City Council Election Poll: An Experiment

By Mike Devlin

I usually don't care for unscientific polling, but I want to try something a little different.

As part of the recently-announced settlement in the California Voting Rights Act, the City Council elections might see two big changes beginning in 2016. First, we're moving our election to November. This will happen one way or another – either on the same ballot as everything else or in a separate election run by the city.

But the more unusual and controversial change (subject to court approval) is something called cumulative voting. Cumulative voting is where you get as many votes as there are seats to fill, but you can spend more than one vote on a single candidate.

We're going to leave the pros and cons to another day and just try an experiment. I've made a short two-question poll. The first question asks how you would vote in the way we've always voted. So just vote as you intend to vote next Tuesday. One vote per candidate, up to three votes total.

The second question asks you to vote for the same candidates, but with a cumulative voting method. You get three votes in all, and you just type in how many votes you want to give each candidate.

We're not looking to forecast the election, but to see how one set of preferences might lead to different outcomes under each way of voting. And what better time, when we're in the heat of the election this this.

So please, give it a go. Vote once, of course, and vote honestly. Responses are anonymous and I'll post the results later this week. Should be interesting.

Take the poll here.

Comments (9)

timothymyers02Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 10:15 am

I predict that one of the impacts of cumulative voting will be the virtual elimination of "clown" candidates. While these candidates currently do get protest votes from anti-incumbent voters they will now have the option to concentrate their votes behind ONE candidate.

donrickettsMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 10:40 am

I have some difficulty understanding how moving elections to November and cumulative voting "reduce the vote dilution," the predicate for and rationale for the settlement recited in the Settlement Agreement (para. 18) assuming, for the sake of argument, that there has been vote dilution and a violation of the Voting Rights Act. November voting will, presumably, increase voting by everyone not just the plaintiffs and the protected class. Everyone will get cumulative voting, not just the plaintiffs and the protected class. So how is anything changed?

timothymyers02Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 11:01 am

donricketts: Corporate law introduced cumulative voting so that minority shareholders could elect at least one representative to the board of directors. Vote concentration could also empower anti-incumbent voters since they could concentrate their votes behind an affinity candidate.

donrickettsMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 11:22 am

I understand the theory, but don't get it. The fault is probably mine; I must be missing something.. Pro-incumbent voters can also concentrate their votes behind the incumbent.

MikeMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 1:01 pm

I'm undecided on whether it's a good idea, but pro-incumbent voters can't concentrate their vote when there is more than one incumbent. It's less pronounced in a 2-seat race, but in a 3-seat race, it does give a better chance to a candidate who has the strong support of a relatively small portion of the population.

donrickettsMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 2:00 pm

You can hypothesize various scenarios when there are 2+ candidates for a given seat or more than one seat open. Supposing there is more then one minority candidate? Some commentators point out that in that situation no minority candidate might get elected. This is murky.

timothymyers02Tuesday, April 1st, 2014 at 11:33 am

Part of the problem with incumbents is that with a plethora of challengers the anti-incumbent folks (around 53% recently) dilute their votes across all challengers. If they concentrate on one challenger they could do better, but multiple minority candidates would again dilute the minority or anti-incumbent vote. In the corporate context, the minority shareholders DELIBERATELY concentrate their votes around one director to make sure they get elected.

HenryJenningsMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 9:18 pm

The plaintiffs' attorneys agreed to it as it meant a quick settlement and a wad of cash.

philellisMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 4:20 pm

Don, don't look for a rational understanding - remember we are dealing with the law.

timothymyers02Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 10:15 am
I predict that one of the impacts of cumulative voting will be the virtual elimination of "clown" candidates. While these candidates currently do get protest votes from anti-incumbent voters they will now have the option to concentrate their votes behind ONE candidate.
donrickettsMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 10:40 am
I have some difficulty understanding how moving elections to November and cumulative voting "reduce the vote dilution," the predicate for and rationale for the settlement recited in the Settlement Agreement (para. 18) assuming, for the sake of argument, that there has been vote dilution and a violation of the Voting Rights Act. November voting will, presumably, increase voting by everyone not just the plaintiffs and the protected class. Everyone will get cumulative voting, not just the plaintiffs and the protected class. So how is anything changed?
timothymyers02Monday, March 31st, 2014 at 11:01 am
donricketts: Corporate law introduced cumulative voting so that minority shareholders could elect at least one representative to the board of directors. Vote concentration could also empower anti-incumbent voters since they could concentrate their votes behind an affinity candidate.
donrickettsMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 11:22 am
I understand the theory, but don't get it. The fault is probably mine; I must be missing something.. Pro-incumbent voters can also concentrate their votes behind the incumbent.
MikeMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 1:01 pm
I'm undecided on whether it's a good idea, but pro-incumbent voters can't concentrate their vote when there is more than one incumbent. It's less pronounced in a 2-seat race, but in a 3-seat race, it does give a better chance to a candidate who has the strong support of a relatively small portion of the population.
donrickettsMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 2:00 pm
You can hypothesize various scenarios when there are 2+ candidates for a given seat or more than one seat open. Supposing there is more then one minority candidate? Some commentators point out that in that situation no minority candidate might get elected. This is murky.
timothymyers02Tuesday, April 1st, 2014 at 11:33 am
Part of the problem with incumbents is that with a plethora of challengers the anti-incumbent folks (around 53% recently) dilute their votes across all challengers. If they concentrate on one challenger they could do better, but multiple minority candidates would again dilute the minority or anti-incumbent vote. In the corporate context, the minority shareholders DELIBERATELY concentrate their votes around one director to make sure they get elected.
HenryJenningsMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 9:18 pm
The plaintiffs' attorneys agreed to it as it meant a quick settlement and a wad of cash.
philellisMonday, March 31st, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Don, don't look for a rational understanding - remember we are dealing with the law.