prop o

Election Day is upon us again. It seems like only a few weeks ago I submitted my Primary Ballot, yet there is a raft of new Propositions to consider yet again.

The most germane of these is Oakland Measure O, which eliminates run-off elections in favor of instant run-off balloting. This means you list your top three choices for each office. When the counting starts, the candidate with the least first-choice votes gets dropped. Then they recount the ballots; any that have the dropped candidate as the first choice get counted as if the second choice was the first choice. And so on until there's only one candidate left.

The reasons for doing this are that it saves the cost of a second election, and it moves the election to November, which typically has higher voter turnout - especially among minorities.

According to the literature and SF Gate, this is already how voting is done in San Francisco, with Berkeley also in the process of implementing it. (Yet another sign that Oakland is really a suburb of Berkeley, and not the other way around.) Currently, Oakland holds its Democratic primaries, and if anyone fails to get the required majority (as almost happened in the mayoral election this year), there is a runoff during the general election (the election on Tuesday).

The argument against adopting instant run-off balloting is that it's too complicated. I don't see what's so complicated about prioritizing three candidates instead of picking one, but I do see a problem with the greater knowledge of the candidates required to pick second- and/or third-tier candidates. I assume though, that in this case you don't have to fill in all three slots, just as (I assume, I've never gotten a straight answer on this point) you don't have to vote at all for any particular office.

That means possibly only the most politically-conscientious voters will determine who wins a "run-off", rather than the larger voting population at the November elections. Which would you rather have: the rare run-off election determined by a fraction of the electorate, or the common case (as happened this year) of the smaller fraction determining the election before it ever gets to a run-off? You could argue that elections featuring run-offs are much more deeply felt by voters, with higher stakes. But if that were really true, voter turnout (either for the pre-run-off election or people making more than one selection in an instant run-off) shouldn't be a problem in either case. Personally, it's hard to find even one candidate to vote for in most offices these days, so it's hard to imagine a case where the new system would change the outcome of an election.

Of course, that sounds pretty lazy in hindsight of the 2000 Presidential Election, so I'll make a small effort here. Yes, this could affect the power of outsider candidates, but it's not clear whether it helps or hurts them. Theoretically, in a traditional run-off, those that didn't make the cut can endorse one of the run-off candidates, thus making their and their constituents' voice heard, perhaps changing the outcome of the election. In an instant run-off situation, either the candidates will include who the second and third choices should be in their campaign (that somehow seems unlikely), or else voters will just be left to their own devices.

And that's why I voted yes on Measure O. Contrary to Measure O's opponents claims that instant run-off is too complicated, I'd say it is two elections that is too complicated. With instant run-off, once you understand the way votes are counted your vote is entirely under your control; with a traditional run-off, the maneuverings of political parties come into play, trying to convince you to vote for someone you didn't want in the first place. I simply despise people telling me how to vote.

There are lots of other measures and propositions on the menu this Tuesday (the ballot is two double-sided pages for the first time since I've been in Oakland), but since this post has already run on, I'll talk about those later. Also, if I get the chance, I'll talk about the Peloponnesian War and what it means for Tuesday's elections.