Model City Charter Revision Project - Eighth Edition

Option Memo

Article II, Section 2.02 of the Seventh Edition of the Model City Charter lists "Alternative V(c)" as an option for electing city council members. This alternative provided for the election of the city council by use of proportional representation by the method of single transferable vote. During the December, 2001 meeting, the charter revision committee considered reducing this alternative to a footnote in the 8th Edition. In order to ensure that the committee fully considers the history, advantages and disadvantages behind this option, we are submitting this memo before a final decision is made.

TRADITIONAL WINNER TAKE ALL VOTING SYSTEMS

The traditional electoral system used in U.S. city council races is winner-take-all. Under this system only candidates who receive the most votes are elected, thereby allowing 50.1% of voters to win 100% of representation. Winner-take-all voting systems (among which are plurality and two-round runoff systems) hold as their central tenet that representation should be awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes. The advantage of this system is obvious: it's simple and the American public is familiar with it. The limitations of the winner-take-all system, however, are substantial and apply to all of the traditional forms of city districting: at-large; single-member, and; mixed at-large and single member systems.

• Winner-Take-All At Large Voting Systems- Under this system, identified as Alternative I in the 7th edition, voters have the same number of votes as city council seats and a slim majority (50% plus one) of voters has the power to elect all seats. Under this system, a substantial minority of voters, up to 49.9%, can be denied a chance to elect even one city council member.
• Winner-Take-All Single Member Districts - Under this system, identified as Alternative IV in the 7th edition, voters in a given district have one vote each. The winning candidate is the one that receives a plurality of the votes. In a two-candidate race, it is possible for 49.9% of voters to receive no representation. In a three-candidate race that number can climb to 66.6%. Much more than half the electorate can actually oppose the candidate who has earned the right to represent it.

One clear downside to winner-take-all voting systems is that votes going to a losing candidate are wasted, even if that candidate garners a substantial amount of the vote. This leaves significant groupings of voters un-represented. Voters understand this possibility, and often do not vote for a candidate they like, but rather one that realistically stands the best chance of winning, the "lesser of two evils." Or, often, they don't bother to vote at all.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Proportional representation (PR) is based on the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win representation in proportion to their share of the popular vote. PR assures that political parties or candidates will have the percent of council seats in a multi member district that reflect their public support.

The Single Transferable Vote - How it Works

There are many different types of PR. The "Single Transferable Vote" system (also known as choice voting, preference voting, and the Hare system), however, is ideal for non-partisan elections like city councils. It allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference: one for their favorite candidate, two for their second favorite, and so on. Candidates earn election when they reach the victory threshold [see "winning threshold" below]. For instance, in a nine-seat district, a candidate must earn about 10% of the vote to earn one seat and a political party / slate needs more than 50% of the vote to win a five-seat majority.

To determine winners, ballots are counted in a series of rounds of elections. First-choices are counted, and any candidate who reaches the victory threshold is elected. In the next round, "surplus votes" - - - those votes beyond the victory threshold obtained by any winning candidate -- are counted for the second choices of voters as indicated by their ballots (for fairness, all ballots are counted for second choice candidates at an equally reduced value). If not all seats are filled at this point, as is typical, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are counted for the candidate listed next on each voter's ballot. These rounds of election continue until all seats are filled or the number of remaining candidates equals the number of seats.

• Setting a winning threshold: The winning threshold is the number of votes a candidate needs to win a seat. This winning threshold always can be determined by the "Droop formula":

1 Vote + Votes/Seats plus 1

PROS AND CONS OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
BY SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE

PROS

The advantages of employing a proportional representation system are numerous.

1) Government by "Will of the Majority" - Studies have shown that governments elected by proportional representation are more likely to produce policies that are in line with the "will of the majority." There are three major reasons for this tendency. First, when more voters have representation at the policy-making table, a majority in the legislature is more likely to be grounded in a majority of the electorate than when many voters are cut out of representation. Second, when political groupings can form and run candidates from across the spectrum, voters can more precisely define their representation. Third, that increased representation of viewpoints across the spectrum can lead to fuller discussion of important issues, thereby allowing majority interests to be better articulated and defined.

2) Provides a Method of Compliance with the Voting Rights Act - With proportional representation, you actually need fewer votes to gain a seat than in the winner-take-all system, and you can gather these votes from a larger area. This makes it easier for racial or political minority perspectives to win seats, without having to be concerned about how district lines are drawn. In June 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Johnson that race-conscious districts are unconstitutional. Voting rights experts like Lani Guinier, Ed Still, Gerald Hebert, Pamela Karlan and Richard Engstrom have proposed various forms of PR as race-neutral methods to give racial as well as political minorities and women a fair chance to elect representatives in competitive elections.

3) Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote also holds particular advantages in that:

• It is a fully proportional voting system and likely to ensure both majority rule and fair representation of political minorities.
• Voters' ballots are used efficiently, with most voters having the same number of effective votes (votes that elect someone)
• It is designed to ensure that as many voters as possible elect a preferred candidate.
• The role for the voter is simple -- ranking candidates in order of preference, 1, 2, 3 etc.
• It encourages coalition-building among allied groupings hoping to be ranked highly by supporters of the other grouping
• It is the most adaptable of alternative systems to demographic shifts in the electorate
• Since a lower ranking can never defeat a higher ranking, there is no incentive to limit the number of candidates, to bullet-vote, or to manipulate the order of rankings
• There is no need for primary elections or runoffs

CONS

Those opposing proportional representation by single transferable vote usually do so because:

• The vote counting mechanism is difficult to explain. Voter education is necessary to ensure that voters understand the importance of rankings candidates
• The complexity of count can lead to perceptions of manipulation of the system that can taint the process, even if based on misconceptions
• The ballot counting often requires the modification of current election administration, possibly including the purchase of new voting systems and ballot-counting software
• It requires like-minded candidates to compete amongst one another for first-choice votes - essentially combining primary election competition and general election competition in a single round of voting

History of Proportional Representation

The single transferable voting form of PR was first tried in the U.S. earlier last century. PR was tried in the U.S. in the 1920's and worked very well in 24 cities like New York City, Boulder, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Cambridge, MA. Both the majority and various political and racial minorities gained representation where their voices had previously been unheard. The minorities at the time who won representation were Irish Catholics, Polish immigrants, African Americans and leftists. Although only two of the first 26 attempts to repeal single transferable voting were successful in cities around the country, formerly dominant political forces outlasted reformers and were successful in repealing PR nearly everywhere. Their general tactic was targeting unpopular minorities like blacks and leftists.

Where is Proportional Representation Used Today?

Various forms of proportional and semi-proportional systems are used today to elect the city councils of Cambridge, MA (single transferable vote), Peoria, IL (cumulative voting), various cities and counties in Alabama, South Dakota and Texas (cumulative or limited voting) and the community school boards in New York City (single transferable vote).