Santa Clara County should not adopt ranked choice voting

Ranked choice voting has added complexity and confusion to the election process, likely negatively impacting the very voter base that it claims to benefit. Santa Clara County should not expend the substantial human and financial resources needed to pursue required changes in state legislation and a new county ordinance to authorize ranked choice voting.

Coupled with $600,000 in one-time costs and an estimated $1.4 million in recurring election costs to implement, the ranked choice voting or “instant runoff” system is not worth risking the trust and confidence of voters.

For most voters, the primary way they connect to their political leaders' agenda and values is through elections. Faith in the political system can be eroded if trust in the electoral process is compromised.

What was recently characterized in an editorial as a “hiccup” in an Oakland school board election was actually an egregious error that may have resulted in the wrong candidate being certified, and now the results of that election will have to be decided by the courts, at significant cost to taxpayers.

Whether or not the error was administrative is inconsequential. When confidence in the election process is questioned for any reason, voters are less likely to participate.

And voters most impacted by a reduced perception of integrity are likely to be the very voters that ranked choice voting claims to benefit — first-time voters, voters of color and low-income voters.

There is no “test-drive before you buy.” Ranked choice voting structurally changes voting. Once enacted, it won't be easy to turn back the clock and undo the harm caused by a mistake.

Gov. Gavin Newsom cited voter confusion when he vetoed statewide SB 212 in 2019 that would have allowed more cities, counties and school districts across the state to switch to the ranked choice voting system. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown also vetoed a bill in 2016 that would have broadened ranked choice voting, stating that “ranked choice voting is overly complicated and confusing. I believe it deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.”

Does ranked choice voting do a better job of capturing the true preferences of the electorate? I don't believe it does. Complicated rules can result in ballot errors, increasing overvoting or undervoting (marking too many or too few selections, respectively). If enough voters fail to mark all their available choices, it is possible to end up with a winner who has the majority of remaining votes but not a majority of voters.

In a report to the Board of Supervisors, the Santa Clara County registrar said that the single-source vendor system uses an algorithm to move the votes through as many rounds as needed to get a candidate to a majority. For example, in the first round, the first choice votes are tallied, and if a single candidate has received a majority of the votes cast (over 50%), the candidate wins and no further rounds are needed.

However, if no candidate has a majority of votes, then the lastplace candidate is eliminated. In the second round, all the voters who selected the last-place candidate as their first choice have their votes moved to their second choice. This process continues until a single candidate ends up with a majority of the votes. Confused yet?

As an elected official who has voted in every election for 60 years, I am considered a politically sophisticated voter. Imagine what the complexity and confusion ranked choice voting means for new voters or second language learners.

It is clear to me that the confusion and complexity of ranked choice voting will not lead to higher voter turnout as the proponents claim. Santa Clara County should not risk the tenuous trust the community has in elections by pursuing ranked choice voting.