This is an archive of a past election.|
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/alm/ for current information.
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Election Consolidation Charter Amendment
City of Berkeley
Charter amendment - Majority approval required
23,660 / 72.2% Yes votes ...... 9,088 / 27.8% No votes
Index of all Measures
|Results as of May 4 2:39pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (80/80)|
|Information shown below: Fiscal Impact | Official Information | Impartial Analysis | Arguments | Full Text|
Shall the Charter of the City of Berkeley be amended to authorize the city council to adopt an instant runoff election system upon finding that acceptable voting systems and equipment make it technically feasible, consolidation of City election with County elections will remain feasible and the City will not incur additional election costs?
Berkeley Daily Planet
|Arguments For Measure I||Arguments Against Measure I|
|STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY; AVOID COSTLY RUNOFFS: VOTE
YES ON MEASURE I TO ALLOW INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING
(IRV) WHEN FEASIBLE.
* 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
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
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
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
|Full Text of Measure I|
|The People of City of Berkeley hereby amend the Charter of the
City of Berkeley to read as follows:
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.
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.