Way to go, Councilwoman Emily Jabbour.
This Wednesday, Jabbour will introduce legislation urging the state to permit instant-runoff elections in Hoboken.
Jabbour's resolution should pass easily.
So what is the next step?
Do we look to reanimate a dead bill from the NJ Legislature?
BILL SCR-112
Did you know that there's a bill in the NJ Senate to amend the NJ Constitution to allow instant runoff elections? Yep, it was introduced...
17 years ago.
On June 21, 2001, Former NJ Senator William E. Schluter, a Republican, was introduced SCR-112- "Amends Constitution to provide for use of instant runoff voting in balloting for certain offices." The bill was then referred to Senate State Government Committee.
SCR-112, R.I.P.
BILL A4910
The Assembly has its own dead bill, too!
In December 14, 2015, Bergen/Passaic Democratic Assemblyman Tim Eustace introduced Bill A4910- "Permits use of instant run-off voting in balloting for certain local elective public offices."
This bill was then referred to the Assembly's "State and Local Government Committee"; it hasn't risen from its internment there over 2 years ago. But... 2 years beats 17!
The State and Local Government Committee Chair is Assemblyman Vincent Mazzeo, its members are Assemblywoman Shavonda E. Sumter and Assemblywoman Mila M. Jacey, all Democrats.
AN "INSTANT RUNOFFS" BILL FOR HOBOKEN
Can Hoboken Assemblywoman, Annette Chaparro rescue Bill A4910 from the deep freeze- or introduce a similar one for Hoboken?
With Hoboken's active and activist community, a Mayor closely connected to Senators Booker and Menendez--and a friend in Governor Murphy, plus the media's new interest in Hoboken, we just might get that bill passed expeditiously.
PETITION
Circumventing the NJ Legislature, a petition should be able to make instant runoffs a ballot referendum.
Can we? Much like Hoboken succeeded to do 5 years ago, when getting rid of run-offs. There is nothing addressing or prohibiting instant runoffs in the NJ Constitution.
INSTANT RUNOFF
This Wednesday, Jabbour will introduce legislation urging the state to permit instant-runoff elections in Hoboken.
Jabbour's resolution should pass easily.
So what is the next step?
Do we look to reanimate a dead bill from the NJ Legislature?
BILL SCR-112
Did you know that there's a bill in the NJ Senate to amend the NJ Constitution to allow instant runoff elections? Yep, it was introduced...
17 years ago.
On June 21, 2001, Former NJ Senator William E. Schluter, a Republican, was introduced SCR-112- "Amends Constitution to provide for use of instant runoff voting in balloting for certain offices." The bill was then referred to Senate State Government Committee.
SCR-112, R.I.P.
BILL A4910
The Assembly has its own dead bill, too!
In December 14, 2015, Bergen/Passaic Democratic Assemblyman Tim Eustace introduced Bill A4910- "Permits use of instant run-off voting in balloting for certain local elective public offices."
This bill was then referred to the Assembly's "State and Local Government Committee"; it hasn't risen from its internment there over 2 years ago. But... 2 years beats 17!
The State and Local Government Committee Chair is Assemblyman Vincent Mazzeo, its members are Assemblywoman Shavonda E. Sumter and Assemblywoman Mila M. Jacey, all Democrats.
AN "INSTANT RUNOFFS" BILL FOR HOBOKEN
Can Hoboken Assemblywoman, Annette Chaparro rescue Bill A4910 from the deep freeze- or introduce a similar one for Hoboken?
With Hoboken's active and activist community, a Mayor closely connected to Senators Booker and Menendez--and a friend in Governor Murphy, plus the media's new interest in Hoboken, we just might get that bill passed expeditiously.
PETITION
Circumventing the NJ Legislature, a petition should be able to make instant runoffs a ballot referendum.
Can we? Much like Hoboken succeeded to do 5 years ago, when getting rid of run-offs. There is nothing addressing or prohibiting instant runoffs in the NJ Constitution.
INSTANT RUNOFF
For folks unfamiliar with how instant runoffs are supposed to work, Wiki has a good summary:
IRV has the effect of avoiding split votes when multiple candidates earn support from like-minded voters.
As a simple example, suppose there are two candidates with similar views, A and B, and a third with different views, C, with first-preference totals of 35% for candidate A, 25% for B and 40% for C. In a plurality voting election, candidate C may win with 40% of the votes, even though 60% of electors prefer both A and B over C. Alternatively, voters are pressured to choose the seemingly stronger candidate of either A or B, despite personal preference for the other, in order to help ensure the defeat of C. With IRV, the electors backing B as their first choice can rank A second, which means candidate A will win by 60% to 40% over C despite the split vote in first choices."
Stay tuned, folks. \This is only the beginning to election reform in Hoboken, and perhaps kind, gentler elections.
As a simple example, suppose there are two candidates with similar views, A and B, and a third with different views, C, with first-preference totals of 35% for candidate A, 25% for B and 40% for C. In a plurality voting election, candidate C may win with 40% of the votes, even though 60% of electors prefer both A and B over C. Alternatively, voters are pressured to choose the seemingly stronger candidate of either A or B, despite personal preference for the other, in order to help ensure the defeat of C. With IRV, the electors backing B as their first choice can rank A second, which means candidate A will win by 60% to 40% over C despite the split vote in first choices."
Stay tuned, folks. \This is only the beginning to election reform in Hoboken, and perhaps kind, gentler elections.
EXACTLY, GA! it (instant runoff, ranked choice) is not illegal, it is not authorized. We could make it happen if we are willing to.
ReplyDeleteUh no. The state has to make it happen. That is why it is completely idiotic to even discuss the concept of a runoff and pretend instant runoff is a viable option. I like what Jabbour is doing because this resolution recognizes the state has to take action first - but what the sellouts did in aligning w/ Ramos and Defusco on this issue is beyond stupid.
DeleteEveryone needs to keep in mind, people have been discussing this option at the state level for years and it has gone absolutely nowhere. A quick search uncovered bills introduced as far back as 2001 authorizing instant runoff. None became law.
So everyone in the sellout crowd needs to stop pretending if we go back to runoffs now, we will get instant runoffs. We won't - not until the state changes the law and then we will likely have to then pass another measure so we can convert from runoffs to instant runoffs.
Uh, yes. There is certainly more than one way to help move instant run-offs forward. Supporting instant run-offs in city council resolution doesn't hurt, but why not use every tool at our disposal? I have no idea what you mean when you talk about the sellout crowd; it sounds like silly rhetoric to me.
Delete"Sellouts" would be those who were erroneously perceived as intelligent, honest and ethical elected officials, who put their egos and strange aspirations ahead of the best interests of their constituents and all of Hoboken. They have cheerleaders, whose bi-monthly dronings at the mic at council meetings will make the listener's ears bleed. The sellouts recent attempts to regain some power has meant an alignment with the decaying vestige of the corrupt old guard. These destructive efforts, which are not compliant with law, are swatted down by corporation counsel as so many infectious flies. No doubt Mr. Aloia will be busy with this distracting nonsense until the sellouts are replaced in 2019.
DeleteIndie - there is only ONE tool at our disposal and that is at the state level. You absolutely cannot implement instant runoffs at the local level until the state acts first.
DeleteAnyone who tells you otherwise is either lying through their teeth or just full of horse manure.
Which one are you?
Indie is under the impression that Hoboken can create new forms of elections by a vote of the City council when in fact NJ law is quite clear about how elections are to be run. All the choices municipalities have in elections are granted by the State and are explicit in the law.
DeleteThe new corrupt old guard will not vote for instant runoffs because it defeats the purpose of what they're really after with plain old runoffs: low voter turnout in the runoff election, which would now happen in December when people are preoccupied, and a little more time to illegally harvest votes. 90K in ill-gotten gains buys a lot of ballots. Just don't forget them in a damp basement somewhere.
ReplyDeletePolitically astute move. The old guard (Defusco, Ramos, Russo on this council) in particular want the kind of runoff that brings turnout down to spring election levels. Makes bought votes much more salient. December runoffs in JC resulted in a >35% drop in turnout. Perfect for the vote buyer.
ReplyDeleteIt needs to be made clear to people who were ostensibly elected as reformers that they are voting for December runoffs (if this measure fails yet again). Do they want that?
If those 3 didn't know they were voting for December runoffs when they cast their votes, then they are either brain dead or absent minded idiots.
DeleteThey know. But they are using the instant runoff as a fig leaf. The failure of this measure in Trenton would be the end of the fig leaf.
Delete