HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2024 Item 7a, Schmidt
Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Voting changes Item 7a
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Re: Election changes Agenda Item 7a, Nov. 19, 2024
Dear Council,
Please don’t adopt this Regressive single-vote scheme.
The public has had no prior notice that a major change in how our elections are conducted has been decided upon,
behind closed doors. Said change, which will make our government even more unfair than it is at present, is now set for
ratification by the council about a week from first public notice such a plan exists, with no time for public study, discussion,
serious unbiased review of alternatives – a public discussion that should have taken place over years, not over a
weekend.
This is no way to run representative democracy. It shuts out the demos from influencing decisions that greatly
affect them. That the “solution” to be ratified frankly stinks, makes the anti-democratic offense even worse.
This sort of change should have been subjected to extensive public discussion and input, not decided behind closed
doors by lawyers who aren’t voting members of our city.
There have been years of frustration from mainstream citizens at how our present city-wide winner-take-all election
system doesn’t result in outcomes that are kind, decent, considerate and productive for neighborhoods. There have been
efforts to get beneficial electoral change moving, including one I initiated in the teens in which a sizeable group met for
months and coalesced around district elections as a way to produce a better, more-representative, more responsive city
council. But we got nowhere trying to work with city hall, which seemed more interested in protecting the status quo by
which dependable power groups control things, than in improving neighborhood and citizen representation and quality of
life. That’s just one group that has tried and had the door to improvement slammed in its face.
Now we’re told that a seemingly ridiculous change, giving each voter only one vote to cast instead of two in a city-wide
winner-take-all election is magically going to change everything for the better. Really? How can that proposition even be
put forth with a straight face?
1
The problem with city-wide winner-take-all elections is precisely that they ARE city-wide winner-take-all elections, which
take a huge amount of money, effort and other stuff for a challenger to win against an established financially-capable
hierarchy. Money alone is an obstacle. We’ve just completed an essentially uncontested council/mayor election in which
the winners were obvious before any votes were cast. Yet even with that surety, an incumbent felt it necessary to collect
more than $20,000 in campaign contributions. How is an unknown outsider to compete with that? Staff mentioning a
bunch of mumbo-jumbo about how a single vote election would allow coalition-building, etc., makes no sense; such
“allowance” exists now, and it doesn’t work. When was the last time an outsider got elected?
The main change a single vote system will produce is corrosive to democracy: it will increase the number of
wasted votes – i.e., the number of votes that play no role in electing anyone. This obvious phenomenon discourages
voting, as it feeds the cynicism that voting makes no difference. I myself have gone for periods of years when all of my
council votes have been wasted this way. I’m not going to quit voting because of that because of who I am, but people
less involved in public affairs, who are the overwhelming majority, may well stop voting. And how is that good for
representative democracy’s health? (I discuss vote wasting more extensively in the op-ed on ranked choice voting below.)
Our city-wide winner-take-all elections also produce mandate-claiming office-holders who haven’t been elected by
anything approaching majorities. In fact, my research of previous elections shows council members are typically elected
by 20%ishes of registered voters, and even less%-ish of eligible voters since many who are eligible never bother to
register. This is what happens when you have city-wide winner-take-all elections rather than district elections or ranked
choice elections.
The present system is unfair and undemocratic, and the change will do nothing whatsoever to fix that. In fact, it could
make things worse.
What to Do?
Fortunately there are two potential Progressive changes to our election system that make sense if one actually desires to
improve representation, though the staff report summarily dismisses both.
District Elections. One of the problems with our current city-wide winner-take-all elections is that whole segments of the
city go without council representation for years on end. At present, for example, our council consists of two members who
live in the outer Johnson Avenue area, two in the Broad/Orcutt area, and one in Dalidio. These locations are all in the
southern sector of our city. There are no representatives from the large 93405 zip code segment north of the freeway and
along the length of Foothill. This situation has persisted for many years (i.e., previous councils), and look what happens:
atrocities like the Anholm bikeway get rammed through our neighborhood and nobody on the council understands or
cares about the obvious problems because they feel they don’t answer to our neighborhood and have no understanding of
it. (I was actually told by a former council member largely responsible for this atrocious treatment of our neighborhood “I
don’t represent you.”)
Districts are a way to break up the tyranny of the empowered establishment minority achieved through city-wide winner-
take-all elections. With fewer constituents, candidates can engage in “retail politics” by knocking on doors and getting to
know constituents and their needs. Costs of running are much less because things like media advertising are pointless
2
and other forms of communication can be much less costly. People reluctant to run a city-wide winner-take-all campaign
are often willing to run in a district election. Finally, district representatives will bring varying points of view to the city, and
such thought diversity always makes democratic decision-making better. District representatives are also likely to produce
a less divisive form of government, as representatives find they must reach consensus with those they may not entirely
agree with in order for progress to happen in their district. And that, too, is healthy.
We are already familiar with district voting. Our county uses districts, not at large voting, and so do our school districts.
There’s no good reason for the city to turn its back on this voting model.
I don’t think districts, given our city’s current demographic spread, will do much at this moment to empower ethnic/racial
representation, though districts are probably more hopeful for that purpose long-term than city-wide winner-take-all
elections will ever be. Minority candidates may feel more comfortable competing for the smaller number of voters required
to win in a district than in a city-wide election. And what could be more exciting than a majority non-minority district
throwing its vote behind a minority candidate who pledges to do a good job of representing all in the district?
Some care must be exercised in the drawing of districts to create districts with some common affinity. The map included in
your packet looks like a gerrymander lacking such affinity-seeking. We don’t want laughing-stock districts like the now
court-disassembled county gerrymander that included Cambria and Atascadero.
As for the details – like that districts would only vote once every 4 years – those aren’t set in stone and can be changed.
That such things are taken for granted in the staff report simply underlines the inadvisability of working out this stuff in
secret rather than in public view with public participation. Why not have district elections at every municipal election? Why
not have 6 or 7 districts? Why not consider districts with two representatives rather than one? There’s lots to think about
that doesn’t seem has been thought about.
Ranked Choice Voting. “There is no one trick to fix American democracy — but implementing ranked-choice voting in primary
and general elections . . . could help.” That’s the first sentence in an editorial from the Washington Post last month, in the lead-up to a
successful vote to add D.C. to the growing list of ranked choice cities. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/03/ranked-
choice-instant-runoff-ballot-initiatives-dc/)
Ranked choice is the most Progressive way to elect bodies like city councils. It accomplishes desirable democratic things no other
voting system seems to be able to do. And it is without doubt the best way to promote wider diversity, including minority
representation, on San Luis Obispo’s council.
th
Ranked choice is nothing new. It was favored by early 20 century Progressives, and now it’s having a resurgence.
It undoes the tyranny of winner-take-all election outcomes and replaces that with a system which makes election outcomes much
closer to representing majoritarian wishes.
3
It allows minority viewpoints to be represented, thereby enriching public debate and making it more genuinely inclusive.
It produces councils that look like a cross section of the community.
It’s a great system, which I discuss further in my op-ed included below.
Since it’s clearly superior to a “one vote” system in promoting diversity, it boggles the mind that it wasn’t the top choice of
those who say they want more racial/ethnic diversity on the council.
As for difficulties in implementing it, using that as a disqualifying excuse is poppycock. Ranked choice vote counting has
been accomplished both in hand ballot counting days and in computer tabulation days. Ranked choice is used in other
California cities today, and they don’t have trouble counting ballots. If the county clerk really did state she cannot do this,
that’s her stating she’s unwilling to serve a public need she’s required to serve. This isn’t rocket science; it’s proper ballot
design with proper software to count the ballots. If our clerk will not do this, get our ballots counted by some other city that
will do it, and send the bill to our county clerk. Since the “can’t do it” excuse is so lame, one has to suspect the real issue
is that somebody(ies) important doesn’t want ranked choice to happen here and thinks the county clerk excuse will
accomplish that.
A discussion of how ranked choice works, and how it lessens “wasted votes,” follows in my op-ed. Suffice it to say, there
are variations – all ranked choice isn’t the same. For example, below I describe a system that redistributes both losing
candidates’ votes and overvotes for winners; a variant is often to only redistribute from losing candidates as they are
eliminated one by one. Thus if a voter has cast a first choice vote for an early loser, that voter’s vote will be passed along
to the voter’s next choice, not tossed in the trash. This is how wasted votes are avoided.
The beauty of ranked choice is it encourages voters to vote their true wishes rather than feeling they must cast strategic
votes to prevent worse candidates winning. Say you have a candidate you really love, but fear she cannot get elected in a
winner-take-all election; since there’s also a truly awful candidate you really don’t want elected, you feel pressured by the
voting system to vote for a “lesser evil” rather than for the candidate you love. Under ranked choice voting, that situation
does not happen. You can vote for the candidate you love, ranking someplace down the list the “lesser evil” just in case
your favorite loses, and not vote at all for the awful candidate.
That is such a breath of democratic fresh air, how can the city not seriously consider it?
How Large Should Our Council Be? Voting changes being discussed strongly suggest this is also the time to enlarge
the council. There’s nothing sacred about a 5 member council. In fact, having such a small council is one reason we
repeatedly have less-than-representative councils. The more members, the more diversity of thought, background and
heritage is likely.
4
Without going into a lot of detail here, I’d simply like the council to enlarge the council size no matter what choice you
make about voting. Enlargement to at least 7 is appropriate, and 9 would be even better.
For district elections such enlargement facilitates a lot more district representation. For ranked choice it directly facilitates
more diversity by opening the doors to different sorts of members who would fail to get elected to a smaller council no
matter the manner of voting.
Thank you for considering these thoughts.
Richard Schmidt
\[Below is an op-ed I wrote shortly after the 2018 election, so there are references to candidates and council members that
are not today’s. My story of ranked choice (aka “proportional representation”) in my ultra-conservative midwestern home
town tells how the business elite went after ranked choice, and what happened when it ended. If you, our council, think
that through in reverse – as in what might happen when going from our elite-empowering voting method to a more
democratic method – I think you’ll see the democratic beauty and potential of a shift to ranked choice.\]
Let’s Stop Wasting Our Votes
My votes for San Luis Obispo City Council just got wasted again. Just like in 2016. Just like before that. Election after
election, my votes play no role in electing anyone to a council that then contains nobody sympathetic to my views or
demographic. It’s enough to make one say “Why bother voting?” and stay home next time.
Upon examining this undemocratic feature of our so-called democracy, I discovered it’s not just my votes that get wasted.
Yours probably do too. In our recent city council election, winners garnered less than half the votes cast. In other words,
the majority of San Luis Obispo votes were wasted and played no role in determining who would govern us.
Unfortunately, as a result of vote waste and a sense of powerlessness to affect the outcome, many citizens do give up
and disengage out of cynicism about the efficacy of the mere act of voting’s making any difference. Our nation’s abysmal
voter registration and voter turnout numbers provide ample evidence of this truth. In our recent city election, more than
one-third of eligible residents never registered to vote, and only about half of SLO residents eligible to vote bothered to
vote.
Voting need not be this way. Our winner-take-all system, which results in crowing mandate-claiming victors elected by
maybe 15% of the people they supposedly represent, is not used everywhere. Increasingly, it’s coming to be viewed as
undemocratic, unrepresentative, and unfair, and as part of the reason poltics has become so polarized. Some got this
message long ago. Others are just getting it today.
5
Growing up in a half million strong Ohio city in the 1950s, we were well-schooled in how our city council got elected, and
how voting method affects outcome. You must transplant your mind back to 1950s America to fully comprehend this
voting scenario and its impact. The country was still racially segregated, women were generally encouraged to take orders
and keep quiet -- except around children, my city was so conservative children learned to taunt one another by calling
their despised brethren “dirty stinkin’ Democrats,” anything smacking of unions was regarded as communist, and
communist was about as high up the political hate chain as you could get.
Yet, election after election something seemingly miraculous happened in this extremely conservative city. The nine-
member council wasn’t like our SLO council with five clones of one faction who’ve seized power out of proportion to what
they deserve based on city demographics. Our council looked – and behaved -- like a cross section of the city’s
population. In addition to conservatives, there was always a black member, a union member, a woman, some liberals and
some business types.
How did this happen? As a direct result of our balloting system.
In a nutshell, each voter got a ballot, and instead of voting by darkening a bubble next to the preferred candidates, each
th
had to rank candidates, 1 through 9. This engaged voters because knowing that even their 9 choice could be important
in electing someone, they had to consider the character and qualifications of all candidates to make a discerned ranking.
The act of ranking also all but eliminated wasted votes because even if your first choice was an early loser, your ballot
ndrdth
could still be the crucial ballot to elect your 2, 3 or 8 choice. Thus every voter knew her vote would almost certainly
count. By contrast, with our SLO ballot system, we only get to vote our first choices, and any vote for anyone other than a
winner is wasted.
Counting ballots was a bit complicated to explain. There would be a formula establishing the number of votes required to
win – a number that established numerical legitimacy rather than luck as in our minority-vote-winner SLO system.
The first round of ballot counting distributed #1 votes to candidates. As any candidate achieved excess votes – i.e., more
than needed to win --, votes would be proportionally redistributed to #2 choices of candidate #1’s voters. That’s because
votes can be wasted not just by being cast for a loser, but also by giving a winner more votes than needed to win.
So, for example, if it took 1,000 votes to win and candidate #1 got 1,100 votes, or a 10% surplus, the number #2 choices
on #1’s ballots would be allocated at the rate of 10% of the total votes for each remaining candidate. It’s really quite
simple in practice if a bit hard to explain.
Then the lowest vote getter would be eliminated, and that candidate’s votes redistributed to #2 choices.
6
Round after round this continued till 9 council members were elected, each with enough votes to demonstrate a plurality
choice by voters. No candidate could be elected under this system with the piddly minority number of votes our SLO
system allows for victors.
We called this “proportional representation” voting. It was a reform put in place by 1920s Progressives who drove a
money-tainted “machine” from city hall.
When I was a kid, votes were counted by hand. Today a computer could do the same in a fraction of the time.
The old-time pro-business political “machine” never liked this method of voting since it guaranteed they’d not be able to
stack the council to do their bidding, but would have to make an appeal to council members from a cross-section of the
population. They started agitating for an end to proportional representation in the 1940s, claiming it was too complicated
and a “9X” winner-take-all system, like we have in SLO, was “better.” Election after election voters saw through this ruse,
and rebuffed the effort. Finally it barely passed, and proportional representation went away.
And the council’s new makeup? It looked like a Chamber of Commerce board of directors meeting, no longer like a cross-
section of the city’s population. Decision-making followed a similar trajectory.
Today proportional representation is making a strong come-back, usually under the name “ranked choice voting.” It is
widely used in other Western democracies not just for electing town councils but also for legislatures.
Legislatures you ask? This works by abandoning our familiar one district/one legislator way of doing things. Instead our
Assembly district might be combined with ones to its north and south, with three or more legislators chosen from that
enlarged district. Given six or more candidates, ranked choice voting would enable a broader range of political
representation in Sacramento. Conceivably, both a Jordan Cunningham and a Bill Ostrander could be elected from our
district, so voting for someone like Ostrander’s meaning one casts perennially wasted ballots could become a thing of the
past. Multi-member legislative districts are already used in four other states.
Just last week, in a detailed analysis, the New York Times advocated this system for electing the House of
Representatives. Multi-seat congressional districts with ranked choice voting would not only enfranchise Republicans in
places like Massachusetts, whose 9 one-seat districts are all held by Democrats despite one-third the state’s voters being
Republican, it would also enfranchise liberal minorities throughout the Midwest where almost all seats are currently held
by Republicans.
As I write, an interesting use of ranked choice voting is playing out in a single-winner congressional race in Maine.
Whereas in California the top vote getter in a three-way congressional race would be declared winner, no matter how few
votes he had, Maine has a higher regard for democratic legitimacy and requires the winner to have a majority of votes
cast. To achieve that, voters ranked the three congressional candidates. Redistribution of #1 votes for the third-ranked
candidate to voters’ #2 choices gives one of the remaining candidates a legitimate majority victory. Note the beauty and
efficiency of this ranked voting: votes cast for the first loser aren’t wasted, but become the means for picking the winner.
This “instant runoff” feature is another plus for ranked choice voting, even in single-winner elections.
7
Interesting as those uses of ranked choice may be, my concern is with making our SLO city council more representative
of the public’s diversity. The present voting system stymies achieving that goal by handing victory to candidates backed
by small well-organized constituencies, who once elected feel no responsibility to others than their backers. Councilman
Aaron Gomez, for example, has repeatedly said he feels no responsibility to people who didn’t vote for him. Of course,
how does he really know who voted for him?
Our unfair balloting system produces unfair decision-making, and the city’s resulting bad governance is tearing our
populace apart.
I think ranked choice voting is a remedy worth trying here. As I see it, ranked choice voting combined with increasing our
council from five to seven members, so more choices could be made when voting, would make for much fairer, more
representative, and better city governance.
It seems a reform worth pursuing.
We have a progressive council. Ranked choice is a progressive method for increasing democracy. Making every vote
count is a contemporary progressive mantra. Can our council be prevailed upon to pursue this change, which would
require a charter amendment approved by voters? It is the sort of thing progressives nationwide say they believe in.
If the council refuses, citizens can do it as an initiative measure.
I hope there are enough people interested in pursuing ranked choice voting that we in SLO – and perhaps residents in
other SLO County cities as well – can build a movement to make this happen.
Is it not time to see that almost all of our votes really count and the majority of votes are no longer wasted?
##
8