This year in Pierce County, charter amendment 3 would move county level elections to the statewide primary system. Currently, this would mean a move to the Top 2 primary system.

If amendment 3 passes and the parties win their lawsuit, then Pierce County will be at the whim of what happens on a statewide basis. The last time the Top 2 was thrown out, the legislature gave us the pick-a-party primary as our statewide primary system.

Don’t put us at the whim of the state legislature.

Reject amendment 3.

RCV is only a different set of rules for electing our public leaders. Under these rules, Mayor Nickels would still be on the November ballot along with Mr. McGinn and Mr. Mallahan.

The article is basically a rebuttal to critics of RCV and their assertion that having only two candidates in the general is somehow better because voters can focus on them. Seattle can now focus more on two political neophytes! Non-partisan top-two elections don’t necessarily produce the best candidates.

It’s Mayor Nickels voters who will have to make a second choice in the general that will likely determine the winner. Here’s a Washignton Poll study on Pierce’s Executive RCV race, “RCV has similar voting patterns as exhibited in traditional primary-general election contests”. (page14)

In my column I also take a few knocks at the State’s Top-Two and how elections for Seattle’s 43rd LD and 7th CD are notoriously uncontested. Washington’s Top-Two benefits entrenched incumbents. The “state election system” is basically a Top-One in terms of competitive races.

Seattle’s political establishment wanted a better second choice than what the primary produced. There was serious consideration of a write-in candidate. The Pierce repeal effort is led by the county’s political establishment. But as we’ve seen in Seattle, no election system is perfect – even to the insiders of our state’s biggest city.

There have been two court cases testing Ranked Choice Voting. One in 1975, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, showed RCV (which in Michigan went by the name of the “Ware” system) to be constitutional.

RCV was tested again earlier this year in Minneapolis. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously that RCV is constitutional and does not violate the one person, one vote rule.

RCV has been court tested. And has passed the test.

Reject Amendment 3.

Now, after being warned about the higher costs of running races on separate ballot cards, the Elections Department will be sending two ballot cards to each voter this fall. One ballot card will have only one race on it. This is a waste of more hundreds of thousands of dollars on printing and postage. Plus, voters will need to use two stamps to return their ballots.

While it would have taken some initiative to find a solution to this problem, our Elections Department should be aggressive in managing expenses. Of course, there is a political explanation for this lackluster effort: The auditor will be blaming RCV for this extra expense, while the real reason is her own lack of initiative.

If the auditor had taken advantage of these cost-saving measures, RCV would have resulted in lower total costs this year. Instead, she and her predecessor have run up expenses in order to discredit RCV. In jurisdictions where RCV is implemented properly, it saves money. It’s time for this to happen in Pierce County.

The proponents of Pierce County charter amendment 3 view the restriction of choice and competition as a good thing. To their way of thinking, voters are not smart enough to choose amongst a list of candidates. We believe voters choosing amongst a list of candidates is called democracy.

Voters who want more choices in November should reject amendment 3.

By choosing to use the wording “statewide primary system”, the amendment leaves the county at the whim of what happens on a statewide basis. This includes the possibility that Pierce County could be forced back to the pick-a-party primary. This is not something the voters of Pierce County want to have happen.

In 2006, the pick-a-party system was the statewide primary system. The voters of Pierce County had a chance to choose to change from the statewide primary system to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and decided RCV was a better system.

In 2009, the County Council wants to shift back to the statewide primary system. Reject amendment 3. Reject all three charter amendments.

Of course RCV was a scapegoat for causing long lines, delaying election results and triggering a major pandemic. Just kidding on the plague, but it does seem like RCV was blamed for all kinds of things! My point is RCV was so new and unknown that it was easy to throw unfounded blame at the reform. And the auditor even pointed some of the blame at RCV.

McCarthy caused another stir herself when she inserted a voter satisfaction survey into the mail-ballot envelope already thick with paper. She was also on that ballot as a candidate for County Executive. Her opponents cried foul that the survey was electioneering because, as Auditor, her name was on it. Many folks took the survey as tainted and didn’t send it back, but others responded to the question regarding RCV – a majority returning the survey saying they didn’t like RCV.

I speak to this reaction in my last post and it’s at the heart of the proposition “If Only?” I can only imagine, instead of a survey, what if there was an envelope insert that actually explained Why RCV? The survey was included in an auditors report regarding the costs of implementing RCV, so wishing for a Why RCV? flier included with ballots is not too lofty a thought.

Such an informational piece could have provided voters with enough information about the benefits of RCV that perhaps they could have compared it to the top-two. Remember last October and all of the negative campaigning? People could hardly wait until the election was over. Here’s a common interchange, last October, between myself and other Washingtonians:

Hey Krist – How’s it going?

I’m fine – How about you?

I’m OK but I can hardly wait for this election be over!

What do you mean?

I’m tired of all the political TV ads. Is there anything we can do about all the negative campaigning?

Yes there is, it’s called Ranked Choice Voting.

Imagine a world with less negative politicking. In San Francisco, where RCV is used, rival candidates actually endorse each other and some have even co-hosted events!!! Same in Burlington VT, where the local paper said that the RCV campaign was the most positive and issue-oriented election they could remember.

Positive campaigning is the result of the RCV dynamic where candidates are also competing for voters’ second choices. There was markedly less negative campaigning in the Pierce County RCV races.

Repealing RCV is a vote for the top-two, which is a system that exacerbates negative campaigning. Here’s why: with only two choices, the political strategy is to smear your opponent. Some voters might never vote for you, so you might as well make sure they don’t vote for the opposition either.

Like I said in my previous post, voters had RCV thrown in their laps without any real explanation of the benefits of the system. Proponents of Amendment 3 claim RCV is confusing. And if voters are indeed confused, no wonder – they were never really told Why RCV?

Even though the August 18^th primary is long behind us, it’s starting to feel like the start of election season.

I’m going to Blog up to the November ballot measure that will ask Pierce voters to repeal Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).

Although I’ve lived in Tacoma, and have many connections there –  this really is a state issue. If you discuss RCV with lawmakers, they’ll usually reply, “Let’s see how Pierce County goes.”

There was zero leadership on the issue from elected officials in Pierce and beyond. Go to the Pierce County elections site and see the part about Why RCV? It says, “In November of 2006, the voters of Pierce County approved Charter Amendment No. 3″

That’s it! That’s Why RCV! Nothing about the benefits of the system!

I’ve found that people like the idea of less negative campaigning, shorter campaign seasons, less money in elections, more choices on the ballot and opportunities for independent and third party candidates.

In 2008, Pierce voters only had RCV ballots thrown in their laps. There was a good “How To RCV” education effort but no real Why RCV? It’s almost a conspiracy of silence. Why tell voters Why RCV? That would only help it out!

If RCV is repealed in Pierce County, these same lawmakers will only have to say that voters rejected it. Having to only say this is very powerful, and again, liberates them from saying WHY RCV?

Please come back to this blog for frequent posts – I’ll say WHY RCV, compare RCV to the top-two and all its problems and a lot more. I’m going to raise hell, so it should be a fun read!

Tacoma City Council races use the “top-two” system, so candidates are able to raise twice as much money as they would be able to under ranked choice voting, doubling the influence of special interest money in politics. Ranked choice voting in Pierce County mitigates this influence. In fact, in last year’s county-wide RCV races, only 3 out of 6 winners were the biggers fundraisers in their respective races.