concern that i have is under the proposals that supervisors farrell and olague have provided, you are talking about using an extremely low turnout election to narrow field of categories -- to narrow a field of candidates in the mayor's office. a number of cities have been mentioned, including the city of new york, charlotte, north carolina, but if you look at the turnout numbers in those cities, what has happened in those cities should be reason for us to be alarmed about what was proposed. in 2009, turned up in the city of new york for mayor was 11.4%. in charlotte, north carolina, which has a population similar to san francisco, the turnout in the last mayoral election was 4.3%. the september primary in 2007

was also pretty low, 4.9%. we are not going into this blindly, in the sense that we have seen what happens when these kinds of efforts are put into place. it has not worked in new york city or charlotte, north carolina. it will not work in san francisco. i am especially concerned about the impact that having a major world election -- a major \ yor election in a low-turned out month. we want to see a lot of san franciscans vote. why would we hold an election for mayor in september when we know the likelihood that there will be high voter turnout in those communities, minority

communities, is unlikely? why would we do that, as san franciscans? i urge we reconsider that portion of what has been proposed. i know that supervisor olague has described her proposal as a compromise. there is a reasonable argument to be made that her proposal is even worse than what supervisor farrell is proposing. under her proposal, you create the possibility that people will be voting for sheriff and city attorney without actually cost -- casting a vote for mayor. that will mean that the turnout in those elections will be even lower than under supervisor farrell's proposal. i think there are a lot of reasons for us to pull back and not hold back on this. if we are going to truly modify and fake ranked joyce voting

better, -- make ranked-choice of voting better, we should take the time to study the unintended consequences that will come from what is being proposed. the fact is that the record on ranked choice of voting in san francisco has been positive. the parade of horribles described in terms of voter confusion have not materialized. the information analyzed by lafco clearly shows that people understand how the system works. if you compare ranked choice of voting and how we elect members of the board of education and the board of trustees of city college, there is less confusion when there comes to link choice of voting than there is in those elections. in terms of the three items before us, my preference would be that neither of them goes forward. if i had to choose, i think the item introduced by president chiu is the most reasonable

alternative here. let me be clear. taking votes on those three items, whether it happens today or next week, this will be a very important vote, and a defining moment. for those of us who have been involved in progressive politics for quite some time, the ranked choice of voting was about trying to make the democratic process in san francisco more democratic. we have seen more people look involved and come out to vote and be engaged in san francisco politics then we have seen before. it is for this reason the vote is so important for those in the progressive movement who fought to make this happen. it is up there in terms of its importance with the election of district supervisors.

we must make sure we do the time to do this right. i urge my colleagues not to support any of these items, going forward. if you have to support any of them, i think the item presented by president chiu is the way to go. supervisor wiener: thank you. president chiu: i will be supporting the motion to continue. we were apprised earlier today by the city attorney, who has been drafting this, that we need to make sure that the various ranked joyce voting amendments we have are consistent with the charter amendment we had recently passed. at this moment, we have just circulated, for both versions, technical amendments to make sure that the proposed charter amendments are consistent, and

to address a potential vacancy issue with either the mayor's office or the board of supervisors. i will not say much about the various versions of this point. we will have a longer debate next week. but i will say that i think the version i have proposed is much simpler for voters than the version that supervisor olague has proposed. in my version, the november ballot will not change in any way from last year. the only change is that there will be a male runoff election between the two strongest candidates if neither wins the majority. in supervisor olague's version, there is a september election only for the mayor's race. i think that is quite confusing for voters. but i think we will likely have more discussion on this next

week. two members of the public, today there is an opportunity for folks to make some comments. but i think it would be best, if possible, for us to have a more extensive debate next week. and there will be another opportunity. supervisor wiener: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i will keep my comments brief, because i think i have spoken on this issue. i do appreciate such a robust and engage discussion on how to have a democratically engage process around how we elect our representatives in the city. i think that as we discussed this, each and every time, i think i have a greater and nuanced appreciation for the systems we have. i do wholeheartedly support rank-troy's voting. as the discussion continues, my support actually increases,

versus decreasing. for a number of reasons i have alluded to before, while we have seen in every race where we have runoffs, with the exception of two mail races, we have seen a vast decline in the number of voters who come out to vote in the december runoff, whether it is the board of supervisors, city attorney, and other offices. i appreciate we are limiting discussions to the mayor's race. "we saw in 1999 and 2003 was that voter increase -- voter turnout did increase in december. that is a tough time to get people to vote. in the city, people are engaged. that month actually does not turn people away. another benefit i have seen in a runoff process, even though i feel some ambivalence about it because of the immense amount of energy and dollars it takes

to run extended campaigns, is that i have seen an increase in organizing, skill-building, a leadership development, and a lot of new people who get engaged in an election process in the last month of the election cycle. i am looking forward to hearing the public comment today, in terms of what people would like to see in how we do these types of elections. i am generally more supportive of president chiu's amendments. but for everyone who is sitting here today, it comes from a genuine place of really wanting to ask the voters what they think the best election process might be. we did get questions on why now, because the next mayor's race is three years away, so we have more time to study and examine different parts of the country. i agree with that, but we also know that the greatest turnout

will be this november election, because it is a presidential election. many of us will be running for our seats as well. in terms of getting the greatest turnout, i believe this is the year to do it, with an understanding that whatever is put out go-go to the voters for their decision making. again, i want to express my support overall that if we put something to the voters, and will most likely support president chiu's amendment, because i think it is less confusing. if we are going to have ranked choice of voting for every other seat, i think it should be consistent by having it be true of the male race -- mayoral race. i think there will be a more nuanced discussion because there are less candidates in the following month. supervisor elsbernd: just to the question of, why now, it is

worth repeating that when we brought this forward eight months ago for the june ballot, everybody said, not june, but november is the right time. all of a sudden, we are moving the goalposts again. when i look at history, the original sponsor of instant runoffs, a progressive caucus member -- when he introduced it, that was march, 2002. it did not take effect until 2007, a five-year window. a lot of progressives voted for that change.

maybe we can put aside that issue. i genuinely believe that is a cloak. that is a delay tactic. let us talk about the merits. but why now? let us be real. we know what will happen if this gets past november. the people in this room will think about running for mayor themselves. they would get skittish. other people are going to start influencing people who are not running for mayor. then, all bets are off. this is the perfect time to vote, when the politics of the next campaign are not influencing the decision. or maybe i am wrong. maybe the politics are already involved in canada's are already thinking of running for mayor. but let us talk about the issues. let us not use a delay. that is the cloak over the real argument. supervisor wiener: thank you, colleagues. are there any other comments? seeing none, we have a motion on the floor to continue.

i think there may be motions to amend as well. i would like to get all the motions on the floor. then, we will have public comment on the motions. for members of the public, everyone is welcome to comment. if these amendments are adopted, it will require a continuance. so there will be an opportunity next week, but not everyone may be able to come back. we have a motion on the floor to continue the items for one week, to the 17th, at 3:00 p.m.. is that correct? supervisor farrell: that is correct. there will be two motions to amend. supervisor wiener: you withdraw the motion? i think we can get them all on the floor, take public comment, and act on them. supervisor farrell: i withdraw the original motion. president chiu: i would like to

make a motion to amend the version i had at our last meeting. i circulated the amendment. it describes the technical amendments are deputy city attorney has suggested to supervisor farrell and myself to make sure the charter amendments are consistent with supervisor wiener's as well as to deal with any vacancies. i need to make an additional amendment, which would be on page two, subsection d, to reference sections 13.102 0.5 and section 13.102, to be consistent with the city charter. my amendment is as i just described, and i ask for your support. supervisor wiener: is there a second? seconded by supervisor avalos.

i think my inclination is to take all of the motions and to open it up to public comment. does that sound? whether additional motions to amend? supervisor farrell: on item 35, i have some similar -- an additional motion in terms of a technical amendment our city attorney has suggested to clean up to make sure it reconciles with supervisor wiener's charter amendment. the written description has been distributed. supervisor wiener: is there a second? by president chiu. those are the motions before us. if there are no other comments, i would like to open it up to public comment on items 32 and 35, as well as the motions to amend. we can act after public comment.

anyone who would like to make public comment, please line up. you will have two minutes. seeing none -- please line up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is judy. thank you for letting me speak here today. september elections, my god. hard to believe that a board of supervisors from san francisco would propose such a thing. a september election has a very low voter turnout. look at all these other cities. new york may laurel, 2009. turnout, 11.4%. can you imagine? charlotte, north carolina,

2009, 4.3%. boston and baltimore, turnout in the low 20's. there are many more. you get the idea. september elections have a very low voter turnout. research has shown that the voters, in september elections, are primarily older, like me, more affluent, and predominantly white, like me. it reminds me of when you had to own property in order to vote. luckily, we have the chiu amendment, which is more likely to preserve turnout. having the original ranked- choice of voting in november makes sense. more people vote in november, which means more democracy. if there is no majority, you could have a runoff in december. when a candidate gets a majority in the november election, the cost of the second election is saved. do i have to stop?

on a personal note, my father was involved in the civil rights struggle of the 50's and 60's. i grew up believing all americans are entitled to equal rights, including the right to vote. sometimes, you had to fight really hard to get those rights. this seems really similar. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the president of californians for electoral reform, a statewide non- partisan commission that works on ranked choice item. if you must, president chiu's proposal is least offensive. it provides a consistent experience to the voter, and is less likely to hurt turnout. items 33 m 35 have a september primary and a november runoff

seven or eight weeks later. having sat at the rules committee hearing, that is not sufficient time to turn around pellets from overseas voters in the military voters. as i read into the record then, this is an article about how counties missed the deadlines to send pellets overseas for the june primary. san francisco failed to meet the deadline. all of these proposals suffer from that particular defect. as far as september elections go, nobody in california votes in september. there will be a low turnout. in the case where a popular incumbent mayor is reelected in september, the november turn up for sheriff and district attorney will be low. the chiu proposal at least will attract voters to in november election. if there is a december runoff,

the turnout is likely to increase for a mayor. what is the rush? the next election is not until 2015. we need to analyze voter turnout before putting anything on the ballot. i urge you to vote against items 33 and 35. if you must put something on the ballot, vote for item 34. thank you. >> no electoral system is perfect. i am a strong advocate for instant runoff voting, and have been ever since i heard about it. i always have been somewhat bothered by the lack of a second look when electing one person, such as the mayor. i think supervisor chiu's

amendment has some merit to it. it also has some down sides. of course it will cost more money, and of course there is a chance of a lower turnout in that election. however, i think it is viable, and i think it answers some of the objections that some of you have to instant runoff voting. it is a great compromise. to me, it might even have more upside than downside, in the long run. it is worth trying. several people have already spoken to the extraordinarily low turnout of september elections. i will not further belabor that point, beyond saying that i believe our democracy, in many ways, is presently hanging by a thread. one only needs to look at the citizens united decision of the supreme court to see that, and

that is only one of many ways in which we know in our hearts that this is true. let us not do anything else that will further lower the number of people who take the opportunity to vote. let us not make san francisco a model of a less democratic city. thank you so much. >> greetings. could i get the overhead, please? thank you very much. that works perfectly. i was not going to talk about this, but i am an ex-new york for. i frequently hear september mentioned. i cannot think of anything more wrong. that was the year we suspended term limits because we like mayor bloomberg so much. after the 2008 financial crisis, we wanted him to stay.

of course the primary was low. you are ill advised to consider that primary without the details. i am strongly against ranked choice of voting. i think the power of the mayor's office is too strong, and we need a direct link. i do not think there is any way to communicate what a sick puppy this last election was. tom amiano, when he lost, got a lot more votes than ed lee. many losers got more votes. it was not just one or two elections. consistently, the results are much higher than we saw in this ranked choice election. you are not good to fix it with new voting machines. in terms of confusion, the ballot is not confusing. i went to starbucks on the way down here. that was more confusing than the election. but this is a voter information

pamphlets. it is going to be a majority. it said it twice. could not be more false. of the can of you elected, only eight had a majority. there is no disclaimer. if walmart or best buy it did this, there would be penalties and fines. how many election experts looked at this and got it wrong? then, try to tell me there is no confusion. there is significant confusion. i will have more next week. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is david carey. i was actually impressed that the chamber of commerce, the san francisco chamber of commerce this last week, offered an

additional candidate they have not shown in the past, about their position in rank choice of voting. in the past, they have not taken a stand. but they put out their report card, what they call their paychecks and pink slips scorecard, because i guess the chamber of commerce pays the board of supervisors and decides who to hire and who to fire. they acknowledged the biggest issue in san francisco is jobs and the economy. one of the top 10 factors, apparently, is ranked choice voting. i had not realized ranked joyce voting was a jobs killer in san francisco, but apparently, that is what the chamber of commerce thinks. i had not realized that having more elections was a way to have more efficient government. but that is what they are

backing. you can take them at face value. you can believe that they are really interested in the magic number of 50%. because electing somebody with 50% of 16% turnout is a much better way of electing officials in san francisco than using ranked joyce voting. -- choice voting. i am kind of lost their. if someone can explain that to me, let me know. i think there is something else behind their position. everything we have seen that they support has been lower -- president chiu: next speaker.

>> ♪ the ones the city gives you give it your all go asked alice i think she will know when the men at the voting poll tell you where to go and you have just had some kind of literature and you really don't know and it is all confused remember just one thing remember, give it everything and you will really all the good things bring ♪ ♪ i hope your ranked voting in elections really, really goes just great i want to tell you one thing

i give you all a four-star rate i can hardly wait i can hardly wait for september morn. we voted until the night became a brand new day i hope everything really goes your way september voting sure can make you feel that way ♪ president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> that is a tough act to follow. hello, supervisors, mr. president, madam clerk. instead of reviewing score voting and why it is so great, i have noticed a bit of a pattern. we are talking about different elements in an election. there was a choice to have a run off or not, and a threshold. these are not independent

elements, but work together. i do feel that this debate really focuses on the runoff. it is only one aspect. it is as if we are trying to build the best race car. we have our choice of transmission and our choice of wheels. we are kind of talking about what wheels to use. that is a decision that must be made, but i feel we are overlooking the idea that we should get a better engine. that, of course, would be score voting. that is independent from your choice to have a runoff or not. when the rubber hits the road, that is the real test. i understand that politics is more about war, blood, and power than policy, and i come from a numbers perception. i am not from any unrealistic assumption that this would get done. but if anybody here has the act of political courage to put this