SF’s Mayoral Candidates: RCV Confusing for Voters – Waters Down Debate

It’s been promoted that Ranked Choice Voting will force candidates to have a more substantive debate.  But candidates have said it waters down candidates true positions and debates as they barter for 2nd and 3rd place votes.

Here’s their comment from a recent debate when asked about RCV (note, only 9 of the 33 declared candidates were present)

Dennis Herrera: “(RCV) makes the choice for the electorate much more difficult because it is much more difficult to highlight the differences that exist”  “I’m partial to runoffs.  I this it is good to have that one on one debate with an individual and I think it serves the electorate better to have clear distinctions among the candidates.

Phil Ting: Goes on to say that campaigning has been positive, but it is early.

Joanna Rees: “I think RCV is confusing to people”

John Avalos: I believe we are running campaigns that often conceal our differences rather than reveal our differences

Leland Yee: Forces us to campaign outside our support base.  Note: Yee wrote the argument AGAINST SF’s IRV Proposition in 2003

Michela Alioto-Pier:  “Truthfully, I think that the (RCV) system is very confusing”  Then she goes on to describe RCV incorrectly stating “People go out there an vote for one person three times, thinking that that strengthens your vote.  In fact your ballot is them thrown out because you voted incorrectly.”

If, after 7 years and dozens of RCV elections in SF, the candidates find voters confused and even some of them can’t describe it without making mistakes, is it really easy as 1, 2, 3?

Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
%d bloggers like this: