In 2002, San Franciscans approved a new voting system called “ranked-choice voting.” If you have voted in a San Francisco election since then, you are likely well aware of our current system that allows voters to rank three candidates in each election. Ranked-choice voting was originally conceived in San Francisco as a remedy to the perceived problems of our city’s traditional run-off voting system. After witnessing ranked-choice voting in action for nearly a decade, I feel it has failed to deliver on its many promises and has fostered numerous unintended consequences. Simply stated, I believe it is time to put an end to the ranked-choice voting experiment in our city.

The promises of ranked-choice voting
Ranked-choice voting was passed by San Francisco voters in 2002 without much supporting data but with a number of potential benefits: less negative campaigning, cheaper elections, and higher voter turnout.

The promise of less negative campaigning certainly has not materialized. If anyone paid attention to this year’s mayor’s race, the majority of the campaigning that happened was negative (especially in the last six weeks). As much as we don’t like it, negative campaigning happens in almost every election, and the voting system doesn’t affect the volume of voters. Furthermore, ranked-choice voting fosters a situation where candidates literally spend time asking for second and third place votes. Personally, I prefer candidates for elected office in San Francisco, in particular for mayor, to stand up as leaders, articulate a vision for our great city, and ask residents for their vote – plain and simple. Running around asking for second and third place votes, in my mind, diminishes the leadership trait necessary for effectively serving in elected office.

A cheaper election cycle was also touted as a reason for ranked-choice voting. Intuitively, if San Francisco can eliminate a runoff election, it should yield significant cost savings. However, the reality is much more blurred. With ranked-choice, our Department of Elections is forced to hire additional staff to review much more complicated ballots, and they work much longer. Last year when I was elected, our Department of Elections had additional staff present well over two weeks after Election Day. Not to mention that the Department of Elections spends a significant amount of money each election cycle “educating” voters about the ranked-choice voting process. Supervisor Elsbernd and I have asked our internal financial analyst at the Board of Supervisors to conduct a true annual cost estimate for ranked-choice voting, and we estimate this study will be released later in December. Ultimately, I believe it is going to reveal ranked-choice voting as a surprisingly expensive endeavor.

Similarly, the promise of higher voter turnout has not materialized. Our 2011 November election saw an approximate 42 percent voter turnout – a staggeringly low number. As a contrast, the runoff for mayor in San Francisco between Gavin Newsom and Matt Gonzalez in 2003 saw over 54 percent voter turnout – meaning that over 70,000 more San Franciscans voted in the 2003 runoff election than in the 2011 mayoral race. If you look at the data, other mayoral elections in San Francisco over years have produced lower voter turnout, but the point is that ranked-choice voting, in and of itself, clearly and factually does not produce higher voter turnout. Most would agree that it has more to do with the excitement around certain candidates – and their ability to inspire San Franciscans – that promotes higher voter turnout than the voting system itself.

Voter confusion
Perhaps my biggest objection to ranked-choice voting is the fact that massive numbers of San Francisco voters remain totally confused about how it works. One part of this is factual – each election cycle, a certain percentage of mail-in ballots are immediately tossed out because they are marked incorrectly (these are called “overvotes”). A quick look at the 2010 supervisor races and the 2011 mayor’s race shows hundreds of ballots in each election getting tossed as overvoted – more important, the percentage of overvotes increased dramatically (three to five times) in economically disadvantaged parts of San Francisco, which have significant minority populations. This is simply unacceptable, and actively disenfranchises communities that have a rich and rightfully successful history of fighting for the right to vote in the United States.

The other part regarding voter confusion is anecdotal. This past Election Day, Channel 7 interviewed four San Franciscans who had just voted at City Hall and asked them to explain ranked-choice voting. Not only did the interviews produce four different answers, but they were all wrong. A recent poll asked San Francisco voters a simple question: What happens to a ballot if the three candidates chosen on the ballot are eliminated in the final ranked-choice voting count? A full 17 percent answered the question wrong and 52 percent of the respondents answered “not sure.”

We have to ask ourselves – how much confusion is acceptable? How many ballots getting tossed is acceptable and to what end? In my opinion, our residents should be spending their time deciding who and what to vote for, not how to vote.

The principal of majority vote
I believe politicians should be elected with a majority vote – plain and simple. Ranked-choice voting does not deliver on this premise, and allows candidates with a distinct minority of the vote to win their elections. Many drastic examples exist, including a recent supervisor race in San Francisco where the winner received less than 12 percent of the first place votes, ultimately appeared on less than 25 percent of the ballots in the election (when counting second and third place votes), but nevertheless won the election. Perhaps the most prominent example is from the 2010 mayor’s race in Oakland, when Jean Quan won just 24 percent of the first place votes and ended up winning the election despite appearing on less than 45 percent of the ballots (when including second and third place votes).

As we have witnessed in Oakland this year – in particular with the Occupy Oakland movement and the recall petitions – not only does this undermine an elected official’s ability to govern moving forward but leaves voters rightfully frustrated and bewildered.

What’s next?
On Nov. 8, with Supervisor Sean Elsbernd as co-sponsor, I introduced an amendment to our San Francisco Charter that would eliminate ranked-choice voting and return San Francisco elections to our traditional runoff voting system. Our goal is to have this charter amendment on the June 2012 ballot in San Francisco, where voters will decide its fate. However, to qualify for the June 2012 ballot, it will take six supervisors to sign the charter amendment, so we will be debating the issue at the Board of Supervisors over the next two months. Given the timing of the June 2012 ballot, the ultimate vote at the Board of Supervisors will take place in early February at the latest.

As I mentioned to my colleagues and various members of the media, Supervisor Elsbernd and I are not dogmatic about the details of our current legislation (some supervisors have openly stated a preference for a September primary and November runoff, which we are very open to discussing) – the only part we are dogmatic about is the necessity to end ranked-choice voting in San Francisco. Ultimately, it has failed to deliver on its promises, created massive voter confusion, and violated the principal of a majority vote – all the while disenfranchising demographic groups that deserve our support. Voting is a fundamental right, and I believe any system or ideology that infringes on the exercise of that right is bad policy. It is time for San Francisco to end its ranked-choice voting experiment.