23,660 / 72.2% Yes votes ...... 9,088 / 27.8% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

• Official WWW Site

Written Pros & Cons from the League of Women Voters

Click on "Ballot Measure Pros & Cons" under the heading "Non- partisan information for Alameda County voters" Scroll down to page 5 of the document.

Berkeley Daily Planet

• Berkeley Votes on Voting Changes - February 27, 2004

• City Measure Proposes Instant Runoff Voting - February 20, 2004

• Berkeley eyes election changes - February 16, 2004

• Change in voting procedures goes to voters in Berkeley - February 16, 2004

• Instant-runoff voting on ballot in Berkeley
  Voters get chance to follow S.F., but state has final say - February 7, 2004

• IRV STRENGTHENS DEMOCRACY. It increases the number of citizens who pick the winning candidate. With IRV, you vote in the general election and in the "instant runoff" at the same time. All voters have a chance to participate in selecting the winner. Without IRV, people may have to go back to the polls in the December holiday season. Many don't do it, so turnout is 20-40% lower than in the November general election. This means the winner is selected by fewer people; many people, including working and disabled people, are disenfranchised.

 * IRV IS CAMPAIGN REFORM. It shortens campaign time and costs. Runoff elections greatly increase the costs for candidates, discouraging citizens from running for office. A previous mayoral runoff campaign cost the two final candidates an additional $150,000. 

 * IRV IS SIMPLE AND EASY FOR VOTERS. Voters can rank their first, second and further choices, so no runoff is necessary. Even second graders have used IRV with no problem. 

 * THIS MEASURE ENABLES IRV. IRV will be implemented only when it is technically and legally feasible and financially advantageous to Berkeley. 

 * VOTE YES ON INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING--Join the League of Women Voters, Berkeley Common Cause, Californians for Electoral Reform, Sierra Club, Supervisor Keith Carson, School Board President John Selawsky, Mayor Bates and Councilmembers Breland, Maio, Hawley, Spring, Worthington and voters in San Francisco, Oakland, San Leandro and Santa Clara County.

STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY! REDUCE THE COST OF ELECTIONS! 

More info: http://www.irv4berkeley.org

s/NANCY BICKEL, individually, and on behalf of, President, League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville 

s/MIRIAM HAWLEY, Councilmember

s/LONI HANCOCK, Assemblywoman

s/HELEN BURKE, Sierra Club

s/DARRYL MOORE, Trustee, Peralta Community College 

• IRV IS NOT CAMPAIGN REFORM. The Alameda County Registrar of Voters stated "As an election official with nearly twenty years of experience conducting elections, I can assure you that this type of system would result in very high numbers of disqualified ballots and disenfranchised voters."  
• IRV IS A STEP BACKWARD. In the 2000 London mayoral election, of the 581,761 first choice votes for eliminated candidates, only 36% were counted in the second round. If IRV is reform, why were 64% of these second choice votes not counted?  
• IRV IS NOT SIMPLE. The 2000 Florida fiasco showed that even the "complexity" of a butterfly ballot can be fatal.  
• IRV COSTS MORE. If IRV was used in the 2004 municipal elections, Berkeley would have to hold a special election at possibly a different date than the general election, at great cost and substantially lower voter turnout.  
• RUNOFFS CAN INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION. In San Francisco's mayoral elections, more citizens voted in three of the last four runoffs than in the general elections.  
• IRV DOES NOT REQUIRE A MAJORITY. The 2000 London mayor won with a 45% plurality.  
• VOTE NO ON INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING + Join Senator Don Perata, Vice-Mayor Shirek, Councilmembers Olds and Wozniak, Police Review Commission Chair William White and businesswoman Helen Meyer.

s/JESSE GABRIEL, ASUC President, 2002 +2003

s/DEAN METZGER, Chair, Transportation Commission/President, Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association

s/JANICE THOMAS, President, Panoramic Hill Association

s/SARA MacKUSICK, Chair, Community Environmental Advisory Commission/Vice-Chair, Citizens Budget Review Commission

s/MAUDELLE SHIREK, Vice Mayor

• Voting systems should not be changed without very careful study. The methods used to elect representatives are critical to our democracy. Although our present plurality voting system has many faults, it has one overwhelming advantage. It is simple enough for everyone to understand. 

• Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is very complicated and confusing. SPOILED BALLOTS will be more common.

1. He cannot allow Berkeley to consolidate its general municipal election with the statewide election, if it uses an IRV system. 

2. Neither current ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES nor ABSENTEE BALLOTS can handle both IRV and traditional elections on the same ballot.

3. An election utilizing two methods of voting (traditional and IRV) would result in MASSIVE VOTER CONFUSION.

IRV is MORE EXPENSIVE because Berkeley's municipal election cannot be consolidated with Alameda County.

The recently revealed flaws in electronic voting machines will be magnified with IRV. A paper trail may be impossible with the complicated transfer of votes between candidates. 

In most forms of IRV ALL VOTES ARE NOT COUNTED nor IS A MAJORITY REQUIRED TO WIN.

THE SPECIFIC FORM OF IRV SYSTEM IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BALLOT MEASURE + there are many forms of IRV. 

Which one are you voting for? YOU DO NOT KNOW. Let's wait until we know what works and what we are voting on. Keep our traditional voting system!

VOTE NO on Instant Runoff Voting!

s/MAUDELLE SHIREK, Vice Mayor

s/BETTY OLDS, Councilmember

s/GORDON WOZNIAK, Councilmember

s/WILLIAM WHITE, Chair, Police Review Commission

s/HELEN MEYER, Executive Vice President, Meyer Sound

• INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING IS NOT ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA. The City Attorney analysis shows no legal problems. Approval of IRV voting systems by the Secretary of State is imminent.  

• MEASURE I MAKES SURE IRV WILL BE ADOPTED IN BERKELEY ONLY WHEN IT MEETS ALL LEGAL AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. IRV will be implemented only when authorized voting systems can consolidate elections with county and statewide elections. This means costs will not increase.   

• CITIZENS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY AND DISCUSS THE SPECIFIC IRV SYSTEM THOROUGHLY BEFORE IT'S ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.   

• INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND TO DO. Just mark your first choice, and, if you wish, second and additional choices. Vote for your favorite candidate first, then for one you could live with.   

• ALL VOTES FOR FIRST CHOICES ARE COUNTED--just like current elections.   

• ALL VOTERS CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNOFF, SO MORE PEOPLE ELECT THE WINNERS. If there's no immediate majority winner, second and further choices are counted. The winning candidate usually gets more than 50% of the votes in the instant runoff.   

• NO MORE FEARS YOU'LL HELP A CANDIDATE YOU DISLIKE GET ELECTED. IRV would have made Al Gore president, because Nader voters in Florida would have ranked Gore as their runoff choice.   

• BETTER REPRESENTATION--Candidates representing your views will have a better chance to win votes-whether neighborhood activists or environmentalists.  

• STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY! SAVE TAX DOLLARS !

s/TOM BATES, Mayor of Berkeley

s/WILLIE HAROLD, Human Welfare and Community Action Commissioner

s/ANURADHA JOSHI, Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) External Affairs Vice-President

s/MAX ANDERSON, East Bay League of Conservation Voters, Boardmember

s/NANCY BICKEL, individually, and on behalf of, President of the League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany and Emeryville

Section 1.  Article III, Section 5, shall be amended to add subsection (12) to read as follows:

(12)         Use of instant runoff voting in lieu of runoff elections   For purposes of this charter "instant runoff voting" shall refer to a voting system which, in a single election, determines the candidate supported by the voters.  Notwithstanding any section of this charter to the contrary, upon a determination by the city council of all of the following, that: a) the voting equipment and procedures are technically ready to handle instant runoff voting in municipal elections; b) instant runoff voting will not preclude the City from consolidating its municipal elections with the County; and c) instant runoff elections will not result in additional City election costs, the council may by ordinance establish a system of instant runoff voting for the offices of mayor, city council, and auditor, in any manner permitted by the State of California Elections Code.  Once the council institutes a system of instant runoff voting, future elections shall be conducted as instant runoff voting elections, unless the council finds that circumstances have changed such that one or more of the prior council findings required by this section are no longer valid.  In such case, the council shall articulate the specific basis therefor in order to suspend an existing system of instant runoff voting.  The fourteenth paragraph of Section 9 of Article V relating to the percentage threshold to trigger a runoff election shall have no application to a system of instant runoff voting. The city clerk shall conduct voter and community education to familiarize voters with instant runoff voting.

Section 2

The People find that the passage of a charter amendment on the ballot at the March 2004 election to reduce the threshold for triggering runoff elections and to delay any such election to the February of the year following the general municipal election does not conflict with this amendment.