candidates. 1% per candidate. it seems that was an indictment. a lot of the problem is a number of candidates you have and i have seen some proposals that would reduce the number by changing campaign finance instead of having the runoff. let me tell you how you get disenfranchised by ranked-choice voting. but said it was familiar with mayor lee but i did not like him. -- let's say i was familiar with mayor lee and i did not like him and i did not know john. when the election was announced i see it is ed lee and avalos. i would want to learn and the decision. during that awful moment when the director of elections pulled the curtain across and goes in the back room and does something and the rest of us are out there waiting for a puff of white

smoke to come out of the chimney. it does not work for me and there are a number of reasons. out of everything we save money on, won election who determines who will be spending money for four years, it is something of a false economy. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. -- supervisor kim: thank you. >> i appreciate the opportunity to address your committee and give my point of view. i am an advocate of ranked- choice voting. and in hearing their people in this city of san francisco who want to eliminate it, i am rather confused. i think, what problems are they trying to solve? ranked-choice voting brings more voting participation. you have more turnout in elections since you went to ranked-choice voting.

is that a problem? i thought that was a good thing. ranked-choice voting also, by eliminating elections, brings less cost to the city. is that a problem for the city to spend less? are the advocates wishing that the city should spend more in this era of hard times? ranked-choice voting has brought more diversity of candidate and more diversity of the electorate. is that a problem? that you want to eliminate and go back to holding runoff elections, one of which would be held in a low turnout time? it seems to me that ranked- choice voting has brought strong benefits to the city. i just wonder what are the problems that cannot be solved by modification rather than elimination of ranked-choice

voting. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am here on behalf of the asian law caucus. we support of voting system that engages and encourages the full participation of as many people as possible. ranked-choice voting in san francisco has remedied some of the critical deficiencies we saw in plurality boating. the need for runoff elections. in the years prior, key positions were determined by runoff elections where voter turnout rates declined by over one-third. what we saw in a plurality voting is the limiting of access to the votes for the working class, especially individuals of color who are more likely to either hold multiple jobs or work in certain industries that make it difficult for them to take time off work. the need for runoff elections ultimately places an additional

burden on those individuals. instead, ranked-choice voting has shown to maximize voter participation to individuals who are more representative of san francisco. additionally, taxpayers have paid -- received $7 million through ranked-choice voting and we believe that money could be better used to support ongoing efforts such as those by supervisor avalos and supervisor campos to improve ranked-choice voting and improve education and outreach for people of color communities and immigrants whose access to vote is among the most vulnerable. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the voting rights coordinator with the asian law caucus. i would like to echo some of the sentiments spoken by my colleagues. ranked-choice voting is not necessarily a perfect system but it is a system that has allowed

the broadest areas of our community to engage in democracy. ranked-choice voting has been in place since 2004 which is not that long ago. especially with changes to the election system in the wake elections are run. you have to see how they play out and you cannot be so quick to change the rules. especially not for voters and candidates. there is a broader community affected every time systems are changed. as we know with the current redistricting, many people are going and trying to figure out what is happening with their current district. a similar effect will happen if we move back to the old way of voting. i will talk about this broader community and the communities of nonprofits, community organizations and leaders and political clubs that engage in every single election, trying to engage their constituents to bring out the broadest and most wide range of citizens. if you change the system and do not consolidate elections as you

have before in the charter amendment, you would increase the number of election and make it more burdensome for these commuters to participate. by reducing and consolidating your not reducing people's access to the democratic process but rather allowing them to have off years basically and ensuring that they ve more resources and have more energy to be able to fully engage every election. additionally, regardless of whatever voting system which is for san francisco residents, that voting system needs to be paired with an educational campaign that informs residents about how the voting system works and how -- what is at stake. the asian law caucus is -- in across the region since 2000. we can say that san francisco county is a good place in implementing such an educational system that would allow all citizens to be informed. supervisor kim: thank you.

the next five names. >> thanks for having this and i have been here all day and appreciate the work that you do and the work that everybody does in trying to work things out. i am against the idea of getting rid of ranked-choice voting. the runoff system is not democratic. many fewer people vote in the runoffs as we now. and the candidate who has the most money or powerful connections can court in and swamp the other person. which it cannot do. with ranked-choice voting you get people trying to run positive campaigns or form coalitions.

we go backt to the old money wins policy without ranked- choice voting. we do not necessarily appreciate because we're already here in san francisco. to get to vote for the person you want instead of trying to vote for the lesser evil to avoid the greater evil. you get to -- you do not have to vote out of fear. you can vote for what you want and put the lesser evil third or fourth and this is a major difference. normally in the bigger elections is all evils and the idea of opening it up so someone who is good can get some votes can make a big difference. we are being a model for the country with this and i would like to continue doing that. the system seems to be working fine. i do not see that it is broken at all. there were too many candidates for mayor last time and maybe something can be done to change

that and our cv could be improved. we could use more education and there are things to make it better. it is a big advantage over what we have before. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> most of this -- the commentary has been about the effect of this proposal in san francisco. i would like to bring our attention to the effect it will have on the entire united states. there is a small, weak, but existing effort to get ranked- choice voting implemented in presidential general elections. i think san franciscans overwhelmingly wish florida and the whole country had used ranked-choice voting in the presidential election of 2000. san francisco is the most populist place in the u.s. that uses ranked-choice voting and if

we repeal it, that will be a severe injury to the movement that is trying to get ranked- choice voting used in presidential elections. >> good afternoon. can you hear me? i am executive director of the asian-american action fund, a national organization dedicated to getting more asian-americans involved in the civic and political process. asian-americans constitute one- third of the city's residents over here. i'm here to speak in favor of item five and against no. 4. i am an election lawyer. i drafted the brief that defended ranked-choice voting in federal court. ranked-choice voting has been good for the city including asian-americans. before ranked-choice voting, we used to have december runoff elections were no one would show

up to vote. 30% or 40% in november would not show up in december. in the asian-american community side, there are two candidates for a few who finished first in november but lost in the december election. ranked-choice voting allows voters to cast and select a consensus winner in the one election, not t garrido. after ranked-choice voting was introduced, representation of asian-americans in the order of supervisors here as well as citywide offices went up from three to seven. age at of 11 seats -- eight out of 11 seats is representative -- represented by minorities. it is easy to use. you write your traces. the error rate is low. it is a good thing for the

budget. it is a good thing for democracy. thank you for your time. supervisor campos: thank you. -- supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am a longtime san francisco resident, a small-business owner. political consultants and critics our -- are blaming rcv. 99.6% of voters cast a ballot mayoral ballot. 91% ranked at least two candidates and 73% rec 3 candidate in the mayoral race. how confused can they be. portland, maine elected their mayor using ranked-choice voting. i will put on the screen the ballot they used. this is a simple one-page ballot

the used to rank 15 candidates. they offered on limited ranking. the election was a huge success. there was no single front runner. talk of confusion in portland, maine was strangely absent. there are not that many political consultants of there. [laughter] rynex point, san francisco has saved $7 million by using rcv. we should continue to bank the savings. a recent study showed runoffs attract four times these super pac money -- the superpac money. runoffs have notoriously negative campaigns. san francisco is recognized as a leader. a system that is implemented more broadly would prevent a spoiler situation or if you are

a republican in ron paul-mitt romney situation. supervisor kim: thank you. i am calling up five more names. >> malive to speak against no. 4 and in favor of -- i wanted to speak against no. 4 and in favor of no. 5. the aspect of clarifying and extending their requirement for ranking more candidates, the reason why that is important is when the landlords association filed a lawsuit to try and get san francisco ranked-choice voting turnout several years ago, the city's attorneys and department of the election did not say what was appropriate and that free rankings is what was possible with the current equipment and was permissible under the law, they also tried to argue it was better to have

only three choices and clarifying and extending the desire of san francisco to have as many choices as possible would prevent that from happening in the future and see you can move to more than three choices as soon as possible. as far as the proposed amendment to do away with ranked-choice voting and replace them with separate runoffs as other people have mentioned, if you have to separate elections, there will be different turnouts and different electrets in the election. supervisor farrell mentioned there would be amendments presented. i understand there would be to not have a separate december runoff but have a december election earlier that recognizes the problem with the low turnout with a december runoff. there are also problems with the lower turnoff earlier in june or september. if lower turnout can impact who makes it to the second round and

whether there is a second round of all, if there is three candidates, rcv and a runoff differ in the timing. if more candidates are there and couldn't -- it can impact who makes it to the final round. one situation like that is the [inaudible] made it to the second round in france 10 or so years ago. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i feel at a loss because i have no props this time. i want to stand in opposition to doing away with ranked-choice voting. i would wholeheartedly support having better education. i know that in itself has helped the members of our union which the members had highly endorsed ranked-choice voting. they're still that mind.

we know that in order to engage more of our members in the process that education is vital. we did a lot more this past year, thanks to some help from the staff of elections department. that was helpful. i will let you know that it for selfish reasons why i do not want to go back and refer back to the runoff elections is when you are engaged in the political process, you do try to influence votes and do precinct walking and knocking on doors and so forth. it is bad enough climbing the hills of san francisco or the tall stairway's but when you have to do that in the storms in the rain and the cold, it is even more detrimental to our health. that was a selfish reason. i really do feel that we have a process in place. the voters voted on this.

it has not been 10 years yet. if there are some minor adjustments we can make in terms of bringing voters up to speed and more educated, that is the way to go. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good evening. i think ranked-choice voting is terrific. it is so wonderful. as i look at the wonderfully diverse representation on the san francisco board of supervisors, i know that ranked- choice voting has had much responsibility for creating this diversity. as i understand it, since there is first -- since the first ranked-choice voting, there is a doubling of racial minorities elected to the board of supervisors from all four members to eight members. san francisco has one of the most representative city governments in the u.s. and while other parts of the country

are seeing an increase in the number and kinds of restrictions placed on their voting process, making it more difficult for some demographics to vote, rcv has increase voter participation and more local democracy. specifically, the elimination of the low voter turnout of the december runoff. representatives under rcv are being elected with more votes than in the december low vote runoff. turnout increased by 30% from the primary, representing 16% of registered voters. they are typically majority white and more affluent than the november vote. the proposal for june would likely have the same low voter turnout and boehner composition. ranked-choice voting is such an innovative improvement over the previous system, many times as a voter i would be forced to vote not for the candidate i preferred but for the candidate

i thought could be a front runner can it. i really did not want to be my elected representative. under rcv, i have three choices and i have the luxury of ranking the candidate i really wanted to win. if the first is eliminated, my other choices are out to knock out that canada i do not want. this is democracy in its finest form. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon and now for the reason i am actually here. i will put on my cr club hat and say we were supportive of rcv. i was a contractor to the department of elections through the senior action network and i did ranked-choice voting

education at reach out to the implementation. it was not confusion. i was mostly talking to seniors. they got it. the grants i read that we won was the easy as one, two, three program and it really was as easy as that. if there are people who are confused and do not understand it or do not know what is going on, it is not a lack of the system. it is a lack of education. we saw in the exit polls that san francisco state did after the first election, people got it. they thought this was easy and it was super. if the data had not made it into the file it certainly should. i want to suggest instead of adding another election and a $2 million or $3 million per election that will add to the budget, let's give that to the department to do voter education and outreach from the outset. there is nothing wrong with being able to go out to the community and say there is an election coming up and you need to vote and here is how. this is why you should.

that would be one of the best possible outcomes to increase the folks that turn out to increase their understanding but to increase the democracy by getting more people to the pole through an education outreach program that would be more robust and every time we have an rcv ballot come up, that would be my preference. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. i will call five more names. [reading names] >> thank you, supervisors. i'm here on behalf of california common cause. a lobby organization. we believe san francisco strongly benefited from its 2002 ballot decision to ranked-choice voting implement and are here in solidarity with these other organizations and citizens to preserve it. we are naturally here because ranked-choice voting is in the

best interest of the san francisco public. voting to repeal it would be in interest of a segment of the public, albeit a small and wealthy faction. the stakeholders and other special interests that have lost ground on the stranglehold of san francisco politics that had a struggle since -- have not had a stranglehold since ranked- choice voting was implemented. in support -- returning the runoffs would increase the amount spent in elections. repealing ranked-choice voting gives back these interests to pick and choose the candidate said best represent them. san francisco has had a 73% increase in voter turnouts in elections. it promotes more coalition building, less negative

campaigning, cost savings by eliminating a second election, and a wider array of choices for voters. we see the introduction of ranked-choice voting as positive. it is producing an accurate reflection without requiring a two separate elections. we look forward to this continued use of this system and supports supervisor campos and supervisor avalos's efforts. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am rufus browning, thank you for your patience and your stamina. i want to thank you for the first clause of your mission statement on their website. it says, "the board of supervisors response to the needs of the people of san francisco." that is very good. supervisors, the people need

democracy. not every issue engages democracy as direct a and immediately -- directly and immediately as ranked-choice voting. i want to summarize of my 50's -- 50 year study. a well designed system will yield a more accurate reflection of the wishes of an electorate than the familiar runoff election process does. that is, simply put, it is more democratic. if you want democracy support and fix rcv, do not abolish it. if you propose to abolish rcv,

you have to be prepared to argue that some other higher value justifies a retreat from democracy. i do not think you can do that. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am here speaking on behalf of the san francisco rod blagojevich christoff of voters. -- the san francisco pissed off voters. we research everything on the ballot. we write up a description of it. we raise money to print up a voter guide and we go out nine and a passing it out around the city and we are exhausted by the idea of a runoff election. by the end of the season we are done and we want to take a break and go home for thanksgiving. the idea of starting for a runoff election is exhausting. from my manpower perspective and a money perspective. and looking back in the history,

runoff elections are before our time but we saw time and time again brought out -- runoff elections have less turnout and the turnout is a demographic shift. it is older and wiser and richer. it does not look much like san francisco and we're concerned about that. especially for supervisor races , there is a huge drop off and turn out in interest and we have a hard enough time exciting people and getting people interested in local politics when this coincides with national ticket races. trying to go out and say we have a runoff for the assessors race next year, how hard will a bid to get excited, we need you to come out in december for that assessor and people will not turn out. no election system is perfect. i think in the mayor's race, you can make an argument that there is an argument for runoff. i think ranked-choice voting is the best system we have and

we're here to support it. thank you for your time. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am also here for the league of pissed-off voters. i wanted to talk with you. thank you for listening to us talk about ranked-choice voting. we are following an election -- an exciting election where ranked-choice voting was something we were looking at. if someone that you supported did not win in the last election, the first thing we thought was, is the process broken? if you look at elections overtime and we have not had that many elections ranked- choice voting with, -- elections with ranked-choice voting, are we changing things so quickly because we did not get our desired outcome? the outcome is we want to have san francisco represented in the

more democratic process and ranked-choice voting is that process. if we believe people are not getting second and third choices on the ranked-choice voting, i think that is something we should address with education. voter education. ranked-choice voting is something that is important, especially as we are in the forefront of how things move forward in the country. people are looking to san francisco to see what we do and how that will change the national dialogue on ranked- choice voting and i hope that you do not end ranked-choice voting and look to strengthening the current ranked-choice voting to allow for more options. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon.