about

contact

Founded by the Center for Investigative Reporting

get alerts / react & act / inside the newsroom / donate

Don't Miss

Broken Shield / Veterans die waiting for benefits / Lawsuit looms over Wal-Mart / Oakland private school scam /

MONEY & POLITICS | DAILY REPORT

Low-income voters struggled with ranked-choice voting

January 5, 2011 | Lance Williams

search
PRINT

advertisement

Voters from low-income neighborhoods had a tougher time with the complexities of the ranked-choice voting
system in November's election.
Thats the bottom line of a California Watch analysis of voting data from the electoral district that arguably
faced the most complicated ballot in California: San Franciscos Supervisorial District 10.
In a swath of the citys west end that includes the housing projects in Bayview/Hunters Point and middle-class
homes on Potrero Hill, voters were confronted with a long list of electoral decisions.
First there were the races for governor, U.S. Senate and Congress, followed by a tangle of other state races
and initiatives.
After that, district voters faced a ranked-choice election for the Board of Supervisors, with 21 candidates vying
for a single seat. Voters were asked to select their first, second and third choices for a replacement for
Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who was termed out.
The eventual winner was political newcomer Malia Cohen. She was in third place after the first round of the

advertisement

computerized instant runoff, but pulled ahead in the 19th round.

Signs of voter fatigue were evident by the time voters got to the
back end of the ballot. According to data posted by the San
Francisco Elections Department,* 11 percent of voters 2,356
people didnt bother casting ballots in the supervisors race,
according to Registrar of Voters records.
There was also evidence of confusion over ranked-choice voting,
which was first put in place in San Francisco city elections in
2004. (In 2010, it was used for the first time in Oakland,
Berkeley and San Leandro.)

campaign photo

San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen, left,

with Assemblywoman Fiona Ma.

In the first round of the systems so-called instant runoff, more

than 2 percent of district voters 489 spoiled their ballots with
what are called overvotes. That means voters improperly voted
for more candidates than allowed. Under the rules, those votes
werent counted.

Although the voters who didnt vote in the supervisorial election were distributed fairly evenly throughout the
district, the overvotes were concentrated in lower-income areas, the data show.

EXPLORE FURTHER
NEWS POST

After losing, politician

rethinks ranked-choice
voting

In Bayview/Hunters Point, more than 3 percent of the ballots were spoiled because of overvotes. The rate was
almost as high in Visitacion Valley, a lower-income area with a large population of Asian immigrants.
Those rates were triple the spoil rate among votes cast on Potrero Hill, where income and education levels are
higher, according to census data.

NEWS POST

Ranked-choice voting
complaints mount

Critics of ranked choice voting contend that confusion about the system is widespread. They say poor people,
the elderly and people who arent native English speakers particularly struggle with it.
The pure fact is, RCV is misunderstood by many voters, and it discriminates against minorities and individuals
who have a problem with language, says former San Leandro Mayor Tony Santos, a onetime former rankedchoice voting booster who now is campaigning against it.
Exit polls commissioned after ranked-choice voting was first used in San Francisco in 2004 (one by San
Francisco State University professors, the other by the Chinese American Voters Education Committee) found
that the system may have confused Chinese-speaking voters, according to press accounts.
Since then, the city has spent about $1 million on voter education efforts about the system.
Boosters of ranked-choice voting contend that the new system is legal and fair and a big improvement over a
system of local runoff elections that RCV was created to replace.
They essentially deny that voter confusion is a factor in elections at all. Their energetic defense of the system

NEWS POST

Confusion about
Oaklands voting
system may have
affected election
NEWS POST

Ranked-choice voting
complicates elections

 and their equally energetic critique of my earlier reporting on this issue can be found in the comments
section of an earlier post.
Boosters sometimes accuse critics of patronizing voters when they complain that ranked-choice voting is
confusing, according to Anthony Gierzynski, a University of Vermont political scientist who has studied the
system, which he styles IRV for instant runoff voting. In a 2006 study, he wrote [PDF]:

RECENT POSTS
Bullet train bidder has history of cost
overruns

Proponents of IRV like to frame this argument about the complexity IRV would add by countering that
what critics of IRV are saying is that voters are stupid. Not so.

Winning bid to start high-speed rail far

below estimates

These analyses are not impugning the intelligence of the American voter, just recognizing the limits to
what a political system can ask of its citizens and recognizing that adding complexity to an already
complex ballot will disproportionately harm some groups of people more than others.

Some Calif. retirement trustees cancel

Hawaii conference plans

Registered

BAYVIEW/
HUNTERS POINT

Election
Day

Ballots
Cast

Turnout
(%)

Over
Votes

Under
Votes

3720

20.36

124

495

School discipline reform groups question

plans for armed security
Oakland school district mishandled federal
money, state finds

POPULAR TAGS

budget California Lost campaign

finance climate change

demographics earthquakes
high-speed rail
immigration
lead marijuana Medi-Cal medicare Meg
Election 2010

BAYVIEW/
HUNTERS POINT

BAYVIEW/
HUNTERS POINT

VBM

4813

26.34

147

378

Jerry Brown

Whitman On Shaky Ground

Total

18274

8533

46.69

271

873

On Shaky Ground followup patient abuse

police Prime Healthcare prisons

public schools schools

seismic safety steroids

more tags

advertisement

POTRERO HILL

Election
Day

3166

33.73

26

541

POTRERO HILL

VBM

2764

29.44

21

283

POTRERO HILL

Total

5930

63.17

47

824

VISITACION
VALLEY

Election
Day

1600

19.00

62

217

VISITACION
VALLEY

VBM

2416

28.69

53

179

VISITACION
VALLEY

Total

4016

47.69

115

396

9387

8421

Source: San Francisco Elections Department

*This corrects a reference to the Registrar of Voters, the Elections Department's former name.

Recommend Sign Up to see what your friends recommend.

Recommend

Tweet

Like our content? Help us do more.

Filed under: Money & Politics, Daily Report
Tags: Election 2010, low income, ranked choice voting

Comments
Comments are closed for this story.

sfvoter
January 5, 2011
Respectfully (because this publication is clearly biased against RCV) RCV's benefits are not
fairly represented. I'm sidestepping the issue of the eye-popping statements made in this article
about how minorities can't understand RCV. Apparently only Australians understand it... 1) Are
we now going to replace RCV with a full second round of elections to get essentially the same
results? With what money? RCV saves the cost and spectacle of getting mostly the same results
we would get anyway in a second round. 2) RCV results in more positive campaigning.Just ask
SF mayoral candidate Leland Yee, who greeted nemesis Phil Ting with a glowing statement
about his virtues lest he lose his supporters' second choice votes. Refreshing. 3) What's wrong
with a consensus candidate with some level of mandate from almost everyone, who has to play
consensus politics to be re-elected? Most of those whose complain about RCV are machine
politicians - who divide, and who lost. And Calwatch obviously opposes it too, with a little too
much vigor if you ask me. Looking forward to the release of the 990's.

4albo
January 5, 2011
Hey Lance, why do you refer to those least able to cope with a complex ballot as "low income"...?
Are you implying that their *income* is the problem ? Okay, if so, then are you proposing we
boost programs the next time around to help them fill the ballots ? What's the point of this inane
article, except to avoid saying the obvious, that *uneducated* voters don't know how to effectively
exercise their rights...! Isn't that what we're seeing here ? This has to be the most mealymouthed publication I've ever seen on California. Sheesh. If you are writing this piece to
demonstrate a problem, why not do it honestly ? Shrouding the problem in some kind of
mumbly-speak about poor low income folks does *nothing* to identify a fix. Unless you just
wanted to feel good about yourself...

Manny
January 11, 2011
Once again, the numbers tell the truth. It seems that RCV is moving our society back to the days
of poll taxes and only landowners can cast a vote.
This should be disturbing to every American citizen.
Everyone has a right to vote and their vote be counted.
This has got to stop

via Twitter

advertisement

Topics

Our Content

Who We Are

Partner With Us

Home
Health & Welfare
K12
Higher Ed
Money & Politics
Environment
Public Safety

Spotlight
Daily Report
React & Act
Help Us Report
Data Center
Inside the Newsroom
Archive
Corrections
Report an Error

About
Our Team
Our Funders
Press Room
Privacy Policy
About CIR
About the Bay Citizen

California Watch Media Network

Use Our Content / Logo
Donate

"Local Reporting," Finalist

Pulitzer Prize, 2012
"Medical Reporting," Winner
George Polk Award, 2011
"Roy W. Howard Award for
Public Service," Winner
Scripps Howard Award, 2011
"IRE Medal," Winner
Investigative Reporters and
Editors, 2011

2013 California Watch / development: Happy Snowman Tech / design: