get people excited without having a run off. i would like to be able to continue with frank joyce voting. i believe we have already have the experiment of with and it has worked in a lot of ways. as supervisor campos mentioned, the great diversity that is on the board of supervisors is a great example of how right choice of voting has been good for the city. last year we had mayor lee when an election with an enormous voter turnout from the chinese community. the story of disenfranchisement i don't believe is the case. they came out in droves to support merely. in my district, there was an office that was empty because they had ever won at the polls already.

there is a lot of things that worked with ranked was voting, people voting in droves to support candidates. we were very savvy about how their votes laid out. that is where my vote is going to go today. i do appreciate the discussion. there is a lot we can do to make sure that our elections are democratic. supervisor elsbernd: i would like to initially responded to a few of the comments that have been used to justify the need to maintain ranked joyce voting. -- rank-choice voting. voter turnout. i think we can cite two examples that run off to produce more turned out. but the least be honest about

the numbers. if you took the total votes that avalos and lee got, total votes barely surpassed the total votes gavin newsom got as a single candidate in the december runoff. we can all use staff to push that. let's not raise the staff i have this that that cuts the deal. one point i would raise as we have been talking about voter turnout in the minority communities. it has become of the of the theoretical question, when you compare the turnout numbers to the actual experiences we had in san francisco, you see that we

have a minority turnout, but their votes were tossed out. you might ask yourself the question, what is worse? the voter that doesn't show tup, or one that shows up and because rank-choice voting is confusing, they're not counted. it's tossed out. the system as it is disenfranchises them. it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. more representative in terms of his body, be very careful with that. the romans that would use that are using the 2000 board of supervisors election as their base. to show that his body is more

representative of the 2000 import of supervisors, and that is absolutely true. that is because 2000 was the year district elections got put in place. what i am getting at, you had two straight white men he'd minorities. district 6. look at the board of supervisors elected in the '90s. we are celebrating today because

we have three women. i think that this city would be so much better off today if we had a one month discussion. the work we do here week to week will be more informed. members of the public would be more informed and i think that we would be a better educated electorate and it would make our job is more challenging and we would produce a better product. you have the power base where you did.

the voters on the west side would have been an opportunity to espouse your views, i think you would want that. i observed a lot of male role debates, the campaign. i would love to have had that discussion, but i bet we would have. rank choice of voting does not allow for that kind of discussion. you have negative campaigning, are we really try to tell ourselves we didn't have a negative campaigning? that with a run off, we had a big money? really? how did we really not have a lot

of big money spent. there was plenty of big money spent in an election with ranked joyce voting. let's be honest about this. rank choice of voting does not serve our citizens. runoffs have their problems, but by and large, when it comes to the essence of democracy and an educated electorate and the final point that supervisor farrell has made so hard, nine are here. supervisor olague has not yet stood for election. a majority of the electorate didn't vote for us. it just is not right. with less than a majority of the electorate voting for them.

ranked was voting is a flawed system. runoffs are not perfect, but they are an improvement. does this need be in the charter? there is nothing in the charter amendment -- it doesn't need to be in the charter. just as a factual point, there is one company that claims they can tell more than three candidates and they can only count 10 right now.

the company has not been certified and the last thing we want to do is empower a sole- source contract. by the way, if this makes a valid, i can't wait to see the campaign reports. i think i know who will fund this campaign. the second pieces that we will do our reach. could lead to a charter amendment for the back ordinance? we did great out reach. supervisor campos has appropriately called at the competitive measure. unless it changes the charter, everything you'rerying to talk

about you can do without it. supervisor kim: most importantly, unfortunately is not a discussion we have had. we have to have a shared understanding of what we're trying to accomplish. when is turned out greater? do we have greater turnout with ranked hoyas voting or run off? think we have all showed a bit of both. at least from the data i have seen, the turnout has always decrease -- my guess is that it also decreases for the runoff.

in the 99 and 2003 election, it did increase. if the goal was to maximize turnout, you should focus on the strategy on how to do that. if that is the goal at the end of the day, let's bring run off and back to the male role election if that is really our goal. the second thing we talked about is the cost to the city, to the residence and candidates. the greater the cost of the

city, that is something we already know. march, october, november, december, that was incredibly exhausting. both in terms of money and time. and speak of the folks that come out to work on all these elections. we're having them spend time on elections. at least it was a consideration for myself. i think that we can debate this point over and over. i think intuitively, runoffs make more sense. i think people understand ranked joyce voting, and i definitely spent a lot of time -- i never

met a person that didn't understand it and the measure to increase -- it doesn't necessarily have to be in the charter. i think we have to have some sharing agreements of what you're trying to accomplish with this. if you want the must democratic and the most widespread opinion in terms of the type of elections, we should put these before the voters in november. if i am not sure if it is a progressive or moderate issue. i have talked to progressives who are ambivalent to rank choice of voting. the dialogue should be saved for

an election were more people turn out. i appreciate this point that it was brought to us in a march election that shouldn't have happened. when we have matters of this gravity, which always go for maximum turn out in general and to be consistent with that. i think the data is pretty clear, we have been pointing out data on different types of races. i don't see voters coming out to vote twice. i certainly don't see them coming out twice for the city attorney's race, the public defenders, etc.. if you want to reconsider the mayoral race, it is a worthy consideration. the issue we are really trying to address his elections were we have multiple candidates of equal strength. we usually have two or three fairly strong candidates with

money and support. how we have had a few races where we have had more than that, seven or eight candidates of equal strength. it becomes incredibly unpredictable verses local pundits and the candidates themselves. i am not sure we can address that with any type of election system. i think < turn out, how they are really looking at that as the main issue. again, that is my opinion. and of course, the engagement of the democratic process. i appreciate the thoughtfulness that came from the multiple authors today. president chiu: colleagues, i

realize that supervisor kim has stated a lot of my own perspectives on this issue. we have to think about this beyond partisanship. the debate has evolved a little bit into a moderate verses progressive debate. they have both been elected under rehnquist's voting and i think it will continue. i agree that i don't think either measure should be considered in june for the sole reason, not because we haven't thought about it enough, but it is better to put this on the november however we have likely the highest number of voters in an election considering this at that time. someone like many of us who have been students of politics, i believe we have had decades of lack of diversity on many city legislative bodies because of the run off type systems.

this is why i also think that the diversity we have on this body is very much a function of the fact that we have had a right choice voting over the past decade. i am open to amending itch. we can support and outright repeal a reckless voting, but the second measure that we have that i do know is attempting to sort of fix some of the issues and ranked was voting, there are other ideas that might be able to come out. the idea of thinking about male world races differently was intriguing. i think the right thing for us to do today is not move either measure forward for june and continue to think about this and build more of a public dialogue around this for november. supervisor campos: i just want

to make a couple of comments about what happened within the mayor's race. i understand some of the points made about how maybe having a different system, a runoff system will change the nature of the dialogue. i do think that in the end, no system precludes a candidate from engaging in that type of discussion. i think that likewise, no system will force candidates to engage in a substantive discussion. a lot of it depends on the actual campaign, and i don't think that having one system over another is the ultimate solution to that lack of dialogue. i think the proposal that we

have put forward as the wright proposal. listening carefully to everything that has been said, my suggestion would be to move forward with the idea of bringing this discussion back to committee so that we can take into account some of the points that have been made. i know the number of us share the sentiment that it would be wrong at this point to eliminate range troy's voting. i would make a motion, since the prior motion did not succeed, we send item 13 back to committee with the understanding that it will give us an opportunity in the next few months to have the

discussion to have the right choices and even better. since the prior motion did not succeed, a move to table item 12 and send item 13 back to committee. supervisor olaguepresident chiue is not debatable, so we will move to a vote. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: no. >> there are six aye's and five no's.

president chiu: to the motion to continue. >> to refer back, a little articulation, there is nothing that we are referring back that needs to be in the charter. just to inform my vote, there is nothing in this measure that needs to be in the charter. the law as it currently stands allows us to rank as many candidates as we want. it is just adding verbiage of the charter. supervisor campos: with respect to the voter education peace, supervisor elsbernd, that is

something we have been working on with the city attorney's office. it is my understanding that if we want a voter education plan to come before the board of supervisors for an actual approval of the plan, it would have to be an amendment to the charter because as it presently stands, it is entirely up to the department of elections to decide what that looks like. and the reason that we include this way is that we wanted to make sure that we had an education plan that was fully vetted before the public, and we have as much input from different neighborhoods in different communities. one thing that i will say is that my hope is that between now and the time we have to decide whether or not to put something on the ballot, the measure may actually look different in the sense that some of the points could be incorporated. another are a number of people

support of of ranked joyce voting have believe there should be a different approach when it comes to a mayor's race as opposed to a supervisor's race. i am certainly open to discussing the possibility. i think it is something that we should be open to. i know that there are a number of other ideas that have been raised. i think having an item open allows us to have the opportunity to have a starting point for a discussion with the understanding that the final outcome may totally different. this option, i move to send it back to committee. supervisor olague: i was going to comment, i am open to the idea of discussing structural reforms to the issue, it is just

i am concerned about the september runoff date. in minessota, they moved it -- minnesota, they moved it back to august. i think it is possible that a lot of what is on the ter amendment being introduced by both supervisor campos and others do not require a charter amendment. i think it would be good. supervisor wiener: point of order. i thought it was a combined motion and we already sent it back to committe. e. president chiu: we did pass the table, but the motion to continue is on the floor.

>> in the most recent past, a total of 22 candidates in the race. one of the things that certainly took away some valuable lessons learned, when thing i do want to speak to supervisor farrell's issue about votes being tossed out. i agree, i am uncomfortable with a vote being tossed out, but i believe it is more of a correlation to people being not entirely educated on the exact messthod and the correct way to fill out ballots. it could also be a correlation to literacy rate. i don't believe it has to do

with ranked joyce voting, i liken it to the tax cut. we file taxes on an annual basis, there are things i do because i know that it is the way things work. i know if i jump off the desk, i will hit the ground. if it goes to the theory of relativity and gravity, we can educate ourselves and learn more about the systems. i am concerned about the money spent in elections, i believe that rank choice voting helps, t o some degree, minimize the impact of a high donor. or many donors turning out and

trying to influence the money. i would support supervisor chu and supervisor kim speaking earlier about putting the issue on the november ballot. the greatest number of people to weigh in on this very important item. president chiu: supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thanks. a few points of the questions that have been raised. we have had 10 years, how much more education do we need to do? people remain confused. second of all, as we have seen,

mr. hill has disgraced himself at the board of supervisors. cherry picking data from my point of view is disingenuous. if you're going to talk about these issues, you have to get a comprehensive point of view. i would love to see the people in the elections, and bring it into these chambers and tell them that it is working. it is ok hold your votes were tossed in the garbage. to me, it is not working. we talked about money. having another alexian costs more money. -- election costs more money.

protecting the right to vote is something i will spend money on every single day. i think it is a shame that we don't send this to the ballot. supervisor kim and everyone else's rights. moderates and progressives come to me that leavitt and moderates and progressives come to me that don't like it. it is a shame that we don't send it to the voters and we try to play parlor antics. we will live to fight another day, but i want to be clear about some of my arguments. supervisor wiener: we are now only on item 13, is that correct? i am not going to repeat the argument, i do not support item 13, the campos-avalos measure. weather we eliminate or