speak on public comment. >> i would like to speak specifically to the comment you made about your discomfort about being no. 2. for me, it is a great relief to be at the number two, if i want to choose number-one who has a slight chance of winning. a member of the green party and generally hesitated to vote for green in the elections where i think they have a very small chance of winning for exactly the reason that they have a small chance, and i would rather vote for the lesser of two evils. you are giving people a really fair chance to get their inner- most needs established, to book

their conscious and the person they would like to have to increase the number one focus of someone they are not certain that will be very popular, and you also feel assured if they cannot have the person elected they would like to see elected, that they get to see someone elected that they would like to see an office. i feel opposite from the way you do. i hope you take that into account. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i am happy to be here to not support ring tories voted. i am not here to support your amendment. i am here to advocate for score boardivoting. you get to reach each of the candidates on a simple, arbitrary score of 0-4. you add up the sum total, and a person with the most votes wins.

it is pretty simple. this is a list of organizations that are currently using score voting, although they do not advocate it. i am pleased to report, at the end of the month they will use core voting for the endorsement process. it has the benefits of both, but the detriment of either of the systems. it is extremely easy to understand. and there is precinct counting. like irv, it can be done without a runoff, but it can be done with the run of. those are different qualitative decisions. it also has other additional benefits. for example, you could always vote your favorite, even under the most to check of instances, and the has less physical ballot space, which will cut down on costs of what you usually need,

and it will only find the center of the constituent of the spectrum that your constituency is in. besides the qualitative reasonings, we also have quantitative ones. this was developed by princeton math ph.d., warren smith, but essentially like a golf score where lower is better. it measures how satisfied the voters are with the system. the best in storm runoff voting. i advocate to get in amend. think very much. >>hank you very much. >> richard winger. i i hav i have been a poll worker for years.

they work for very low money. there is a problem that these core of people will get exhausted, especially under the proposal in that gubernatorial years. we would have elections in june and september and november, and it is not just the poll workers, but a whole army of city employees who are out in the field helping them. i feel it is expensive and not worth the money. >> thank you very much. next speaker. take my name is jim lindsay. thank you for doing this in the summer. when i heard about this, my gut reaction was a late april fool's joke or something. we will really have more elections? that is what we need? i tried to find out what the cost was. the lowest i have seen as 3.3

million. the highest number was 4.2 million. split the difference, because advocates always go high, and people always sort of fudged a little bit toward their side unintentionally, but that is what they do. i, to 3.7 5 million. that is my best guess to reality. -- i came out at 3.75 million. really? what happened at the end september primary? i would guess 25-30% of the people will come out and vote, because it really does not mean anything and everyone will know that, except which people are going to be in the final, and i will vote because it is owed, but most people are not like that. i think it is a special election, and people do not show

up to special alexian's very much. also, the main it campaign will be in san the negative. so that is just what is going to happen, and we all know that. it is also agreed to be very expensive. i was a fund-raiser for an election that when to run off, and there was almost a divorce. it is really hard on the people. it is really hard on the candidates to have the extra elections. we do not need it. let's keep what we have, make it better with the education. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. eric brooks representing the san francisco green party. just to pick up where the last speaker left off, this rink chosank choice voting measure,

speaking in strong opposition. boaters are already hard-pressed enough to get the work done in gooand go out and spent another campaign. this is needed to protect social services and social justice and environmental justice. it is crucial for us to be able to vote for people. it was crucial for me in the first time to actually be able to bring people i care about in an election. that was incredibly manpower and as a voter. the green party was not able to just indoors the green, but indoor supervisor kim and debra walker. that was profoundly important to the election. most importantly, this is important to democrats.

i do not know how many of you get link tv. you probably saw dennis to spinackustinich speaking recent. he has decided to not run again in washington. and i think that is because of where the democratic party is headed. he is not empowered. the party is drifting power and farther away. -- further and further away. until we can get that to bubble up to the national level, the democratic party will keep drifting like that, and we will keep weakening and weakening. we need to give these democrats real third-party choices of a good democrats can rise up in the ranks. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i live in work in san francisco and have been a police

inspector for several years. in this june's election california puts the famous system proposed by supervisor rod. a top to primary in which voters choose a top-10 canada. california has used this in more than 150 races. all of what was predicted from his proposal has come to pass in this election. for example, voting in ballots were rampant. congressional district 8, 13 candidates in the top two and one with only 15% of the total votes cast to each. this is far fewer candidates than in some san francisco races. similarly, in congressional district 31, the predominantly-

latino districts, two white republicans advanced to november. the third-place canada, a latina democrat, was knocked out because the general electorate was older, whiter, and healthier. what good does add -- what good does add to do if they are not the right candidates? the right way to avoid this is to avoid rank choice boating in november, or an advance of more than just two candidates. thank you. >> let me also just say, if anyone has not been called, please feel free to step up and get in line. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. our organization is strongly opposed to this measure. i want to put into the record

this article but a feared in california watch. the headline is the county has missed the deadline to send about its overseas and military voters, and san francisco was one of those counties. this requires military and overseas be sent their ballots 45 days before the election appeared . i note that in 2015, the next election for mayor, will only be seven weeks between your september primary in november runoff, and that will happen to out of every seven elections. in any given year when the assessor and public defender is elected, that will require the department of elections to send out separate ballots for the november election. one in plenty of time to satisfy

the move act, and one for the city runoffs. i also know your measure and does -- and does consolidation, which is unfortunate, because your own doing cost saving for the city. i know the main concern seems to be with the major election, so why don't you want this to go to the mayor's election? given this is not until 2015, no reason to rush onto the ballot this november here did you have plenty of time to craft a measure that just applies to the mayoral election. and i will distribute copies of this. >> thank you, supervisors. like his two predecessors, this will reduce the number of participating boaters. it will reduce the number of fully-participating voters. it will increase the number of exhausted boats, and it will

elect winners with fewer votes from a less-representative group of voters. it is time to call the third strike on this misconceived effort. low turnout, september primaries are horrible idea. this would plummet into the teens. the flaws of this proposal run deeper. simple plurality primaries are not a fair way to narrow the field of candidates, regardless of origin -- of when the primaries are schedules, and regardless of whether they have pre-emptive victors. before the next mayoral election, san francisco can upgrade the election equipment, giving voters simpler ballots, and removing the three-choice limit. that is the kind of real improvement san francisco deserves. san francisco's highest rates of exhausted boats and invalid votes are typically in the

remaining traditional alexian's. -- not in traditional elections. these methods are so and, as for misrepresenting boaters and surprising diversity that peopl. -- suppressing diversity. finally, i would like to mention the need to start publishing tallies of preliminary results on election night. reporting only first choices is bad policy and undermines transparency and trust and confusing and misleading for the public. second and third choices are already in the computer, and it takes the computer less than a month to tabulate. >> good afternoon. ♪ take me down to the paradise city where rules committee can

count on the kiddie. please count it good. take me down to the paradise city where rules committee count on the boats in the kitty. please take me home and count them good. and ♪ you have to hold on the books you got. believe it or not, you got a lot. living on voting prepare. take my hand and you will count all that is there. in♪ ♪ take my hand, and you will count all that is theire, living on voting power rayer ♪ >> i just want to come in and weigh in. i very much support runoff

election-type voting. i think it is most instinctual, natural kind of election to have it. i know a lot of people bring up monday when they talk about this, but i also feel they are willing to spend money on a lot of things that i did not agree with. i think it is worse extra money that winds up being spent. i think it will increase voter participation. >> thank you very much. >> steven hill. first of all, i want to clarify the record. i hate to cite your numbers, but

you leave me no choice. you continue to get out erroneous numbers. you said poll after poll shows voters are confused. the only credible poll that we have that was done by a credible organization is san francisco state university showed 87 percent of sanford says go voters understand crank troy's boating. the other ones have been paid for by the chamber of commerce, and that is unknown opponent to bring tourists boating, so i think the polls are not credible. you also put out a figure that sit in the last election there was one% over votes. the over boat rate was 0.41%. sometime in the memory you have more than doubled the number of votes that occurred in the mayoral election. you said there were up to 3% thrown away in the 2010 race. i want to show you the figure right here. this is the over boats that happened in the june 5 primary,

which we just had, compared to the mayoral election in 2011. the big cars over here are the june primary-- big bars over here are the june primary election. over here we see the 2010 races. you can see these are for the u.s. senate races in june 2005 election. -- june 2012 election. the u.s. senate rates were way higher, and even higher than the district tend race, and it disproportionately impacted minorities, so you continue to cite these numbers, even though there are many other elections where the over vote rate was the top two primary, which you are trying to introduce for san francisco in september. the system you are introducing

-- supervisor farrell: thank you. i once again appreciate your personal attacks. thank you, colleagues, for insuring that again. i appreciate everyone who came out to speak about the issue. i appreciate people's opinions for sure. public comment is closed? >> at this time, public comment is closed. supervisor kim: for the matter of public meetings, we should as much as possible engage in respectable disagreement on these issues. i note they inspire a lot of strong opinions, but i think as much as possible i do respect the position of our supervisors, even when i do disagree with them. i think it is important for us to maintain that atmosphere here

in chambers. supervisor campos: thank you. i certainly agree about making sure we are engaging in respectful debate. i do think mr. hill was simply trying to point out some of the counter information to the point, and there is a way we can have different perspectives in a respectful way. i certainly did not take it that way, but one thing i would say is one of the concerns that i really have with the proposal, and i do not want to repeat this point, but i do think the practicality of having a september election is something that does are really. one of the things that i have heard from the elections department is that resources are very limited, and i think given

the number of elections already having, we have a june primary that will take place in respect of of what we do locally. perhaps state elections, whether it is presidential or what not, and then you have an november election. i do worry about whether or not we are setting the elections department up for failure in terms of adding another election. i do worry about that. i think one of the considerations we should always take into account is the extent to which we may need to increase resources if there is an additional requirement placed on any agency. that is something our worry about, and something we need to think about. again, i am generally not supportive of this idea. i can see the benefit, or at

least the point that has been made in terms of the mayor's race, how having the runoff can give that choice. personally, i think it would be a lot more appealing if the goal was not only to give a clear choice, but to maximize voter turnout, which is the most important is we have a locally. i think one way to do that that would not be very difficult would be to move mayoral elections to a presidential year. i think that is the goal to maximize voter turnout. that is something that could be done pretty easily, though i do not know there would be a willingness to do that. in any event, i appreciate the proposal and discussion, i just do not think this is the direction in which we should be headed, so i will not be

supporting this. thank you. supervisor kim: i did want to ask supervisor farrell, regarding supervisor campos' point with the capacity of running a september primary election. supervisor farrell: we have not had discussions with them recently cents the prior debate. the discussions were while it would be more of a burden, it is something that could get accomplished. appreciate all things we do in city hall take more time and effort. i was of the opinion this is worth it. certainly it does not make it easier, if you will. i certainly appreciate those concerns and comments. >> another question i had was the 65%.

the way it is currently written, if we have multiple candidates in a primary, but when canada was able to get 65% + one of the votes, that they would when all right. curious as to how there is an openness to that if it was based on other types of election systems and other counties. to gsupervisor farrell: obviousy the goal is to maximize voter turnout. we have talked about that round and round of this committee. the notion of when you have a runoff system, if you will have november be the first boat or sick of it, inherently it will happen to the most voters. what we want to say is the reason september election came about was we wanted to have the most voters boat in the runoff for the final decision. that is why we went to a

september election. admittedly, all loading systems are flawed in their own ways. 65 percent was mentioned by a lot of people. it is something i'd admit i am open to discussing. the concept, which i generically supported was that because the september election would have less voters then november as with a december runoff. we wanted to mixture to the extent there was a remotely competitive race, that it would go to the general election. i think anyone would say if someone got more than 65% of the vote, that was not be stopped anything by a number of suggestions, which people coalesce around. it was saying at that point in time, we acknowledge you have the vast majority of votes, and we can declare them the winner. i have heard a lot of people have suggestions of why not just the top to generically? -- top two generically?

the theory behind it was to say we want to make it challenging for someone to win an outright september election for citywide office, because we know in november there will be a much higher voter turnout in one to promote that. supervisor kim: thank you. i have a better understanding of for the concept came from. i do not support this as is. i think certainly for the city attorney, public defender share of, i do not think a to-election system is one that would work for the citywide races, and that turnout would decrease if we held to elections for those offices, so i am happy to move this forward to the full board for a larger discussion on

tuesday, no way we do not have the support of the full committee. so, i would definitely entertain a motion to move forward without recommendation -- with that recommendation. supervisor farrell: i appreciate the support of my colleagues. i think that is what would be appropriate here. we can move that forward without full recommendation. i look forward to continuing the discussion. supervisor kim: we do have a motion to move forward item number one. we can do that without recommendation. at this time, we are moving into closed session. do we have a motion? at this time, if there is any public comment on this item, please do come up and speak before week closed chambers for are closed session item agenda.

seeing none -- ok, we do have one speaker. >> ♪ i hope the law assesuit tus out good. no more smoke on the water. no more smoke on the water ♪ supervisor kim: thank you. we do ask all members of the public to