Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
9 25-0346 Subject: Certification Of The Election Results From The November 5, 2024 Election
From: Office Of The City Clerk
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Declaring The Results Of The City Of Oakland General Municipal Election Held On Tuesday, November 5, 2024
In the November 2024 at-large council contest, voters should not have been limited to 5 ranking columns for 10 candidates. 3341 voters (2.3%) ranked 5 candidates, none of whom were in the final round. All of them could have cast a final-round vote if 10 columns had been provided. Charter 1105(k)(1) allows ballots to have fewer ranking columns than candidates only if “the voting equipment cannot feasibly accommodate” the same number of rankings. San Francisco, using the same equipment, provided 10 columns in its mayoral election.
Charter 1105(b) requires a “voter education campaign” for ranked-choice voting. Not enough was done. For the above contests, San Francisco had fewer abnormal ballots despite having more ranking columns. In San Francisco, 1.1% of ballots had a column ranking multiple candidates. In Oakland, it was 5.3%. In San Francisco, 6.7% had at least one abnormality (multiple votes per column or row, or a skipped ranking) compared to 11.2% in Oakland. Berkeley’s 5-candidate, 5-column mayoral contest had abnormal ballot rates comparable to San Francisco’s. Some voters surely know they are voting abnormally, but some may not. Perhaps it is possible to provide educational material specifically to these voters.
I support the resolution but provide this information to help improve future elections. It is derived from cast vote records released by the Registrar of Voters and is not present in the Statement of Votes Cast.
In the November 2024 at-large council contest, voters should not have been limited to 5 ranking columns for 10 candidates. 3341 voters (2.3%) ranked 5 candidates, none of whom were in the final round. All of them could have cast a final-round vote if 10 columns had been provided. Charter 1105(k)(1) allows ballots to have fewer ranking columns than candidates only if “the voting equipment cannot feasibly accommodate” the same number of rankings. San Francisco, using the same equipment, provided 10 columns in its mayoral election.
Charter 1105(b) requires a “voter education campaign” for ranked-choice voting. Not enough was done. For the above contests, San Francisco had fewer abnormal ballots despite having more ranking columns. In San Francisco, 1.1% of ballots had a column ranking multiple candidates. In Oakland, it was 5.3%. In San Francisco, 6.7% had at least one abnormality (multiple votes per column or row, or a skipped ranking) compared to 11.2% in Oakland. Berkeley’s 5-candidate, 5-column mayoral contest had abnormal ballot rates comparable to San Francisco’s. Some voters surely know they are voting abnormally, but some may not. Perhaps it is possible to provide educational material specifically to these voters.
I support the resolution but provide this information to help improve future elections. It is derived from cast vote records released by the Registrar of Voters and is not present in the Statement of Votes Cast.
Dave Robinson