On Nov. 6 we heard about lots of victories. In most cases it was a candidate that won election to an office. In some cases it was a proposition for spending money or a change in policy.
There is another winner that has nothing to do with “who” or “what” won. The victory is “how.”
The city of Austin has considered changes to city council representation 6 times in previous elections. These were proposals to change from having every member of city council occupy an at-large (city wide) office to having members represent a district of the city. The argument is that this would allow better representation from different areas and have more more diversity on council. These proposals failed voter approval every time.
Until now.
On Nov 6 there were 2 proposals on the Austin ballot to change this policy. Proposition 3 consisted of having 10 city council members represent 10 unique districts, and then a mayor that was elected at large. Proposition 4 was a proposal for 8 district members, 2 at large, and a mayor at large. Proposition 3 won.
But how? Again, consider these were 2 separate votes on the ballot. The results looked like this:
AUSTIN BALLOT
Total ballots cast in the election: 297,516
Prop 3 votes cast: 242,593
Prop 3 votes YES: 145,910 (WINNER)
Prop 3 votes NO: 96,683
Prop 4 votes cast: 237,532
Prop 4 votes YES: 121,336
Prop 4 votes NO: 116,196
So, 297,516 people had an opportunity to decide whether they approved of Prop 3, Prop 4, or neither. What didn’t happen is 297,516 voters choosing ONLY Prop 3 or Prop 4 or neither. If the ballot was done in the old style like this:
OLD STYLE BALLOT
Vote for only one of the following:
- Proposition 3
- Proposition 4
- Neither
... the result could have been something like:
Total ballots cast in the election: 297,516
Total votes cast on this issue: 242,593
Proposition 3 votes: 79,667
Proposition 4 votes: 66,243
Neither votes: 96,683(WINNER)
This would be a completely different outcome that would have clearly gone against what the voters really wanted. The city council would remain as it is and for the 7th time a proposed change would fail.
The “how” in this Austin ballot is called Approval Voting. It allowed voters to express their preference without having their choice spoil votes for another choice. Clearly the proposal that most voters wanted passed. If neither proposal was supported, voters could vote both of them down. Isn’t this clearly a better way to make decisions than to have one vote spoil others?
This is the way most of us go to a restaurant. How many want pizza? How many for burgers? How many for sushi? The most popular choice wins without having the sushi vote spoil the burger vote or the pizza vote.
The Libertarian Party knows this. At our state convention we had 6 candidates running for the nomination for US Senate. The delegates used Approval Voting to cast a vote for each candidate they liked. John Jay Myers was nominated without taking away votes from anyone else.
Why aren’t our elections this way? I ran for County Commissioner in Precinct 3 against Republican Gerald Daugherty and incumbent Democrat Karen Huber. My 7,103 votes were triple the margin of Daugherty’s 61,726 votes to Huber’s 59,331 votes, a difference of 2,395. If I had not been on the ballot, Huber might have won. This is why legislators are always looking for way to remove Libertarians and other independent or third party candidates from the ballot. Instead of removing choices from the ballot, isn’t it better to have more choices and give you a fair way to express your preference?
We can end the spoiler effect in elections. We can empower voters. We can give you more choices. But none of this will happen if you don’t tell people just elected to the state legislature that you demand Approval Voting.
Proposition 3 was a victory for those that want a city council to represent their neighborhoods. But it was also a victory for “how.”
