Hello, my name is Kirk Weinert, a resident of Venice. As you may have heard, the Grassroots Venice Neighborhood Council -- which is likely to be certified as the official neighborhood council for Venice -- voted on Wednesday (11/7) to adopt IRV for 14 single-seat board positions and Cumulative Voting for 7 at-large positions. I wrote the following two messages on that victory for a national list-serve on voting systems, which I've been asked to share with you. Now that I'm aware of these CA and LA list-serves, and that there are more local folks interested in such systems (including, it appears, at least one fellow Venetian who made some excellent and succinct points during the proceedings), I'm very interested in hearing feedback from you all on what we did and how we should proceed on implementation. * * * * * * Yes, thanks to the help of you all on this list-serve, we were successful last night in persuading the folks who came out for the fourth meeting on ratifying the bylaws of the Grassroots Venice Neighborhood Council (aka GRVNC) to adopt IRV for 14 single-seat board positions and Cumulative Voting for 7 at-large positions. Thanks to a fortuitous last-minute postponement of an out-of-town meeting, I had the opportunity to be at the meeting, help with the presentation, and get some idea of what worked and what didn't I'll try to be brief in describing what happened. If folks want more details or any of the materials we used, let me know. First, let me thank all of you who gave your advice on the presentation, much of which was adopted (as you'll see below), but all of which gave us greater confidence going into the meeting . . . and that was crucial. Next, I should say that I violated a basic political organizing rule by going into the meeting without having a good idea of what the vote count was going to be, because there hadn't been enough discussions with our fellow Venetians. However, I would guess that, based on some discussions immediately prior to the meeting, if there had been a vote on IRV right then, without any discussion, it would have lost by a 60-40 margin or maybe more. That would mostly have been because of (a) people just not getting how IRV worked; (b) not feeling strongly enough about election systems to want to make a change from the "most votes win" approach that they think is how they usually vote -- especially in the context of the dozens of other things with seemingly more immediate impact on their lives that are being considered in the course of creating GRVNC; and (c) to a relatively small degree, the opposition of a majority of the Bylaws Committee, which had recommended the plurality system. Ultimately, though, IRV passed on a show of hands by about a 65%-35% margin, with Cumulative Voting passing by a somewhat lesser margin. In a nutshell, the presentation on IRV (which was the first thing on which we voted) went as follows: 1. About a minute and a half on: a) posing the question to be decided by the group as being about how to elect officers that as many people as possible (and at least a majority) could feel good about for the next two years, as that was the best way to build the type of vibrant, activist organization GRVNC needs to be effective . . . and that nothing would destroy the group more than having officers for two years that most people can't stand; b) saying that the type of election system we use makes a difference in who gets elected; c) noting that Americans have historically used many different voting systems (indeed, there are numerous voting systems in the Constitution) and that we in Venice use at least two different systems: a plurality system with party primaries (Congress, Presidential general, state offices) and a non-partisan run-off system (LA mayor, city council, etc.) -- each of which has its strengths and weaknesses. I went into absolutely no detail about any of them, except for a little about the LA run-off system. (I could have added a third system: the proportional representation system used for the Presidential primary, but wanted to make the debate be about just two systems.) d) saying that we have a choice here between two systems (pluarlity and IRV -- which I initially described as being like the LA run-off system, except that you don't have to vote twice) . . . so let's see how well those two systems deal with the issue of majority rule. 2. About 3-4 minutes on a visual presentation of how a plurality and IRV election differed: We decided to go with the pizza analogy, asking voters to choose between pepperoni, mushrooms, and peppers on the pizza that we'll be ordering for the next two years -- saying that the pizza parlor had said.that we'd get a great discount if we limited ourselves to the same, single topping for that period a. First, we showed what the different ballots would look like. Prior to the meeting, we had drawn (in a very amateurish style) a sample vote-for-one ballot and a rank-your-choices ballot on two pieces of large posterboard. With a volunteer holding up the vote-for-one ballot next to me, I described the choice a voter had to make; then another volunteer put a big checkmark on his favorite topping (mushroom, as I recall). Another volunteer then held up the IRV ballot, I described how voters just had to rank their choices (1,2 3), and another volunteer wrote in a 1 in the mushroom box, 2 in the pepper box, and 3 in the pepperoni box. b. Then, we presented the potential differing results from the two systems. We posited that there were nine voters who were going to choose which topping would be ordered and that five of them were vegetarians -- though there was a split in the vegetarian vote. One volunteer held up a crudely drawn poster of four pieces of pepperoni showing that four voters supported pepperoni; another held up a poster showing three mushroom supporters; a third showed the two pepper supporters. People rather quickly got that, under the plurality system, that meant we'd be ordering pepperoni for the next two years -- to the horror of the vegetarian majority of the nine voters. We then said, if this were an IRV system, no one would have had a majority, so we need a runoff vote. The pepper supporters were told that peppers were no longer an option, so they had to go to their second choice. We were careful then to not just focus on the pepper voters, but to do a full recount, noting the 4 pepperoni supporters would stay pro-pep, the 3 mushroom voters would stay pro-shroom, but -- at the flip of the pepper volunteer's poster -- there were now 2 more votes for mushrooms. That meant (to the cheer of the crowd, I might add) there was now a majority for mushrooms and that's what we'd be ordering. And that was the end of the presentation. 3. There were then about 5-10 minutes of comments and questions from GRVNC members, mostly positive (I'll discuss them in a little more detail below) and with only one opposition argument (from the Bylaws Committee chair). 4. Then a motion was made to vote. Interestingly and happily, the Bylaws Committee chair -- who was the overall emcee for the bylaws discussion -- explained that the vote was about supporting either a system designed to ensure that candidates get a majority of the votes or one which simply elected the candidate who got the most votes. 5. Then the vote was held and IRV passed. I would add that it was very heartening that supporters -- many of whom had been skeptical at the beginning of the evening -- cast their votes with a great deal of enthusiasm and felt very good about its passage . . . more so than for any other vote I've seen at GRVNC meetings. 6. We then did a shorter presentation on Cumulative Voting, using again the pizza analogy and poster boards showing how to vote and the consequences of different systems. The presentation focused mostly on balancing majority rule with the need to include minority voices. There were very few questions -- though one surprisingly asked why we don't use ranked voting for these at-large seats as well, to which I had to respond that I would have preferred that myself, but that I compromised in advance because of concerns people had expressed about the logistics (and, thus, reliability) of the vote counting. [I figured that, if I couldn't explain it in 15 seconds, it would likely have lost . . . but maybe I was wrong; too late now, though.) It then passed by a slightly lesser margin -- mostly, I think, because we hadn't done as good of a job of explaining it . . . which was largely because I had decided to spend all of my time preparing for the first IRV presentation, in the hope that good feelings from the IRV presentation would roll over into the CV discussion -- and that's, forturnately, what happened. The next section outlines what I think were the primary reasons for the changes of heart on IRV , in what -- at first blush -- I'd consider the order of importance. --------- Here are what I think were the primary reasons for the changes of heart on IRV by the GRVNC members, in what -- at first blush -- I'd consider the order of importance: 1. Local leadership. The presentation was made by people with whom the voters were somewhat familiar and who they respected to some degree. Voters were inclined to listen with a sympathetic ear to the folks who made the presentation, because we had attended and participated in several previous meetings -- though I personally have done nothing with the group beyond attending those meetings. It also helped a lot that a number of members (some with advance preparation, others much to my very pleasant surprise) followed the presentation with very eloquent reasons for supporting the proposals. I think the meeting would have gone very differently if all of us had shown up at GRVNC for the first time last night, even if we had made the exact same presentation. It also helped that we knew (or thought we knew) the audience reasonably well, such that we tailored the presentation to their interests, likes, and dislikes. Hence, the choice of pitting carnivores against vegetarians -- which is undoubtedly a bigger deal in Venice than in, say, Nebraska -- and the references to the similarities with the LA runoff voting system. 2. Emphasis on majority rule and the negative consequences of minority rule. The bulk of the 5-6 minute presentation focused solely on this point. I felt that this was particularly appealing in a place like Venice, with its great diversity and its activists' general spoken support for consensus-building. (Ironically though, the business immediately before the presentation was the rejection of using a professionally-facilitated consensus-oriented decision-making process in favor of continuing to use Robert's Rules of Order.) This focus was important because it prevented me from spinning out the umpteen reasons to support IRV . . . as the more reasons mentioned, the more potential for questions and confusion, and the more votes lost. (A general rule I've long learned on initiative votes in which you're trying to get a "yes" vote: it's better to harp on one not-earth-shattering reason that everyone agrees with than to reel off a lot of reasons you think are really great but which swing voters aren't so sure about. In other words, better to fish with a small barbed hook than big, tasty bait on a string.) 3. Entertainment, humor, audience participation, "tasteful emotion". Especially in the context of a series of bylaws ratification meetings that were beyond boring for some, it was critical to add a touch of fun to the proceedings, as it made folks much more likely to pay attention. In particular, it was important that we came off as talking about serious things, but not taking ourselves too seriously . . . hence, the value of the far-from-professional art work, the silent involvement of the volunteers holding up the posters and marking their votes on the ballot (anything to get away from the "watch the presenter drone into the microphone" mode). I would add that it appeared that the moment of epiphany for many in the audience (the point at which many heads bobbed up and down, as if saying "oh, I get it") was when I pointed at the as-yet-unmarked IRV ballot and said "you just need to rank your choices 1, 2, 3". When the volunteer then went up to the ballot to mark down his 1, 2, and 3, you could feel the audience doing the same thing in their minds' eye. I think it also made a significant difference to go with the pizza analogy and, in particular, show the results of an election to which GRVNC members reacted emotionally, though not overly so. Much as we like to think that reasoned arguments will win out, it takes some emotional response from folks to get them over their inertia. The voting example wouldn't have worked anywhere as well if it posited a choice between ice cream flavors or generic Candidate A, B, and C, because members wouldn't have felt much, if any, visceral reaction to the victory of a minority vanilla candidate opposed by the majority (especially since there's not any obvious solidarity between chocolate and strawberry lovers, as there is among mushroom and pepper lovers!) Conversely, it would have been bad to use the Nader-Gore-Bush race as an example, because that would have dredged up too many deeply-felt emotions. II IRV had been seen as a pro-Nader thing, some Gore supporters would have voted against IRV just to spite Nader supporters and vice versa. That is especially true in Venice, where there are still plenty of Nader for President bumper stickers on cars and lampposts. Indeed, that race was a barely spoken subtext for many in the audience; in other words, the ones who cared about that race quickly grasped the implications of IRV, without anything explicit about it in the presentation. 4. Experience with the runoff system in LA. It helped a lot that we reminded folks that IRV wasn't that different than the way they already voted for many officials in LA. That gave folks concerned about biting off more than they could chew in the entire creation of GRVNC a degree of comfort. Especially with a new organization, it seems important to ensure folks that the voting system won't be a source of distraction and controversy . . . there's already enough of those in the very essence of what the group is trying to do. 4a. Divest plurality voting of its "specialness". It was important to try to frame the debate early on as being between two systems of equal validity, though different consequences. Before the meeting, I had gotten a lot of feedback that people were saying "why are we bothering with this? Let's just go with the way we always vote. If it was good enough for George Washington and the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me." For them, it was important to quickly point out that there was no one system that the Founding Fathers favored, that there are multitudes of different systems used in the US, and that we here in LA already use at least two different systems. (If I had had more time, I might have also mentioned that people use all sorts of different systems in non-political elections, but that would have been overly distracting here.) 5. Promotes positive campaigns, more quality candidates. Of all the comments made about the proposal after the presentation and prior to the vote, the one set that seemed to provoke the most head-nodding was one that described IRV as being good for creating a more positive tenor for campaigns (because of the need to get second choice votes) and for encouraging more good candidates to run (because of reducing the fear that getting into the race will draw away votes from a decent candidate and give the election to a despised one). 6. Not promising too much. We didn't say IRV was a perfect system or even an ideal one, but one which did a much better job at achieving the one objective (majority rule) than did plurality voting. 7. Neutralize the potential rabid opponents. I spent a little time prior to the discussion meeting with some of the people who were likely to be the most vocal opponents. I mostly asked for their advice on how to make the presentation, whether they felt that one particular argument (i.e. one which dealt with what I felt was their specific concern) was worth making during the presentation. (For example, I asked one guy, who had struck me as a, shall we say, traditionalist, whether many people would respond to the fact that that Robert's Rules of Order preferred IRV over plurality or that the Constitution uses a runoff system if a Presidential election goes to the House.) I think that helped chill out some potential firebrands. 8. This is Venice, after all. While the meeting had a goodly number of businesspeople and professionals, it had more than its share of ponytails and peasant dresses . . . with a lot of the former wearing the latter. The concern about diversity of all types is extremely high, especially since there are no real majorities of any racial, ideological, or cultural type. A lot of the GRVNC members have been through community organizing efforts that have foundered in part due to lack of unity. And, finally, most of the people see themselves as activists -- indeed, half of the people there said they intended to run for one of the Board seats. (It may have been a moderate plus for the IRV and CV votes that so many of the members are thinking about running for office, since -- with their own electoral fate in play -- they were more likely than normal to pay close attention to the system used to elect them. Rather amazingly, there are already 41 candidates for the 21 seats with a month to go before nominations close, so most candidates know they'll be in elections with 3+ candidates . . . thus, IRV may have had some extra personal appeal to them.) * * * * * * * I wish we would have gotten 100% of the vote, but we didn't. I didn't really pay attention to who voted for or against IRV. My guess, though, is that the people who voted against it tended to just be older, more conservative (in the sense of not wanting to mess with the way things have traditionally been done), and suspicious that there was some hidden, probably lefty, agenda behind IRV. I thought about ameliorating the latter concern by talking about how IRV was getting closer to being established in several cities and states because "moderate" Republicans in heavily Republican states were sick of losing to Democrats due to splits in the Republican vote and vice versa for "moderate" Democrats in heavily Democratic states. But, this is Venice, where a lot of people identify with the "fringe" groups, so I think we might have confused a lot of the latter folks and picked up only a few of the former. * * * * * * * So, again, thanks for your help. Now we have to work on implementing the dang things, which means a lot of time I don't have serving on the Elections Committee! I look forward to hearing everyone's suggestions for doing so. -- K.D. Weinert