Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/29/2018 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB390 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 390 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2018
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Justin Parish, Co-Chair
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky, Co-Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative John Lincoln
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative DeLena Johnson (alternate)
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 390
"An Act establishing a ranked-choice primary election system for
nomination to state executive and state and national legislative
offices; establishing a ranked-choice general election system
for election to state and national legislative offices;
repealing the special runoff election for the office of United
States senator or United States representative; and requiring
certain written notices to appear in election pamphlets and
polling places."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 390
SHORT TITLE: RANKED-CHOICE PRIMARY ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PARISH
02/21/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/18 (H) CRA, STA, FIN
03/22/18 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/22/18 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/27/18 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/27/18 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/29/18 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
PATRICK COURTNAGE, Staff
Representative Justin Parish
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 390 on behalf of
Representative Parish, prime sponsor.
KAREN BRINSON BELL, Election Administration Consultant
Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
Charleston, South Carolina
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 390.
JEREMY SPEIGHT, Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during hearing on HB 390.
CHARLES BILES, Professor Emeritus
Mathematics
Humboldt State University
Arcata, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided input during the hearing on HB
390.
DAVID NEES, Education Researcher
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 390.
MARILYN RUSSELL
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 390 in
support of RCV.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:26 AM
CO-CHAIR TIFFANY ZULKOSKY called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04
a.m. Representatives Saddler, Lincoln, Talerico, Parish, and
Zulkosky were present at the call to order. Representatives
Rauscher and Drummond arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 390-RANKED-CHOICE PRIMARY ELECTIONS
8:05:02 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 390, "An Act establishing a ranked-
choice primary election system for nomination to state executive
and state and national legislative offices; establishing a
ranked-choice general election system for election to state and
national legislative offices; repealing the special runoff
election for the office of United States senator or United
States representative; and requiring certain written notices to
appear in election pamphlets and polling places."
8:05:39 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 390. He
proffered that when a group of 10 friends gets together for
dinner and votes on what to have, and spaghetti got the most
votes, with three people in favor of it, that would probably not
end the decision making. However, in voting, the majority wins,
even if that majority is only 30 percent of voters. He opined
that the system is inefficient, leads to a sense of
disenfranchisement, and has other negative consequences he said
would be highlighted by upcoming testifiers. He predicted that
under HB 390 there would be increased voter turnout, decreased
campaigning, and a greater sense of voter enfranchisement.
8:07:29 AM
PATRICK COURTNAGE, Staff, Representative Justin Parish, Alaska
State Legislature, Presented HB 390 on behalf of Representative
Parish, prime sponsor. He began a PowerPoint presentation
[hardcopy included in the committee packet]. As shown on slide
2, Mr. Courtnage reviewed that in plurality elections, when
there are more than two candidates, a winner can be declared
with less than a majority of the vote.
MR. COURTNAGE turned to slides 3-6, which show that ranked
choice voting is as easy as 1-2-3. The first step is for voters
to rank as many candidates as they want in order of choice; the
second step is for all choices to be counted, and if a candidate
has a majority, then that candidate wins; the third step happens
if there is no one with a majority of the votes, in which case
the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated from the
ballots. If the person eliminated was someone's first choice,
then that voter's second choice would be counted, and so on.
The majority in ranked choice voting is 50 percent plus one.
8:11:38 AM
MR. COURTNAGE turned to slide 7, which shows the states where
ranked choice voting (RCV) is being used today, most
importantly, he said, in Maine, which will be using RCV in its
upcoming state primary election. The map on the slide also
shows that RCV is used in municipalities, such as Portland,
Maine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, San Francisco and Oakland,
California, and most recently Santa Fe, New Mexico. Mr.
Courtnage noted that in the committee packet was a survey of
Santa Fe's mayoral election. He said RCV is also used in
various states for party elections.
MR. COURTNAGE turned to slides 8 and 9, which show the following
benefits of RCV: no more vote splitting or "spoiler"
candidates; no more "wasted" votes; increase in voter turnout;
voters do not have to guess who might make the runoff but can
vote their conscience; easy use on modern voting equipment or
"with workarounds" on older equipment; candidates doing best
when reaching out positively instead of attaching opponents;
candidates earning back-up support to win, not just first
choices; less negative campaigning.
8:15:04 AM
MR. COURTNAGE gave a summary of the presentation, as shown on
slide 10, and he indicated that RCV could result in an increase
in the percentage of candidates of minority groups and "a more
representative and fair election."
8:16:10 AM
MR. COURTNAGE brought attention to a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 390, labeled 30-LS1102\J, Bullard,
4/2/18, and he noted that Version J would change the word
"majority" to "plurality" in Section 3, on page 2, line 24, to
clarify the general gubernatorial election must be won through a
plurality. He explained this is in accordance with Article III,
Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, which
states that "the candidate receiving the greatest number of
votes shall be governor."
8:18:56 AM
KAREN BRINSON BELL, Election Administration Consultant, Ranked
Choice Voting Resource Center, imparted that she has worked in
election administration since 2006, having served with the North
Carolina State Board of Elections as a district elections
technician and as the former election director for Transylvania
County, North Carolina. Ms. Brinson Bell paraphrased her
written testimony [included in the committee packet], which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Dear Co-Chair Zulkosky and Members of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Committee:
On behalf of the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center,
thank you for the opportunity to comment on House Bill
390.
Having worked together overseeing statewide,
municipal, and district ranked choice voting (RCV)
elections, the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center
Consulting Team is focused on expanding the resources
and information available regarding the administration
of and education about this voting method. We have
developed a repository of best practices and first-
hand experiences through our website
www.rankedchoicevoting.org and our Model
Implementation Plan. We provide webinars, podcasts,
and presentations at no cost to assist election
administrators, policy makers, candidates, and the
public to identify whether RCV is an option for a
jurisdiction and to assist with implementation plans
including processes for tabulating results, voter
education, and more.
We work closely with usability experts, equipment
vendors, local clerks, audit specialists, and others.
The more we learn, the clearer it becomes that RCV
elections have and will work efficiently and
effectively in our nation's elections, including the
elections for Alaska as outlined in House Bill 390.
RCV has emerged as a solution for promoting majority
support, broader representation through voter choice,
inclusive leadership, and civility. Our role is not
advocacy focused; rather, we aim to provide resources
that allow jurisdictions to overcome the perception
that implementing and conducting RCV is too difficult.
Ranked choice voting has been a part of the U.S.
elections process for more than 100 years. Invented in
Europe in the 1850s as a proportional representation
system, it was adapted to single-winner or instant
runoff form in the 1870s by MIT professor William
Ware. Shortly thereafter, Australia adopted the system
and continues to use RCV today, along with countries
such as Scotland, Ireland, and Malta. In 1915,
Ashtabula, Ohio, became the first U.S. city to
implement RCV, and by the 1940s, RCV was in two dozen
cities across six states. However, by 1962, 23 of
these 24 cities had repealed RCV for reasons largely
related to party bosses realizing it was difficult to
control council members once elected and newly
introduced lever voting machines could not be used.
Yet Cambridge, Massachusetts, has continued to use RCV
for more than 70 years for city council and school
board elections, and 10 additional U.S. cities
currently use RCV as well. There are also five states
and the city of Springfield, Illinois, that use RCV
for military and overseas voting. And in June the
voting method will be used statewide in Maine, while
future use has been approved for Benton County, OR,
and in seven other cities across the country.
Having administered ranked choice voting elections in
North Carolina, I can also share first-hand
experience. When the state legislature established
opportunities for municipalities to pilot RCV, I
helped the city of Hendersonville in 2007 and 2009
with this voting method. Analysis by North Carolina
State University of exit survey results after the
first RCV election concluded RCV worked as intended,
and more than 85% of those voters found RCV easy to
understand. In 2010, I also helped administer both
statewide and district level judicial vacancy
elections with RCV. This successful implementation
occurred in a 3-month window, utilized existing voting
equipment, was part of a ballot that included non-RCV
contests, and worked within the confines of the
existing election budget. Only $200 in actual funds
was spent on marketing or voter education we worked
closely with the media, issued public service
announcements, and added supplemental information to
the statewide judicial voter guide. Last but not
least, our most effective voter education tool proved
to be written and verbal instruction to the voters
when they presented themselves at the polling place
and in absentee-by-mail materials.
In my current capacity, the consulting team and I have
analyzed the RCV-capability of existing voting
equipment and are currently in the testing phase for a
Universal RCV Tabulator, which is available as free,
open source software to any jurisdiction or voting
system vendor. While Alaska's current voting system,
AccuVote TSX and AccuVote OS, does not have built-in
RCV capability, data can be exported for tabulation
using the Universal RCV Tabulator. If Alaska moves
forward with a new voting system, including all mail
balloting, the latest voting systems from the four
largest vendors in the United States are all RCV
capable. However, none of these vendors have a product
capable of optical character recognition as proposed
in HB 390, so we would encourage an amendment to the
bill to allow for methods currently within the voting
systems, such as column or grid ballot designs. We can
provide further assessment after more in-depth
discussion about your election processes and any
decisions regarding ranked choice voting, all mail
balloting, and change in voting systems.
Upon passage of this legislation, the Ranked Choice
Voting Resource Center team and I stand ready to
provide assistance and resources for voter education,
implementation practices, and tabulation procedures at
no charge to Alaska's Division of Elections.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in
support of HB 390.
8:26:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Ms. Brinson Bell what would happen
if a voter ranked only "one candidate each time."
MS. BRINSON BELL answered that if a voter preferred only one
candidate, then he/she would mark the ballot accordingly. She
said marking additional preferences is encouraged and often
voters seem to have those additional preferences. She
explained, "Because that allows us to continue with the ballot
counting process." She stated, "If you think of it in terms of
if it were a run-off situation, there are often voters that
would make their first selection when they go in on the primary
day, or the election day, but then they might not participate in
a run-off, because they don't prefer either of the candidates
that made it into the run-off round. So, they wouldn't lose
their option to only vote for one ... candidate, but certainly
this allows for it."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that "if you
only choose one candidate on your first, second, and third
choice, there's ... a chance that you won't be involved in the
second or third go-around if there was one needed."
MS. BRINSON BELL confirmed that is correct. She further
confirmed that the additional rounds take place only when no
candidate receives the majority in the initial round.
8:28:35 AM
MS. BRINSON BELL, in response to Representative Saddler,
imparted that the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center comprises
four individuals who work remotely as a nonpartisan consulting
team. She offered further details.
8:32:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if it is true that Maine has
publicly financed elections.
MS. BRINSON BELL said she does not know but could find out.
8:33:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN offered his understanding that Maine had
voted against [ranked choice voting]l for its next election.
MS. BRINSON BELL responded that a constitutional amendment had
been put forth by referendum of the people of Maine for an
opinion from the Maine Supreme Court. The opinion was that
there were certain offices that could not be elected by ranked
choice voting. She explained that is why Maine is going forward
with ranked choice voting for its primary election but will not
be doing so for the General Election. She noted that the
Legislature of Maine passed a bill that would change the
process, but there was a people's veto; that veto will be on the
ballot in June. In response to a follow-up question, she said
ranked choice voting has not been used statewide in Maine; it
has only been used in the City of Portland, which she estimated
is the largest city in Maine. As a point of reference, she
related that when North Carolina did its statewide judicial
contest as part of its General Election ballot, it had
approximately 4.3 million voters. North Carolina had conducted
two pilot elections in 2007 in Kerry and Hendersonville, with
populations of approximately 100,000 and 13,000, respectively.
In 2009, she said, the City of Henderson had enough candidates
to file to use RCV again as part of a pilot. She explained,
"So, that was the only familiarity that was in the state of
North Carolina prior to having a statewide ranked choice voting
election."
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN asked Ms. Brinson Bell if she thinks
there is any benefit for a state contemplating statewide RCV to
first try it in municipal elections.
MS. BRINSON BELL predicted that Alaska would not have trouble
with the RCV system, because it is an intuitive process;
however, a municipal option could be one approach to exercise
caution. She said the State of Hawai'i has considered doing
congressional vacancy elections [with the RCV system]. She
noted that Santa Fe, New Mexico, gave itself a two-month period
in which to creates its rules and move forward. She said RCV
can be done in a timely manner; it is effective; and voters
understand it.
8:39:09 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked Ms. Brinson Bell how RCV would work in
communities with populations as small as 500, in which many of
the population spoke English as a second language.
MS. BRINSON BELL answered that within North Carolina, where RCV
has been used, there are counties with fewer than 3,000 voters.
Regarding language, she said Santa Fe, New Mexico, provided its
RCV ballot in English and Spanish. She named Minneapolis and
San Francisco as two other cities in which multiple languages
are spoken. She relayed that Alameda County puts out video and
pamphlets in multiple languages to explain the RCV process.
8:41:03 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked for confirmation that in one case, only
$200 was spent on voter education.
MS. BRINSON BELL answered that is correct. She referred back to
the judicial vacancy she spoke of in her opening remarks. She
said North Carolina did not know it would have RCV until that
vacancy occurred in August; therefore, the state did not have
the budget set aside for it. She indicated that [the Ranked
Choice Voting Resource Center] worked with the North Carolina
Broadcasting Association to broadcast RCV information in public
broadcasting service format. She imparted that $200 was spent
on a page in the state's existing judicial guide, which is sent
to every household in the state. Other methods of putting out
the message included public presentations, inserts in county
water bills, and presentations to groups such as the Rotary
Club. She remarked, "In the end, the very best thing that we
had was just clear instructions in a small handout that was
given to each voter when they came to vote or with their
absentee by mail materials." In response to a follow-up
question, she said there was no exit-poll conducted, but there
was a positive response. She said the election resulted in a
run-off and a recount, and there was full transparency so that
the public was aware of the process.
8:44:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether [the Ranked Choice Voting
Resource Center] reached out to Alaska or vice versa.
MS. BRINSON BELL said Fair Vote made the introduction, and she
held conversations with [Mr. Courtnage].
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked the bill sponsor the same question.
CO-CHAIR PARISH explained the genesis of the bill was when he
called Legislative Legal and Research Services and said he
wanted an RCV bill. He deferred to his staff for further
clarification.
8:46:15 AM
MR. COURTNAGE said the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center did
not initiate contact with Representative Parish; the bill
sponsor was convinced "through general resources" that RCV was
"a good way to go," and he requested a bill be drafted. Fair
Vote is an advocacy group for RCV and sent general e-mail to
Representative Parish once the bill was submitted. Fair Vote
offered to answer questions at that time, sent information
regarding what had been done [in other states] regarding RCV,
and put the bill sponsor in touch with the Ranked Choice Voting
Resource Center and Ms. Brinson Bell.
8:47:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if it is the goal or an additional
benefit of RCV to increase diversity.
MS. BRINSON BELL said that is outside her area of expertise;
however, she surmised it is more likely an added benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification regarding the
term "wasted vote."
MS. BRINSON BELL answered, "That term could also be 'an
exhausted ballot,' and that's one that ... - by the fact that
they only ranked one candidate, no candidate, or they ranked a
candidate ... that ... [was] eliminated and didn't continue in
the rounds of voting - ... that ballot can no longer be
utilized."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined that a vote for candidate that
does not win is not a "wasted vote." He asked if, under RCV, it
is possible that a candidate could win who was not the first
choice of a majority of voters.
MS. BRINSON BELL said she agreed that no vote is a wasted one,
because any ballot submitted is voting, which is the goal of the
Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center. To Representative
Saddler's question, she explained as follows:
If you think about a situation where you've got a
large number of candidates - say, five candidates -
that are running ... either in a primary or in a
General Election, in whatever capacity, if ... the
votes are tallied and no candidate has received more
than, say, 25, 30, 35 percent of the vote, then that's
not a majority of voters expressing - that's just a
portion of the voters. And so, by going through the
rounds of counting and taking ... the last-place
finisher and the votes that are cast for that last-
place finisher, and looking at those voters' second
choice and ... counting those second choices ... to
the remaining candidates, now you begin to understand
what the consensus is and that the majority of the
voters are [emphasis on "are"] behind a certain
candidate. And that's ... the entire intent, and
that's why ... I reference inclusive leadership and
broader support. When it's all said and done, the
votes now have been tallied, and now we know that one
person had a majority of the support of all the
voters.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed concern that RCV seems to
change the dynamic of the voting process.
8:52:49 AM
JEREMY SPEIGHT, Assistant Professor, Department of Political
Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), stated that he is
Canadian and was contacted by Mr. Courtnage to comment on RCV in
Alaska. He said he sees debate about electoral system change as
part of a broader debate about what is important in society. He
said although there are a number of problems with the plurality
systems in much of Western Democracy, those systems generally
are supported for a number of reasons. He said plurality
systems tend to produce majorities in legislatures, which is a
big reason why advocates support them. He explained that a
majority in a legislature might increase accountability between
those elected, winning parties, and citizens. He said in
plurality systems, in contrast to coalition governments,
citizens are more aware about who is responsible for making
policy decisions. Further, he noted that there is an argument
that majorities result in more effective government.
MR. SPEIGHT said RCV is a modified form of proportional
representation systems, in which a broader segment of society -
minority groups - are represented in legislatures, and this
feature is an important value to those supporting RCV.
Conversely, he stated that there may be problems with
accountability and effectiveness, "where you have coalitions in
government, the ability to make choices becomes impeded by the
fact that smaller parties and parliaments can function as veto
players, ... can block policy change." Mr. Speight said debates
about electoral change or broader institutional change are
couched in debates about what values are important in society,
typically accountability and effectiveness versus
representation.
MR. SPEIGHT advised that RCV: ensures majorities at the
constituency level; empowers third-parties and third-party
supporters; reduces wasted votes, which encourages citizens to
vote their consciences instead of supporting a party they might
otherwise not vote for; incentivizes moderate political
discourse, wherein party candidates have to be concerned about
supporters of other parties that may vote for them in subsequent
rounds of RCV.
MR. SPEIGHT suggested the committee may want to consider that
although there may not be a lot of academic research on the
outcomes of RCV and effects could be mixed depending on the
context, the contextual factors in Alaska that might have an
impact on this type of change are: the relationship between the
legislature and executive branch; divisions in society; and
lobbying or special interest rules.
9:00:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked about Mr. Speight's comment that
there is not a whole lot of academic research on RCV.
MR. SPEIGHT confirmed there is some, and a lot of it is mixed.
In response to a follow-up question, he said although he had not
been specific in his testimony, he indicated that RCV can
encourage voter turnout.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER remarked on the low voter turnout for
the primary and General Election in Alaska in 2014. He remarked
that if [only] 39 percent of the population is willing to vote,
then "you don't really have a majority anyway." He said most of
the people he talks to express that their votes are not really
going to matter, because of Alaska's time zone. He said he is
not sure a second or third layer in voting is going to bring
more people to the polling place, and he asked if there has been
a study done that shows that [RCV] has increased voter turnout.
MR. SPEIGHT responded that although he does not have empirical
evidence, one argument is that in a Presidential election where
voters may be disenfranchised from the two main parties in the
election, RCV may be an incentive for them to vote for a third-
party candidate.
9:05:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER observed that RCV seems to be a step
toward broadening the choice beyond two parties. He asked if it
would be possible to open the ballot to access all candidates to
all voters and, thus, have all the benefits of RCV.
MR. SPEIGHT answered that he does not think so. He surmised
that under Representative Saddler's scenario, it would still be
a winner-take-all plurality system, which still disincentivizes
people to vote for any candidate they want, because he
questioned why someone would write in a fringe candidate if
he/she thought that candidate had no chance of winning.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said it seems like RCV would advantage
fringe candidates.
MR. SPEIGHT advised that there should be debate about "whether
this is a positive or negative thing."
9:08:38 AM
CHARLES BILES, Professor Emeritus, Mathematics, Humboldt State
University, paraphrased from his written testimony, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided, with some formatting
changes]:
Please permit me to extend a special thank you to co-
chairs Justin Parish and Tiffany Zulkosky, and the
entire House Committee on Community and Regional
Affairs for the State of Alaska, for this invitation
to give input regarding HB 390, the Ranked-Choice
Voting bill.
My expertise is that of an academic whose primary
research concerns the History of Congressional
Apportionment. Associated topics include districting
and voting. All are essential components in a larger
picture framed by the question, what is Representation
in our American democracy? History, from the time of
the Framers of our Constitution, has evolved answers
on the premise that the source of governmental power
must come from the people.
Fundamental to American democracy is the right to
vote. The ballot is the people's main voice box for
representation. The structure of the ballot determines
how much input an individual voter has in an election.
The current system of structuring the ballot is to
list the options (or candidates) with the instruction,
Vote for One. If there are only two options, then
there is no problem. The winner is simply determined
by majority vote.
However, a problem exits when there are three or more
options. In this event, the Vote for One instruction
is the most limiting among ballot possibilities,
allowing the smallest voice for a voter. The voter
gets to say something about one candidate, and then
the input is over. As a result, a substantial number
vote strategically rather than honestly out of concern
for "throwing away their vote." Vote for One does not
allow many voters to support their candidate of first
choice without the fear that they will elect their
least-liked candidate.
The worst-case scenario of Vote for One is that the
least desirable candidate may win the election because
the winner is simply the plurality winner. If there
are three candidates, then two well-liked candidates
may split the popular vote 33% to 31%, leaving a
widely-disliked candidate the winner with 36% of the
vote.
The confusion and agony of strategy vs. honesty when
there are three or more ballot options can be overcome
by replacing Vote for One by Ranked-Choice Voting
(RCV).
The ballot would still list the same options, but the
instruction to the voter is to rank the options rather
than merely choose one. Thus, opportunity for voter
input is extended to each ballot option, not
restricted to just one option.
Of course, if a voter simply wants to just vote for
one, then they only need to mark their first choice;
hence, the Vote for One structure still remains for
voters who want that structure. With RCV, voters who
want to make additional input may continue by ranking
their 2nd, 3rd, etc., choices. This supports the voter
who wants to be a greater participant in our
democratic republic.
There are clear advantages to ranked-choice voting.
1. Voters get to provide more input and thus have more
say-so in the election. Voter apathy induced by the
belief that their vote doesn't really count or doesn't
matter is diminished. When no candidate wins a
majority of the vote in the first round of counting,
then those additional ranks make a difference! The
final winner is a majority, not just a plurality,
winner.
2. Voters get the opportunity to vote for candidates
they support, not just vote for someone as a way to
vote against another they oppose most.
3. Voters can vote honestly without the guilt of
throwing their vote away or playing a spoiler role and
enabling their least-liked candidate to win.
4. Voters get to decide how much input they want to
have given the ballot options by choosing how many
candidates to rank, from one to all.
5. Ranked-choice voting decreases the probability that
the least-desired candidate wins the election.
I applaud Alaska for taking the rights and input of
voters seriously and considering Ranked-Choice Voting.
In the early phase of the development of this nation,
voting rights were usually limited to white males, at
least 21 years old, who were propertied and
Protestant. The evolution of voting rights in America
now provides equal voting opportunity to all adult
citizens in good standing. It is time that we further
include the structure of the ballot in voting rights
and upgrade that structure to Ranked-Choice Voting.
Thank you for your considerations.
[Due to technical difficulties, Mr. Biles' testimony was cut
short, but it is provided above in its entirety from his written
testimony submitted to the committee.]
9:14:48 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on HB 390.
9:15:19 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease 9:15 a.m.
9:16:01 AM
DAVID NEES, Education Researcher, Alaska Policy Forum, noted
that he had given written testimony to Representative Saddler.
He stated that Minnesota has RCV in some of its cities and is
looking to ban it statewide. He said, "In the Cambridge City
elections, it does indeed have an effect. The effect is that
populations of about 10 percent have more chance of getting
candidates put on the city council; there's a very excellent
article about that." He indicated that in 1947, the people of
Alaska wanted an open ballot. He added, "That's been struck
down a couple times by courts. So, whatever you do, it's
probably going to go that way. A better option, probably, is to
make it available to municipalities to adopt, like plastic
bags."
MR. NEES mentioned that the Maine Initiative was a democratic
experiment. He indicated that part of [the purpose of RCV] is
to change the way Presidential elections are done, to
[eliminate] popular voting. He said one effect of RCV is that
it discourages voters from voting because it is more complex.
Mr. Nees mentioned the Olympics using a system other than RCV.
He said one thing that RCV does is produce happier voters,
because "they get to vote on everybody," and occasionally the
candidates that get elected are the fringe candidates that would
not get elected under the current popular vote process.
9:18:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER acknowledged he had received written
testimony from Mr. Nees. He asked whether RCV makes it more
difficult for people to publicly endorse a candidate or give
money to a candidate's campaign. He questioned the same about
the popular vote.
[Due to technical difficulties, Mr. Nees was not available to
respond.]
9:19:56 AM
MARILYN RUSSELL opined that RCV is a way to make sure the person
elected is the most popular, because "if the person elected is
not your first choice, she or he could be your second choice,
and chances are you won't hate the winner." She said [that
under the RCV system], all candidates have a vested interest in
all voters, because if they are not the voter's first choice,
they may be his/her second choice. Further, voters don't have
to vote against their conscience. Ms. Russell talked about
society getting to see actual choices, not just who the winner
is. She indicated that perhaps RCV would be used for primaries
and then be expanded to [General Elections]. She said people
may be disgruntled initially because of the multitude of
choices; however, her research has shown her that "after a few
years, people do sit up and pay more attention," and voter
turnout does increase. She remarked that under RCV, people are
not forced to [rank] candidates but instead can vote for just
one. She said RCV would make candidates work harder not to
alienate people through negative campaigning. She expressed
support for RCV.
9:24:10 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH offered his impression that presently politics
in the U.S. is weighted toward parties and "other groups of
wealth and influence." He asked whether Ms. Russell agreed and
if she thought HB 390 would do anything "to redress that."
MS. RUSSELL answered, "Yes, it does." She continued, "It
certainly will put in different levels of economics and ...
people of all different ethnicities and cultures and who has how
much money, and all, and it would definitely address leveling
the playing field. I like that idea, too." She said she is
alarmed by gerrymandering, so, "this is a wonderful idea."
9:26:10 AM
CO-CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that HB 390 was held over.
9:26:33 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:26 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 390 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 3.29.18.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |
| HB 390 Proposed Blank CS ver D - 3.29.18.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |
| HB 390 Sectional Analysis 3.29.18.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |
| HB 390 Sponsor Statement 3.29.18.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |
| HB 390 ver A 3.29.18.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |
| HB390 Supporting Document - Grace Ramsey - Fairvote - 3.29.18.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |
| HB390 Supporting Document - Charles Biles 3.29.18.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |
| HB390 Supporting Document - Karen Brinson Bell - RCV Resource Center 3.29.18.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 390 |