The SF voter guide has been posted online as a PDF. It contains the official arguments for and against Prop A, as well as paid arguments submitted by various people. The SF Republican Party has organized a campaign against Prop A. Their arguments are very manipulative and show a very disturbing disregard for the truth. I'm proud to say that the pro-A campaign has done a good job of respecting the truth, the voters, and the opponents. There is a lot to read, but I encourage it so you can see what we're up against. The SF voter guide is a 4MB PDF file. I've pasted the text arguments below for those who don't want to mess with that. http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/election/onlinesf.pdf The Prop A campaign's responses to the opposition arguments are at: http://www.improvetherunoff.org/misinformation.htm ------------------------------------------------------------- In favor: Proposition A will allow San Francisco to elect candidates supported by a popular majority without needing expensive, lowturnout December runoff elections. This will SAVE $2 MILLION TAX DOLLARS PER YEAR, RAISE VOTER TURNOUT and REDUCE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING. Last December's runoff had a voter turnout of only FIFTEEN PERCENT -- the lowest in San Francisco's history. December is an awful time for an election. Voters are busy with holiday plans, and don't even realize the runoff is happening. Voter turnout usually declines. Runoffs are costly to taxpayers. The December runoff for city attorney cost nearly $2 MILLION, an average of $29 per voter. This money could be better spent on other city services threatened with cutbacks in our ailing economy. Previous runoff elections have seen excessive negative campaigning and 'hit' pieces. Such mudslinging is common when the field is reduced to two candidates, and candidates can win by attacking their lone opponent rather than attracting voters. The purpose of the runoff - to ensure majority support for winners - is a good one, but huge declines in voter turnout, high costs, and negative campaigning undermine this worthy goal. Proposition A implements instant runoff voting to fulfill the goal of electing majority winners without the inconvenience of a second election. The 'instant' runoff works much like December's 'delayed' runoff. Voters indicate their favorite candidate, just like now. But at the same time they also rank their runoff choices, 1, 2, 3. This eliminates the need for a separate runoff election. By doing it in one election, we produce winners who have a majority of the vote and save millions of tax dollars. And we avoid the considerable headaches of a second election during the busy holiday season. Proposition A will make our elections more EFFICIENT and LESS EXPENSIVE. San Francisco Board of Supervisors How Supervisors Voted to Submit this Argument The Supervisors voted as follows on December 17, 2001: Yes: Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Hall, Leno, Maxwell, McGoldrick No: Newsom, Peskin, Sandoval, Yee ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebuttal to In Favor: We agree with the Proponents on just one point: "December is an awful time for an election." Where we differ is that the cure being proposed is far worse than the disease, and that the less drastic alternatives of changing the dates for primaries and run-off elections would ensure higher voter turnout, without the adverse side-effects that would occur under Instance Run-off Voting. These side-effects were articulated, in a paid argument by the former members of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections. Additionally, we do not believe that the Board should be experimenting with San Franciscans' hard fought right to vote. Primaries and run-off elections have served our nation well for most of its history. Preference Voting (IRV) was in vogue in the 1930's and 1940's in some parts of the United States but has been abandoned almost every place where it has been tried. It is still used for school board elections in New York City, where the turnouts typically are about 10-12%. So much for the Proponents' argument for increasing turnouts. We urge you to join a broad coalition of community leaders who have united to oppose Proposition A, including: Dennis Antenore, Christopher L. Bowman, Ed Canapary, Donald A. Casper, Doug Comstock, Mike DeNunzio, Larry Griffin, Kathleen A. Grogan, Susan Horsfall, Tom Hsieh, Jr., Marcel Kapulica, Charles Marsteller, Jane Morrison, David Spero, and Jim Stearns. Vote No on Proposition A. Supervisor Gavin Newsom Supervisor Leland Yee, Ph.D. Julio Ramos, J.D., Member, SF Community College Board ------------------------------------------------------------------ Opposition: Responding to low voter turnout in the December 2000 run-off election, the majority of the Board of Supervisors placed Proposition A on the ballot. Unfortunately, Proposition A is not reform but a return to the days of power brokers and back-room deals. Proposition A is brought to you by the same people who proposed 'Preference Voting' which was resoundingly defeated by San Francisco voters in 1996. They have relabeled their flawed product 'Instant Run-off Voting', and have convinced the Board of Supervisors on its 'merits' by arguing that 'IRV' will reduce the cost to taxpayers and eliminate negative campaigning. What they don't say is that Proposition A will enrich for-profit slate card organizations, increase the cost of campaigns, reduce meaningful debate on issues and hide ideological differences, and effectively disenfranchise language minorities and people with limited education. Rather than have the majority rule, Proposition A could actually reduce the actual number of voters who decide elections to a smaller portion than currently go to the polls in run-off elections. So, how do we address low voter turnout in December run-off elections? There are several alternatives that the Board of Supervisors should have entertained. First, move the primary for District Supervisors to March in even-numbered years, when city voters decide the nominees for State and Federal offices, and hold the run-off election in the high-voter turnout General Election in November. Second, move the primary in odd-numbered years, to the Tuesday eight days or fifteen days after Labor Day in September, and hold the run-off election in November. Third, move the primary in odd-numbered years to the weekend or second weekend after Labor Day when most people aren=92t working. There's better ways to reform the system. Vote No on Proposition A. Christopher L. Bowman Member Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections, 1993-2001 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebuttal to Opposition: The Democratic Party, The Green Party, many leading Independents and over two dozen organizations are backing Proposition A because it is a "good government" measure that will capitalize on November elections when voter turn-out is higher, reduce negative campaigning, save millions of dollars, and make inconvenient December runoffs unnecessary. The opposing argument is from a leader in the Republican Party, one of the few organizations opposing this measure. The distortions in the Republicans' ballot argument are many. Proposition A doesn't increase the cost of campaigns, or enrich slate cards or power brokers; it ELIMINATES the need for candidates to raise more money for a second election, that's why leading campaign finance reformers like Common Cause support it. Prop A doesn't reduce the number of voters deciding elections; it makes the decisive election in NOVEMBER, when voter turnout is HIGHEST. That's why citizen groups like California Public Interest Research Group and Senior Action Network support it. Contrary to claims, the Board of Supervisors DID explore other options, and decided that instant runoff voting (IRV) is the best, cheapest and most convenient method; and IRV has NEVER been voted on in San Francisco. Also, Proposition A will not disenfranchise language minorities. In fact, the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a prominent voting rights organization, has written, "Instant runoff voting could be used in San Francisco to benefit language minority communities in the November elections." Visit www.ImproveTheRunoff.org for a demonstration of how IRV works and for more information. Matt Gonzalez San Francisco Board of Supervisors How Supervisors Voted to Submit this Argument Supervisor Gonzalez submitted this rebuttal argument on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. On December 17, 2001, the Supervisors voted as follows to authorize Supervisor Gonzalez to prepare and submit the rebuttal argument on their behalf. Yes: Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Hall, Leno, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Newsom, Peskin, Sandoval, Yee -------------------------------------------------------------- Paid arguments in favor: As a former member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Elections and former Common Cause staffer, I've worked on election reforms for 15 years. After studying Proposition A and hearing both sides, I'm convinced that it's a smart way to encourage and increase voter involvement. Join me in voting to improve our elections. Vote YES on A. Dan Kalb County Central Committee member Sierra Club Chapter Director --- December is a terrible time of the year for an election. Vote YES on Proposition A, since it will consolidate the runoff to November and save $2 million per year that could be spent on health care. Let this be the last time we go to the polls in December. California Nurses Association --- Vote YES on Proposition A to improve runoff elections. This good government reform will increase voter participation, save tax dollars and reduce the influence of special interest money in politics. California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) --- December elections guarantee low voter turnout. Instant runoff voting efficiently combines the November and December elections and saves taxpayers $2 million per year. One election, not two. Sierra Club --- Seniors are leading the movement to recover democracy in our civic institutions. Proposition A will save $2 million in tax dollars, raise voter turnout and reduce negative campaigning and mudslinging. Vote YES on this good government measure. Senior Action Network The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument is Barbara Blong. --- A YES vote on Prop A will consolidate elections, saving Seniors and all taxpayers time and money. We'll have better, issue-oriented campaigns =96 not the now-standard duplicity and negativity. California Legislative Council for Older Americans --- This measure will encourage democratic participation, help elect consensus building leaders, and save millions in taxpayer dollars. Joel Ventresca Sunset District 4 Supervisor Candidate (November 2002) President, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (1992-94) --- California Common Cause urges you to vote Yes on A. This important reform will increase voter participation, decrease negative campaigning, and save taxpayers money. It also supports campaign finance reform, since candidates won't have to raise money for a second election in December. California Common Cause --- This is a well-crafted proposal that employs a ranked ballot system similar to that used in American cities such as Cambridge, MA and nations such as Australia, Britain and Ireland. In Australia it is has contributed to the highest voter turnout in the world. Center for Voting and Democracy --- On behalf of over 500,000 senior citizens, the Congress of California Seniors heartily endorses Proposition A. This measure will enhance voter participation and save millions of dollars, and that's good for young and old alike. Congress of California Seniors The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument is Pete Martineau. --- The political establishment doesn't want Proposition A to pass because it will change the way campaigns are run and make it more difficult to manipulate the outcome. VOTE YES ON A! Jennifer Clary --- The San Francisco Democratic Party supports Proposition A. Wade Crowfoot Secretary, SF Democratic Central Committee --- It is critical that our electoral system be designed to maximize voter participation. Please join me in supporting Proposition A. Jeff Adachi Candidate for Public Defender The three largest contributors to the true source of recipient committee are: 1. Peter Keane 2. Esther Marks 3. John Woo. --- Vote Yes on A for Higher Turnout Elections Proposition A will strengthen the democratic process and save taxpayers millions of dollars by replacing runoff elections with a better system. Instead of returning to the polls for a December runoff, voters will rank candidates in order of their preference when they vote in November. Historically, voter turnout is very low in December runoff elections. This means that many candidates are elected by only a fraction of the people who live in San Francisco. Instant runoff voting eliminates December runoffs, so more people will be involved in choosing San Francisco's leaders. That means more people in office who truly represent those they are elected to serve. Instant runoff voting is a system used successfully around the world. It is a system that makes sense for San Francisco. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) www.spur.org The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee are: 1. Jim Chappell 2. Frankie Lee 3. John Weeden. --- Instant runoff voting means higher turnouts - which means more tenant power at the polls. Vote YES on Proposition A to protect and expand tenants' rights. San Francisco Tenants Union --- The Florida fiasco showed that our elections need improvement. Proposition A will raise participation, save tax dollars, reduce negative campaigning and lessen the influence of money in politics. National Lawyers Guild SF/Bay Area --- Proposition A empowers voters to rank their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice instead of picking the lesser of 2 evils. Proposition A also acts as campaign finance reform because candidates won't have to raise money for a second runoff election. Vote YES! San Francisco Green Party The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee are: 1. Dave Heller 2. John Marc Chandonia 3. Berry Hermanson. --- Runoff elections discourage voter participation. Proposition A would raise voter participation and save millions of dollars. Those savings could support San Francisco's new publicfinanced election system that gives all candidates a fair and equal chance. Vote YES on A. San Francisco Common Cause The true source of funds for the printing fee of this argument is Fred Ridel. --- The following organizations endorse Proposition A: Common Cause San Francisco Democratic Party San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) Congress of California Seniors Sierra Club Senior Action Network League of Conservation Voters California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) California Nurses Association Green Party California Legislative Council for Older Americans and many more. FairVoteSF The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee are: 1. Center for Voting and Democracy 2. Betty Traynor 3. Nancy Couperus. --- The following individuals endorse Proposition A: Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano Supervisor Mark Leno Supervisor Jake McGoldrick Supervisor Matt Gonzalez Supervisor Tony Hall Board of Education member Eric Mar Board of Education member Mark Sanchez BART Board director Tom Radulovich Former Board President Harry Britt Former Congressman Tom Campbell Former Congressman Dan Hamburg Former Congressman John Anderson Former Acting Secretary of State Tony Miller Henry Louie Arthur Chang and many more FairVoteSF The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee are: 1. Center for Voting and Democracy 2. Betty Traynor 3. Nancy Couperus. --- Proposition A will support positive campaigns about issues, not personal attacks. It will lead to coalition-building. This is the way to elect politicians who care about safer streets and a more livable city for everyone. We have used instant runoff voting for our Board elections and it works. Vote Yes on A. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument is San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. --------------------------------------------------------------- Paid opposition arguments: KEEP YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE Instant runoff is not the answer to increasing voter turnout. Our Democracy must be measured by more than dollars and cents. Let's create more opportunity to vote: weekend polls, more absentee voting education, move election days to avoid December holidays. Runoffs provide vigorous debate and a thorough examination by the voters. Vote No on A and keep your right to vote. It's your right, fight to keep it. Tom A. Hsieh Dan Dunnigan Michael R. Farrah, Jr. The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument is Tom Hsieh for SF DCCC. The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee are: 1. Gavin Newsom 2. Barbara Kaufman 3. May Lee. --- Vote No on Proposition A Protect "one person one vote." This confusing scheme gives one person three votes. It could cost three times more in mistakes than it would save in dollars. For this reason, no major City in the USA uses an instant runoff. Vote to keep elections simple. Mike DeNunzio Member, Republican Central Committee* * for identification purposes only The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument is Mike DeNunzio. --- Instant runoff equals constant confusion. Haven't we learned our lesson from Florida? Let's fix the voting system we have before we try a confusing experiment. Under Proposition A, the winner will be decided by a computer, using "preferences," not the voters' final choice. Don't take away our right to choose. Vote No on A. Dennis Antenore Jane Morrison Calvin Welch --- Proposition A is called "Instant Runoffs", but it is only instant for the politicians who we get stuck with for four years. They say it will save money, but it will cost an arm and a leg for stateof- the-art emergent technology. They say they want an independent Department of Elections, but then they try to micro-manage the department before the new Election Commission is even seated. Matt Gonzalez rails against "duplicity", but then they get this proposition put on the ballot in an off-season election. I love Matt Gonzalez but this idea just plain sucks. It's hard to tabulate. It's difficult to verify in a re-count. It randomizes elections. It's anything but transparent. You can probably think up your own reasons to vote against it and if you wanted to spend your whole Christmas budget on it you could get it published just like this. There's a much better system, the September/November system that also eliminates December runoffs and the leprechauns in Gonzalez's office will probably put it on the ballot as soon as you vote this one down. It'll give you a month-and-a-half to study the finalists before you have to make your final choice. Even though Matt Gonzalez is a Green, that doesn't mean he can protect your right to vote. Only you can do that. Vote no on A. William Duffey, A Voter The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument is William Duffey. --- Prop A lets special interests sneak into office. Today, when special interests spend millions on campaigns, voters have time to evaluate that information. Under Prop A, the vote will be over before we even know who spent the money. That's not reform! Vote No on A! David Spero --- Elections are confusing enough without subjecting voters to two systems on the same ballot: State elections under one system, City elections under a confusing new system. Talk about discouraging voter turnout! Doug Comstock --- Nothing "Instant" About It The Elections Department already struggles with close elections, complicated by late absentee ballots. Proposition A will make it even worse. Here's why. With public financing and district elections, there'll be dozens of candidates for each office. On election night, many will be separated in rank by just a handful of votes. In these cases, the Department of Elections won't know which candidates to eliminate until every single vote is counted - including late absentees and provisional ballots that must be painstakingly checked one by one. This process takes days, sometimes weeks. So, the "instant" runoff process might take days, or even longer. Because of the confusion, complications, and inevitable legal challenges, our faith in the validity of election results - already tenuous - will be severely undermined. Proposition A is a seriously flawed piece of legislation with too many unintended consequences. Please vote No on Prop A. Jim Stearns --- VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION A Democracy is worth the price! San Francisco has had enough problems with our elections. Let's not complicate matters further with a confusing scheme. Separate run-off elections allow the voters an important second look. Vote NO on Proposition A. San Francisco Republican Party Donald A Casper, Chairman Cynthia Amelon Elsa Cheung, Vice-Chair Mike DeNunzio, Vice-Chair Howard Epstein, Assembly Candidate Terence Faulkner Sue Woods The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee are: 1. San Francisco Coalition for Affordable Public Services 2. Alfreda Cullinan 3. Sally L. Saunders. --- The Board of Supervisors blew it when they placed Proposition A on the ballot. Instead of failing to recognize that "Preference Voting" and "Instant Run-Off Voting" was new to California and that there was a need to test the waters with a pilot program, with an evaluation component to see if it accomplished what proponents said it would accomplish and determine whether it empowered or disenfranchised women, minorities, and mainstream voters, the Board decided to require that every office (other than the Board of Education and Community College Board) be elected starting in November, 2002 using "Instant Run-Off Voting". The Board truly took a leap of faith by its actions. As a result, we are entering unchartered territory. Given the very real defects of the new system, we could end up with an all male, all white Board of Supervisors, and a number of fringe candidates elected to City-wide office. If we do, there will be no recourse but to repeal "Instant Run-Off Voting" at the next election after the cost and effort of collecting 45,000 signatures through an Initiative to amend the Charter. In the interim, think of all the damage that could be done. Yes, we would save $1,600,000 a year by avoiding run-off elections, but if the radicals take over City Government, we could be paying hundreds of times that cost in higher taxes and increased spending. Let Berkeley and Oakland experiment with "Instant Run-Off Voting". Vote No on Proposition A. Christopher L. Bowman Susan Horsfall --- The authors of Proposition A, the Center for Democracy and Voting, are the same people who gave you "Preference Voting" in 1996 which was overwhelmingly defeated by San Francisco's voters. They have repackaged "Preference Voting" as "Instant Runoff Voting", but the intent is the same - to gain a bridgehead in a major American city so that they can replicate their efforts throughout the United States. Why is this such a bad thing? The agenda of the Center for Democracy and Voting is to supplant traditional American Democracy with "Proportional Representation". "P/R" is a system commonly found in many nations in Europe and other westernized countries. And by and large, it has been a failure, creating unstable coalition governments in which minor fringe and religious-based parties hold the balance of power. That's why the San Francisco Green Party and the Libertarians support Proposition A. They believe it will increase their chances of winning election even though they constitute jointly less than 5% of the electorate. Vote No on Proposition A. Kathleen A. Grogan Christopher L. Bowman David Looman --- The Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections studied the issue of Preference Voting and "Instance Run-off Voting" over the past six years and almost to a person felt the measures would be confusing to the average voter and subject to manipulation I join my former colleagues in urging you to vote No on Proposition A. Vote No on an idea whose time has come and gone. Marcel Kapulica, Member CACE, 1994-2001 --- As former members of San Francisco's Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections, we oppose Proposition A for the following reasons: First, "for profit" slate card organizations would approach candidates in each supervisorial district up for election and demand that they pay to be listed on their slate card - possibly $15,000 to be listed first, $10,000 to be listed second, and $5,000 to be listed third, thereby enriching the "for profit" slate organizations, and significantly adding to the costs of running campaigns. Women and minority candidates who have difficulty raising money would be particularly handicapped under such a system. Second, there could be collusion between various candidates to be listed on each other's campaign literature as their second or third choices. The cost of that collusion would be to reduce the level of meaningful debate on the issues and to hide ideological differences. The losers would be the voters and the media who would be unable to discern one candidate from another. Third, language minorities and people with limited education already have difficulty understanding the intricacies of our electoral system. Why add one more complication? It's hard enough to focus on one or two candidates - how about trying to rank 17 candidates (who ran in District VI in 2000)? You might be faced with that if Proposition A passes. Finally, because many voters will not exercise their right to rank all the candidates, only the small minority of voters who are highly organized and disciplined will exercise their rights, and it will be they, not minorities, the poor, or mainstream voters who will decide the election. For all these reasons, we urge you to vote No on Proposition A. Kathleen A. Grogan Larry Griffin Christopher L. Bowman Susan Horsfall Ed Canapary The true source of funds used for the printing fee of this argument are Former Members of the CACE. --- The new voting system proposed by Prop A is confusing, untried, untested and unreliable. That's the reason no city in America uses it! Vote no on A. Sue Bierman Mary Jung Gary Gartner