February 04, 2004
City Council Refers To Voters Changes To City Charter's Elections Provisions
Although we missed today's session and so wasn't able to see the item come up (there was mail coming for which we had to sign), today the City Council referred to Portland voters a change to the City Charter proposed by City Auditor Gary Blackmer.
Reading the ballot title provides you with all you need to know:
Caption: Amends Charter: Candidates Receiving Majority Vote at Primary are Elected.
Question: Shall Charter provide that candidates who receive majority vote in Primary Election are elected without further vote at General Election?
Summary: Presently, the Portland City Charter provides that all candidates for City office must be elected at a General Election. Therefore, even when a candidate receives a majority of votes cast at a Primary Election, that candidate appears as the sole candidate on the General Election ballot. The proposed measure will amend the Charter to provide that if a candidate receives a majority of votes cast for an office at the Primary Election, that candidate is elected to that office for the term beginning the following January. As a result, the candidate would not have to appear on the General Election ballot. If no candidate receives a majority of votes cast for the office at the Primary Election, the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall appear on the General Election ballot.
SImply put: It eliminates the need for November runoff elections if a City candidate receives a clear majority in May primary elections. Currently, even if a candidate receives such a majority, he or she appears again in November, but alone.
Within the text of the resolution passed by Council today are some of the reasons for supporting the change:
WHEREAS, in 31 out of 40 elections for City elected offices since 1980, one candidate received the majority of the votes cast at the primary election and appeared as the sole nominee on the general election ballot; and
WHEREAS, in the past 50 years of elections history there has only been one write-in campaign that garnered a substantial number of votes cast at the November election, and that vote barely exceeded 25 percent; and
...
WHEREAS, eliminating the need for election of candidates at the general election except in case of run-off would provide for a streamlined elections process, reduce election administration and voters' pamphlet printing costs and lessen voter confusion.
What say the reader? Do the above statistics and the argument for streamlining provide enough of a rationale for such a Charter change? And, for that matter, given the latter argument on administration and costs, why not also institute instant runoff voting (which the City of Portland in fact utilized in the early days of the current commission form of government), which would eliminate the need for a November runoff even if a runoff were necessary, thereby offering further administrative and cost benefits?
Comments (8)
Worldwide Pabo on 04 Feb 2004
The charter change makes perfect sense to WWP. A candidate elected by a majority reflects the will of the voters, it saves money, it even sounds like something a "city that works" would want to do.
And it might inject some interest in Oregon's/Portland's moribund mid-May primary.
Food for thought...
Jack Bog on 05 Feb 2004
The charter change makes sense.
As for the "instant runoff" -- I'm not sure what you're proposing, but it sounds bad. Things look very different when the field gets narrowed from, say, five candidates to two. If there's no majority winner in the primary, let's continue to have a few months of head-to-head competition and debate between the top two before we cast the final vote.
hilsy on 05 Feb 2004
I'm confused. I thought the system was already in place where a candidate garnering 50%+1 would win the election outright. Help me out here folks. Isn't that how Bud Clark got into office for his first term when he got more than 50% of the vote over Frank Ivancie??
And the same for Vera, when, unfortunately, the 19-year-old did not quite force a run-off.
I haven't had any coffee yet, so maybe I'm just confused.
Sigma on 05 Feb 2004
Majority elections sound good, instant runoffs sound bad. The dynamics of a vote change, as Jack Bog noted, when the field moves from multiple candidates to just two. For example, were the candidates in the 2000 Presidential election narrowed down to two, in a runoff, where do you think the Green votes would have gone? Would that have changed the way the election turned out?
The One True b!X on 05 Feb 2004
Hilsy: Currently, if a candidate gets 50%+1, he or she goes on to appear alone and unchallenged on the November ballot, rather than simply being declared the winner.
no one in particular on 05 Feb 2004
The only problem I can see is that less people vote in the May elections. So 50% of the people in the May elections may not actually translate into a majority of November voters.
You could (and I would) argue that people who don't vote in the primaries deserve to have their voices lost. And as they've noted, it's never actually happened that way, but it IS possible.
William on 05 Feb 2004
I thought instant runoffs were where you got to cast your votes based upon order of preference. In 2000, Gore won. ;) With instant runoff, Bush wouldn't have been able to contest it because Nader's votes would have transferred over to Gore.
Or if you think that Bush won, then Gore would have won with instant runoff. But those are the breaks. Would Clinton have won without the help of Perot? Probably not.
So, yes, the dynamics change, but isn't the will of the people better represented by being able to cast a vote for their favorite candidate without fear of their least favorite winning? The current system encourages non-mainstream voters to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of the best candidate.
steve on 05 May 2004
As #6 above notes, the big question is about the difference between voter turnout at a Primary vs. a big presidential General Election.
If a Primary results in more than 50% for one candidate, especially if the margin over 50% is only, say, 5% or so, then perhaps they should still put the top 2 candidates on the Nov. ballot. And contrary to what #6 suggested, the supporting reasons printed in this Bix report for doing away with the General Election do not cite historical data showing that it wouldn't change the outcome - it only cite's the example of write-in candidates, as opposed to a Gen. Elect. ballot with the second candidate printed on it. And let's face it,that's a half year more for people to get to know a candidate.