"It takes democracy to a whole new level," said Bowen, the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee. "Preference voting eliminates the traditional spoilers, it reflects the views and preferences of voters in a more nuanced way, and it promotes positive, issues-based campaigns because picking up second and third place votes can help candidates win an election."
"Preference voting" includes two similar ranked voting systems, one used for single-winner elections (such as mayor or district elections for city council) and another for multi-winner elections (such as at-large races for city council or county supervisor). The single-winner system is known best as "instant runoff voting" (IRV), while the multi-winner system is typically called "choice voting" or "single transferable voting" (STV). The concept involved in each system is the same: Voters rank their choices for each office in numerical order instead of just selecting one candidate, and those rankings are used to determine the winner or winners of the election. The new system also eliminates the need for runoff elections that some local governments use, because the runoff happens instantaneously based on how the candidates are ranked.
"We've used the plurality system to elect people for more than 200 years, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better way to build the mousetrap," continued Bowen. "Preference voting should entice candidates to really try and appeal to a wider audience and it should re-energize voters because even if their first choice isn't elected, they'll still have the opportunity to help elect their second or third choice."
Under current law, only charter cities and charter counties can opt to use preference voting systems, which is how San Francisco was able to use the IRV system (which it called "ranked choice voting") for seven supervisorial races in the November 2004 election. SB 596 establishes the rules to allow all California cities, counties, school districts and special districts to hold preference voting elections, both for elections where a single winner (district elections) and multi-winners (at-large elections) are selected. Elections for state offices wouldn't be affected.
"Computers can handle the vote tallying aspect of preference voting, the bigger challenge is educating voters about the benefits of the system and getting them comfortable with it," continued Bowen. "Given San Francisco's experience, where 87 percent of the voters said they understood the system and 61 percent preferred it to the traditional runoff system, I'm confident voters will like the system and be comfortable with it once they have the opportunity to use it."
While San Francisco is the best-known example of a California city that has used IRV, voters in Oakland, San Leandro, and Berkeley have all approved the use of IRV for future local elections. Cambridge, Massachusetts, uses choice voting for its city elections, cities in Michigan and Vermont have approved the use of IRV, while Ireland uses IRV to elect its president, Australia uses IRV to elect its House of Representatives and STV to elect its Senate, and London uses IRV to select its mayor.
"It's a big change in how people are used to voting, so I want to give local governments the option of adopting a preference system before we look at using it in elections for statewide office," concluded Bowen. "Preference voting lets people more fully express their views on candidates, instead of requiring them to single out just one person. The ability to rank candidates and do away with spoilers should help create a more representative government that more accurately reflects the views of the voters."
