Page One

Run-off elections are costly, voters stay away from the polls in droves, and they don’t serve third-party candidates well. 

Councilmember Kriss Worthington says there’s a better way: instant voter run-offs. That’s where voters cast their second, third, fourth or more choices at the same time they do their first. 

Worthington put a resolution on tonight’s council agenda calling on the city attorney to write ballot language for a City Charter change, which voters will be asked to approve in the spring of 2002. 

This form of voting means people can choose the candidate they truly want to win, instead of settling for the “lesser of two evils” approach, Worthington said. 

“There (is often) a difference between who the voters vote for and who they want to vote for,” he said. 

Instant run-off voting makes every vote truly count, Worthington said. 

Here’s how it works: Voters choose their first-choice candidate by marking a “1” after the name. Then they vote for their second choice, marking a “2” and then their third choice and so on. 

If no candidate gets a clear majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. All voters who placed a “1” after the eliminated candidate’s name, have their No. 2 choice processed. If there continues to be no clear winner, the lowest vote-getter is again eliminated and the elimination continues and votes of the eliminated candidate are carried over until there is a clear winner. 

Mayor Shirley Dean said she does not buy it. She says Worthington has not made his case for instituting the new process. “What is it about our current system that is broken?” she asked.  

She pointed out that there have been no run-off elections for the council since 1994. In that election, Dean finished second in the general election, but came in first after Don Jelinek in the run offs.  

The mayor argued that the process is difficult to explain to voters and, moreover, will take an excessive amount of staff time to prepare the ballot measure.  

“I think somebody has to explain this,” Dean said. 

Worthington said he started the process early because he knew it would take time for the staff to work on it and even more time to educate the voters. 

He argues the work is worth it for a number of reasons. 

“It ensures a more positive campaign,” he said, pointing out that if a candidate wanted a person’s “No. 1” vote and another person’s “No. 2” vote, the candidate would have second thoughts about running a nasty campaign. 

Further, instant-run-off voting allows more candidates to get into the race without being characterized as “spoilers.” 

It also will save the city the costs of the run off. 

The League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany and Emeryville studied instant run-off voting earlier this year and say they are behind it. “It’s somewhat more democratic,” said League President Jo Ann Price. However, Price added that she hadn’t seen the specifics of Worthington’s proposal and hesitated to comment on it. 

Although Cambridge, Mass., is the only city in the United States that uses a form of instant run-offs, this form of voting has been used for over 70 years in Ireland and Australia, and this year, the mayor of London was elected by this method. 

In November, Oakland adopted instant run-off voting to fill council vacancies. 

Because of its complexity, this type of balloting requires computerized voting, which is already planned for Alameda County, Worthington said.