Francisco and has been studying nature around
the Bay Area from an
early age. He has worked with San Francisco's Natural Areas Program as an
Avian Habitat
Specialist, and with the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) as a
Biological Technician and bird monitor during the implementation of the Crissy
Field Marsh.
He compiled the Presidio Bird List that has been published by the Golden Gate
Parks Conservancy, and also wrote the management strategies for the Audubon
Society's Save the Quail Campaign for the Presidio. Currently Josiah is working
with landscape architects for San Francisco's Recreation and Park Department,
creating written guidelines for retaining and enhancing wildlife habitat in
City parks.
We have reserved the picnic area just west of the Rose Garden on JFK Drive
in Golden Gate Park for SFT’s Annual Picnic August 21st. This space
has a grand (?) view of the new deYoung Museum and is a stone’s throw
from the Music Concourse. Bring $20 to the picnic and that will cover everything,
including your next year’s membership!
###