Eugene’s new election idea hits ballots: ‘STAR’ ratings for candidates

In this year’s May 21 elections, Eugene voters will decide whether to adopt the voting reform method known as STAR (Score Than Automatic Runoff).

If the proposal passes, starting in 2026 Eugene would select between mayor and city council candidates by rating them between zero and five “stars.” The elections office would then sum these scores and progress the two who earned the highest score to an “automatic runoff” where the candidate who was scored higher by more voters wins.

STAR’s proponents have pitched it as a way to express a more nuanced opinion than traditional voting, limit strategic voting and vote-splitting, and eliminate the need for primary elections in nonpartisan races. Critics argue it would add unnecessary complexity to the voting process.

Much of the debate around STAR focuses on whether it would increase or decrease voter participation. STAR’s opponents have suggested the reform would cause complexity for voters and lower turnout. STAR’s proponents have said that by eliminating the lower-turnout May election and limiting the spoiler effect, more voters would be encouraged to participate.

“The thing that really drives voter turnout is inspiring candidates, and star voting levels the playing field so we would have better choices on the ballot in the first place,” Sara Wolk, one of the initiatives’ chief petitioners, told the Register-Guard.

Wolk predicted STAR would empower more people to run for office because they wouldn’t have to worry about splitting the vote or directly challenging an incumbent they have

mixed feelings about. These candidates would, by extension, draw more voters.

Similar voting alternatives are already in use elsewhere. The related voter-reform method of approval voting (where voters can vote for as many candidates as they can approve of, even if that’s more than the number of winners), was adopted in the last few years in Fargo, North Dakota, and St. Louis.

After the change, Fargo saw an increase from 2018 to 2022 in both the number of local candidates and voter turnout. St. Louis, which simultaneously switched to nonpartisan primaries, saw a decrease in both those metrics from 2017 to 2021.

The directors of “Communities of Color for Inclusive Democracy,” the formal STAR opposition, raise four key arguments in their ballot statement: that there is potential for STAR to not reflect voters’ preferences, that the system is counterintuitive and gameable, that it will disenfranchise voters of color and that it’s untested.

Wolk conceded that STAR hasn’t been used in a binding election, but felt that was a circular argument and that a municipal election is the next step for STAR.

On the question of how representative STAR is, STAR opponents have cited a League of Women Voters of Oregon analysis of alternative voting methods, which said STAR fails the “majority criterion” because it’s possible for the majority’s first choice to lose if that candidate doesn’t reach the runoff phase.

STAR proponents said this is possible, but only if that majority candidate received a very low score from other voters and at least two other candidates received higher total scores, which, in their opinion, indicates a candidate with overall broader support beating a polarizing candidate.

The anti-STAR PAC called STAR “counterintuitive” because giving multiple candidates the same score “means your ballot doesn’t count” and because “giving any candidate stars besides your favorite likely hurts your favorite’s chances of winning.”

Wolk disagreed with the characterization that equal scores mean a ballot won’t count. In the scoring phase, the equal scores will still be added to the candidates’ totals. If a voter indicates equal preference between the two finalists their “no preference vote” won’t affect the runoff, but Wolk said this is still more input than similar no preference votes in other methods: whereas with traditional plurality voting, selecting multiple candidates results in an “overvote” that’s not counted, and with ranked choice voting voters can spoil their ballots by giving two candidates the same ranking.

FairVote, an organization that advocates for ranked-choice voting, said STAR is gameable because voters may dishonestly give a low score to a candidate they have a medium opinion of in order to prevent that candidate from reaching the runoff phase and beating their favorite. STAR proponents said the system incentivizes giving intermediate candidates honest scores so that the voter’s preference wins the runoff.

Smith cited the Independent Party of Oregon 2020 Secretary of State primary as an example. The IPO uses STAR to nominate candidates in Oregon elections, usually on a cross-party basis. That election featured three Democrats, one Republican, one Independent and one non-affiliated candidate.

The Republican and Independent advanced to the runoff phase, where 29.8% of ballots, mostly from voters who preferred the Democrats, showed no preference between the two. Smith described this as liberal voters being punished for not voting strategically, while STAR proponents described it as liberal voters being punished for attempting to vote strategically.

Wolk also felt the argument that voters of color oppose STAR was disingenuous.

“They’re claiming to represent communities of color, but they’re actually led by out-of-state lobbyists,” she said, pointing to the involvement of Colin Cole, a Washington state-based lobbyist for FairVote Washington, a proranked choice voting group. “And they’re actually opposing a group that’s led by people of color, which is our group.”

Brian Smith, a Eugene resident in the leadership of the STAR opposition, objected to that description of Cole,

“He’s a policy analyst rather than lobbying,” Smith said, arguing that while there are people of color in the pro-STAR leadership, the STAR opposition has institutional endorsements from Building Power for Communities of Color and APANO,

“These are very well-established organizations and advocates for those communities,” he said.

Smith said STAR would disenfranchise because it’s confusing and would encourage strategic voting. Wolk said it would enfranchise by removing electability bias, counting votes in the runoff and punishing polarizing candidates.