|
Take Action
|
Endorse ranked voting here.
Join Californians for Electoral Reform here.
|
| |
|
|
Local ballot measures since 1998
| Date |
Jurisdiction |
Measure |
Votes For |
Votes Against |
% For |
Notes |
| Nov 2008 |
Memphis, TN |
IRV for all city offices |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
| Sep 2008 |
Glendale, AZ |
IRV for all city offices |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
| Mar 2008 |
Santa Fe, NM |
IRV for all city offices |
5,659 |
3,044 |
65.0% |
Council elected by districts |
| Nov 2007 |
Sarasota, FL |
Requires IRV for city commissioners |
6,554 |
1,891 |
77.6% |
3 seats in single-member districts, 2 seats at large using North Carolina multi-seat method |
| Nov 2007 |
Aspen, CO |
Instructs City Council to adopt ranked voting by ordinance |
608 |
186 |
76.6% |
Form of ranked voting for at-large council seats to be determined by ordinance |
| Nov 2007 |
Clallam County, WA |
Would have allowed county commission to adopt IRV for all county offices |
10,123 |
12,190 |
45.4% |
Comission elected from single member districts |
| Nov 2006 |
Minneapolis, MN |
Requires IRV for all single-seat offices, and choice voting for boards and commissions elected at-large |
78,741 |
42,493 |
64.9% |
|
| Nov 2006 |
Pierce County, WA |
Requires IRV for all county offices except law enforcement and judges |
103,407 |
91,949 |
52.9% |
Three measures to delay or weaken IRV were defeated in Nov 2007 |
| Nov 2006 |
Davis, CA |
Advisory vote on choice voting for city council |
11,620 |
9,352 |
55.4% |
|
| Nov 2006 |
Oakland, CA |
Requires IRV for all city offices |
64,093 |
29,299 |
68.6% |
|
| Nov 2005 |
Takoma Park, MD |
Requires IRV for all city offices |
1,992 |
390 |
83.6% |
Used Jan 2007 |
| March 2005 |
Burlington, VT |
Requires IRV for mayor |
4,715 |
2,600 |
64.5% |
Used March 2006 |
| Nov 2004 |
Ferndale, MI |
Requires IRV for mayor and city council when equipment available |
6,522 |
2,828 |
69.8% |
|
| March 2004 |
Berkeley, CA |
Requires IRV for all city offices when equipment available |
23,660 |
9,088 |
72.2% |
|
| Nov 2002 |
Basalt, CO |
New home rule charter requires IRV for mayor |
467 |
158 |
74.7% |
Vote was on charter as a whole |
| March 2002 |
San Francisco, CA |
Requires IRV for all offices |
76,340 |
61,261 |
55.5% |
Used 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 |
| Sept 2001 |
Eugene, OR |
Would have required IRV for mayor and city council |
10,261 |
19,559 |
34.4% |
|
| Nov 2000 |
Oakland, CA |
Requires special elections to fill vacancies, makes IRV optional |
72,537 |
27,749 |
72.3% |
|
| Nov 2000 |
San Leandro, CA |
Requires runoff if no majority, makes IRV optional |
14,347 |
8,381 |
63.1% |
|
| Nov 1999 |
Vancouver, WA |
Makes IRV optional for mayor and city council; state legislation required to become effective |
12,933 |
11,512 |
52.9% |
State legislation passed April 2005 |
| Nov 1998 |
Santa Clara County, CA |
Makes IRV optional for all county offices |
157,223 |
134,248 |
53.9% |
|
| Nov 1998 |
Multnomah County, OR |
Would have eliminated runoff elections and made IRV optional |
63,604 |
95,145 |
40.1% |
|
Last revised May 21, 2008
|
|
|
Statewide and National Organizations
|
|
|
| |
|
