Pierce County Election Results 2009

The results from this year's election in Pierce County had a good Ranked Choice Voting race, but had RCV repealed by the voters.

In the RCV special election for Auditor, Julie Anderson received 49% of the first choices in a three-way race with sitting Auditor Jan Shabro and gladfly Will Baker. Baker came in third place and Anderson went over 50% in the second round. All of this was done in one election with no primary. The only glitch was that the Elections Department put the RCV race on a separate ballot card, thus driving up expenses for the county. But we had more candidates on the ballot in November and we saved the expense of holding a primary.

Unfortunately, there was also a measure on the ballot to repeal RCV in Pierce County. This measure passed by a large majority. It appears as if the Election Department's poor implementation soured the voters on RCV to the point, they did not want to use the system any more.

The Elections Department far over spent on systems implementation and blamed RCV for the high expenses. The Elections Department did not look for ways to leverage the investment in RCV software/hardware and thus ended up costing the county more money. The Elections Department did a poor job of educating the voters as to the benefits of RCV in terms of more candidates in November and eliminating the primary. The Elections Department understaffed the polls in 2008 and blamed the long lines at the polls on RCV.

We are disappointed especially since Anderson would have worked hard to reduce expenses and educate the voters on the benefits. Having an Auditor who wanted to make RCV work would have been a real benefit to the voters.

We want to thank everyone who supported the campaign to keep RCV in Pierce County. Your support was wonderful.

On a related front, charter amendments to extend the term limits of members of the County Council from two terms to three terms and to move the election of various county level offices from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years appear to both be failing. The failure of these two amendments, interestingly, will result in some competitive races for county council in 2010 since all three county council members who terms are expiring then will be term limited out of office.

How County Charter Amendments Seek to Rig the System

Many Pierce County voters have seen our No Rigging the System yard signs and bus signs and want to know what those signs mean.

It's very simple, really. Incumbent Pierce County politicians have put three charter amendments on this November's ballot that are designed to rig the system in their favor so that they can stay in office. These proposed amendments:

* extend their own term limits to over a decade
* reduce electoral competition and turnout by moving to odd-year elections
* double the amount of money incumbents can raise from their biggest contributors
* limit everyone else's access to the ballot by going to the state primary system

Here is an example of what we saw as recently as 2006. In that year there were five county level elections on the ballot with five incumbents running for re-election. Four of these incumbents ran unopposed and uncontested. The remaining incumbent had only token opposition. The election was decided before any of us even went to the polls!

The election in 2008 was a completely different story. In 2008, there were seven county level elections. Because of voter approved term limits and ranked choice voting, there were 22 candidates vying for those 7 seats. Voters had choices. There were competitive races. No incumbent ran unopposed.

Incumbents want the 2010 election to be just like 2006. They would like to be able to run for re-election in a "Top 1" election with no opposition. They want to rig the system in their own personal favor.

Tell the incumbents NO!

Reject all three charter amendments.

No Rigging the System.

Kelly Haughton
Citizens Against Rigging the System
RejectAll3.com

Official Top 2 Results Unavailable Until Final Certification

ALL of the results released on election night are unofficial. In fact, ALL results are unofficial until election certification.

On October 26, 2009, the Auditor's office released to the media its "General Elections Results Reporting Schedule". In the release, the Auditor's office reports that at 8:30 pm on Tuesday, November 3, they will put out results based on "absentees processed through Election Day and unofficial Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) algorithm results."

Why does the Auditor's office repeatedly refer to the RCV results as unofficial, but not the Top 2 results? She is striving to make it look like it takes longer to determine the winner of a RCV race than a Top 2 race. But this is NOT TRUE.

The Auditor's office will be releasing preliminary results based on the ballots counted through the end of each day. There will be preliminary results for the Top 2 races as well as the RCV race. ALL of these results (RCV or Top 2) will be unofficial until final certification. With some races, we will be able to safely guess who the winner will be before all of the votes are counted. In other races, we will need to count all of the votes before we know who wins. But regardless, none of the results (RCV or Top 2) are official until final certification.

Some races (both RCV and Top 2) are too close to call on election night. Indeed, the RCV race for Auditor this year just might be one of those. But the Top 2 race for Mayor of Tacoma may well be such a race as well.

Since RCV races are more likely to be competitive, they are more likely to be too close to call on election night. Competitive elections are a good thing. Uncontested Top 1 races are a bad thing, but the results are known before election night.

Some races are landslides. The RCV race for Sheriff last year was a landslide and we all knew who the winner was going to be at the first release of results. Uncontested races, such as about half of the Top 2 races in Pierce County, are always landslides. This does not make them good elections.

Top 2 Legal Challenge Court Date Set

The Democratic and Republican parties are challenging the current statewide primary system, known as the Top 2, in US District Court. A court date of October 4, 2010 has been set by Judge John C. Coughenour for Washington State Republican Party v State, cv-05-927.

This year in Pierce County, charter amendment 3 would move county level elections to the statewide primary system. Currently, this would mean a move to the Top 2 primary system.

If amendment 3 passes and the parties win their lawsuit, then Pierce County will be at the whim of what happens on a statewide basis. The last time the Top 2 was thrown out, the legislature gave us the pick-a-party primary as our statewide primary system.

Don't put us at the whim of the state legislature.

Reject amendment 3.

Bad Ballot Design Costs Taxpayers and Voters in Pierce County

The Pierce County Elections Department sent out ballots to voters this past weekend. Due to poor ballot design, voters received two ballot cards with much wasted space. Using two ballot cards drove up the expense of the fall general election by $600,000 in printing, postage and paper costs. It also drives up the return postage cost to voters from a regular stamp to "approximately" $0.61. This poor design appears to be politically motivated by Auditor Jan Shabro.

Shabro wants to repeal Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and blames RCV for having to use two ballot cards. She then allocates all of the cost of going to two ballot cards to RCV.

Shabro was so intent on discrediting RCV that she designed a ballot with blank sides and empty columns. Meanwhile, she proposed other cost savings measures such as closing the polls and reducing the number of words her opponents received in the voters’ pamphlet. These measures provided a small fraction of the savings possible by better ballot design.

If her department had done a better job of designing the ballot, it would have fit all into one card. But then the Auditor would not have been able to complain about the cost of RCV. In fact, she would have been forced to admit that RCV saved money relative to the Top 2 in 2009.

Good ballot design and cost savings should come before political motivations.

Tacoma News Tribune recommends Rejection of Charter Amendment 3

The Tacoma News Tribune has decided to recommend the rejection of Pierce County Charter Amendment 3. The News Tribune recommendation comes on the heals of the Seattle Times' recommendation of rejection and the League of Women Voter's similar position.

Of course, this website has endorsed the rejection of Charter Amendment 3 as well. This amendment was hastily put on the ballot by a county council looking to reduce competition in their runs for re-election. We encourage voters to examine the Protect Voter Choice website to make informed decision on this issue.

Pierce County voters should keep ranked-choice voting

The Seattle Times recommends a No vote on Pierce County Charter Amendment 3, which would repeal ranked-choice voting (instant runoff voting).

PIERCE County voters should not throw out ranked-choice voting in the Nov. 3 election. It is a new and promising system, and it has hardly had a chance to prove itself.

Charter Amendment 3, which would repeal ranked-choice voting, is a reflex action by politicians who didn't like it responding to voters who weren't used to it.

They cannot say it didn't work. In the county executive race a year ago, four candidates were on the ballot. Voters were asked to pick their first, second and third choices. Sean Bunney, Republican, got the most first-choice votes. Under the system, Mike Lonergan, who got the fewest, was knocked out, and his voters were reassigned to the others based on second choices. Still Bunney was ahead, but when Calvin Goings was knocked out and his voters were reassigned, Pat McCarthy was the winner. All this knocking-out and reassigning happened instantly once the votes were counted.

In this case, the top-two system would have given the same result. In Seattle's mayoral race, ranked-choice might have given a different result. It would be a result that more clearly reflected the people's choices, because a ranked-choice ballot asks for, and uses, more information than an ordinary ballot does.

Ranked-choice voting is used in Australia, San Francisco and soon to be used in Minneapolis, but it is not otherwise used in the Pacific Northwest. It does require smarter voters than an ordinary ballot, but we think Pierce County voters are up to it.

Pierce County Better Government League "reforms"

Supporters and board members of the Pierce County Better (sic) Government League have proposed and passed reforms in past elections. The impact of these "reforms" has been to reduce voter turnout for county level offices. How did they do that?

In 2007, they put on the ballot charter amendments to make the Auditor and the Assessor-Treasurer positions non-partisan as well as to extend the term limits of these positions from two terms to three terms.

In 2008, there were seven county level races on the ballot. The one race shifted to being non-partisan was the Assessor-Treasurer race. All other county level races showed increases in voter participation between 2004 and 2008. The non-partisan Assessor-Treasurer race saw a decline in voter participation from 70.4% of registered voters in 2004 to 63.7% in 2008. As this comparison shows, the decline in voter participation was due entirely to the "reform" foisted on us by the council members who are now behind the PCBGL.

This year's PCBGL amendments 1 and 2 would shift some county level races (but not all) to odd-numbered years. This will also decrease voter participation as fewer people vote in odd-numbered years. In addition, PCBGL's amendment 3 would shift more of the voting to the even lower turnout August primary in odd-numbered years. This will result in even lower turnout.

Voters should reject all three charter amendments this year. These "reforms" are designed to reduce voter participation in county level elections.

Ranked Choice Voting: One person, one vote

At a recent League of Women Voters forum, Karen Vialle and Alex Hays of the Pierce County Better Government League, proponents of limited voter choice, speculated that Ranked Choice Voting might violate the one person, one vote rule. They were wrong.

There have been two court cases testing Ranked Choice Voting. One in 1975, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, showed RCV (which in Michigan went by the name of the "Ware" system) to be constitutional.

RCV was tested again earlier this year in Minneapolis. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously that RCV is constitutional and does not violate the one person, one vote rule.

RCV has been court tested. And has passed the test.

Reject Amendment 3.

Pierce County Better Government League

The Pierce County Better (sic) Government League is advocating the passage of three proposed charter amendments all affecting our county level elections systems. Collectively, the three amendments attempt to rig the system in favor of allowing existing members of the County Council to keep their jobs for over a decade with little to no competition. To read more about the collective impact of these amendments, see NoRiggingtheSystem.com.

One section of the PCBGL website deals exclusively with proposed amendment 3 and its proposal to move Pierce County to the "statewide primary system." Below in italics is some of the verbiage on their website with our responses interspersed.

"In 2006 Pierce County adopted the experimental 'Ranked Choice Voting' system for most county elections."

Australian and Irish voters who have been using Ranked Choice Voting for decades are likely to find the word "experimental" amusing. RCV has a long history of success in promoting democracy.

. ...RCV has hurt voter turnout,..."

In 2008, when RCV was used in Pierce County, voter participation rates for county level elections were higher than in 2004 and 2006 the two previous comparable election cycles. RCV has not hurt voter turnout.

"...cost more tax dollars to administer..."

In 2008, the vast majority of costs incurred by Pierce County were one-time investments in software and hardware. Properly implemented in 2009, the RCV race would have saved money for Pierce County.

"RCV did not replace the unpopular 'pick-a-party' primary as claimed in 2006, but instead denied voters the 'top two' primary."

In 2006, the statewide primary system used by Pierce County was the pick-a-party primary. The lawsuit by the Democrats and Republicans to prevent the Top 2 from becoming law had prevailed. For county level elections, the voters of Pierce County went with RCV as the replacement for the statewide primary then in effect. In 2007, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions and the state of Washington is now using the Top 2 as the statewide primary system. The Supreme Court left open the possibility of the Democrats and Republicans overturning the Top 2 on other grounds. The Democrats and Republicans are currently suing in court to overturn the Top 2. We do not know how this will come out.

Amendment 3 provides that Pierce County will move to elect its officials with the statewide primary system, not the Top 2. If the Democrats and Republicans prevail in their lawsuit and amendment 3 is approved, Pierce County will be using the pick-a-party primary system again. Just like in 2006.

The PCBGL claims that there is no way the Democrats and Republicans will prevail in their lawsuit. We have no such foresight, but this begs the question of why use the phrase "statewide primary system" rather than the Top 2.

"RCV is bad for democracy, it grants new powers to the political parties to control who files for office and rewards political extremism."

RCV is good for democracy. The RCV law does two things about candidacies. First, it dramatically reduces the number of signatures required for independents and third party candidates to get on the ballot. In 2008, this resulted in one independent and one third party candidate on the ballot. This is the first time in years we had such candidates on the ballot. Second, our RCV law requires that candidates get permission from the parties to use their labels on the ballot. Candidates can run as independents if they are not successful in getting a party label.

What happened to the number of candidates when we shifted to RCV? In 2006, in five races, we had five incumbents running for re-election. Four of them were unopposed by any challenger. The remaining incumbent had just one challenger. In 2008, we had seven races with three incumbents running for re-election. There were a total of 22 candidates on the November ballot. None of the incumbents ran unopposed.

While most voters appreciate having more choices on the ballot, the PCBGL prefers to limit the number of candidates. In fact, PCBGL wants our election system to go back to a world where voters are not "confused" by having multiple candidates on the November ballot. Voters choosing amongst lists of candidates is called democracy. Amendment 3 is bad for democracy.

"The 'top two' primary is the constitutional alternative that is most like our beloved blanket primary."

RCV is a constitutional alternative to our beloved blanket primary. RCV allows one to pick the person, not the party. RCV allows independents and third parties on the November ballot. The Top 2 is currently under legal challenge.

Reject Amendment 3. Reject all three amendments.

What is the Statewide Primary System?

The Pierce County Council wrote proposed charter amendment 3 to install the "statewide primary system". Why didn't they say the Top 2 system? Perhaps this is due to the ongoing lawsuit on the part of the Democrats and Republicans to have the Top 2 system legislation declared illegal and send the state back to the pick-a-party primary system.

By choosing to use the wording "statewide primary system", the amendment leaves the county at the whim of what happens on a statewide basis. This includes the possibility that Pierce County could be forced back to the pick-a-party primary. This is not something the voters of Pierce County want to have happen.

In 2006, the pick-a-party system was the statewide primary system. The voters had a chance to choose to change from the statewide primary system to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and decided it was a better system.

In 2009, the County Council wants to shift back to the statewide primary system. Reject amendment 3. Reject all three charter amendments.

Propaganda to remain on ballot

The committees appointed by the County Council on August 18 to write the voters pamphlet statements against proposed charter amendments 1 and 3 have pointed out to the Pierce County Auditor and the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney's office that the ballot titles contain prejudicial language and are not consistent with past practice for ballot titles for charter amendments. The Auditor's office does not want to discuss the issue with the committees and is moving forward with using the prejudicial ballot titles.

Closed County Process

The state process for ballot measures is for the Attorney General's office to consult with the pro and con committees BEFORE writing the ballot title. Not only did the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney's office write the ballot titles without consulting the committees, the Auditor and the Prosecuting Attorney's office refused to discuss the ballot titles with the committees outside of court. They informed us that the only way they would discuss the issue was if we sued them. So the committees sued them in Superior Court.

During the lawsuit, the Tacoma News Tribune called the ballot title for amendment 1 "propaganda". This had no visible impact on the Auditor's office or the Prosecuting Attorney's office. They were determined to win the lawsuit based on technicalities, not the merits of the titles.

"Catch 22"

As it turned out, the prejudicial ballot titles were filed by the Prosecuting Attorney's office with the Auditor's office on July 28, three weeks before the committees were even appointed by the County Council. Washington state law requires the Auditor to inform the legislative body which is putting the measure on the ballot and any other interested parties of the filing of the ballot titles.

But there is no process for becoming an interested party. Voicing an interest in becoming a member of a committee to write a voters pamphlet statement or testifying before the County Council on the issue does NOT make one interested in the relevant ballot title, according to the Auditor's office.

The Prosecuting Attorney's office and the Auditor maintained in court there is NO requirement to inform the members of the voters pamphlet statement committees of the filing of the ballot titles or to ever send them copies of the ballot titles. The Auditor's office still has not sent ballot titles to the duly appointed committees. They have not posted the ballot titles on their website. Apparently, they do not view the ballot title of the measure as required reading for voters pamphlet statement committees.

Further, the deadline for challenging the ballot titles was 10 days after the filing. At the state level, this is not an issue since the committees are consulted before the titles are written. But our County Council did not even appoint the committees until after the deadline had passed. According to the Prosecuting Attorney's office, even if the Auditor had informed the committees about the ballot titles upon their appointment, it was too late to challenge.

Prejudicial Language in Ballot Title

The judge acknowledged the Prosecuting Attorney's office and the Auditor were successful in moving the prejudicial ballot titles through the process without anyone noticing by the deadline. During the hearing on the suit, the Prosecuting Attorney's office did not defend the prejudicial language, they only focused on the deadline. Apparently, the office does not care about being prejudicial.

Of course, the Auditor still has the ability to eliminate the offensive language, but she has given no indication of any desire to be impartial or fair. The County Council members want amendments 1, 2 and 3 to pass. Using prejudicial language to help them pass helps the County Council members and they are her friends.

League Favors Ranked Choice Voting in Pierce County

The League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County has issued the following letter about proposed charter amendment 3 in Pierce County.

"The League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County opposes Pierce County Charter Amendment 3, which the County Council has put on the 2009 ballot.
Charter Amendment 3 attempts to repeal ranked choice voting in Pierce County races. The League strongly recommends a NO vote, and supports retaining ranked choice voting (RCV).

In last November’s election, with RCV, Pierce County voters had more choices than in previous elections. The County Executive race, for instance, was the most competitive race since the institution of the county charter, and the League supports increasing the number of citizens running for office.

The League also strongly supports lessening the impact of money in politics. In 2008, three of the six winners in RCV races were outspent by opponents.

Finally, the League is committed to increasing voter participation. Without RCV, third-party candidates are knocked out of the running during the low turn-out Primary vote. Their issues, sometimes important, are not heard for the rest of the election cycle. RCV allows voters to hear from every candidate, broadening the issues before the public, during the high turn-out general campaign.

Let’s retain RCV and remedy whatever its weaknesses may be. The League’s mission is to encourage informed and active participation in government, and to increase understanding of major public policy issues. Ranked choice voting is instrumental to those goals."

See www.protectvoterchoice.com for more information.

Paul Jacob urges No vote on Pierce County Charter Amendment 3

Paul Jacob, President of Citizens in Charge, criticizes local politicians for attempting to repeal Ranked Choice Voting in Pierce County. Jacob, a long time proponent of term limits, also urges a No vote on the term limit extension charter amendment.

While many of the proponents of RCV are from the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum, Jacob clearly does not fit into that category. While Jacob is an idealist, he is viewed as more of a conservative than a liberal. And, now in the Pierce County debate on term limits, he is on the same side as Bill Baarsma. I guess RCV and term limits make for unusual bedfellows.

Opportunity to Save Hundreds of Thousands in Elections Costs

Deryl McCarty, Deputy Pierce County Auditor, has identified a method for saving Pierce County hundreds of thousands of budget dollars in the November election alone. McCarty has determined that a majority of ballots can have just one ballot card rather than the budgeted two ballot cards thus saving hundreds of thousands of dollars as compared to the budget.

In setting the budget, it was observed it was likely not all of the November races would fit onto one ballot card for some precincts. The budget was then set to use two ballot cards for ALL precincts. Through careful analysis, McCarty and others within the Elections Department determined that not all precincts would require the two ballot cards. Using only one ballot card for some precincts will save money on printing and postage for the ballots. This taking the initiative to save costs is welcomed by the taxpayers of the county and the county budgetmasters.

There is still work to be done to implement this cost savings. The Elections Department will need to keep on task to be able to implement this cost savings, but the county government needs to be focused on cost savings this year especially given the budget crunch. At a later date, we hope to report McCarty and crew have succeeded in implementing this cost savings measure.

Political Leaders in Minnesota Rally for Ranked Choice Voting

FairVote Minnesota held a fundraising event for Ranked Choice Voting attended by 200 people last night. Many prominent politicians attended the event.

Minneapolis will be using RCV in electing its city level officials in November, 2009. This will be the first use of RCV in the state of Minnesota. In addition, Fair Vote Minnesota is striving to get the cities of St. Paul and Duluth to use RCV to elect their city level officials.

Minnesota clearly has more forward-looking politicians than the sitting politicians in Pierce County. Many Pierce County politicians do not seem to see the benefits of Ranked Choice Voting.

Voter Education at the University of Washington

The Associated Students of the University of Washington use Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for their student body elections. The students' IRV is the same system we call Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Pierce County.

The linked content on the web is the majority of the voter education used at the University. It is substantially more content than provided by the Pierce County Auditor's Office in November 2008 at lower cost than the Pierce County content. In particular, the content discusses right up front why voters are using IRV as well as the best approaches to voting in the new system.

To our knowledge, students are not confused about the system. Perhaps this is due to more positive educational content about the system to voters.

Pierce County should let ranked-choice voting stand

There have been a series of media pieces about the proposed charter amendment to repeal Ranked Choice Voting in Pierce County. Today, the Seattle Times editorial opines that Pierce County should let Ranked Choice Voting stand.

"The Pierce County Council should stop trying to kill its constituents' chosen election system, ranked-choice voting. Voters embraced ranked-choice voting by a vote and then rejected a subsequent attempt to kill it. Let the voters have their way."

In addition, the League of Women Voters in Tacoma-Pierce County opined in favor of keeping RCV. The Daily Weekly and KUOW also had pieces on the controversy.

Much of the coverage suggests that RCV should be kept to improve voter choice. Of course, many of the opponents assert that voters are confused by "too many candidates on the ballot". This "too many candidates on the ballot" argument is primarily put forth by establishment politicians who want to discourage voter choice.

Ranked Choice Voting on Ballot Again in Pierce County

This is a piece by Krist Novoselic which appeared in the Daily Weekly.

The Pierce County Council has put Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) on the ballot with the intention that voters will approve its repeal.

I defended the system on KUOW this morning.

In the same radio interview, Pierce County auditor Jan Shabro complained about the extra work and cost of Ranked Choice. At first blush, this might be a concern to taxpayers. However, Ms. Shabro failed to mention the cost of the extra ballot for the August Top-Two primary election.


But these are the status quo talking points - RCV is expensive.

It could be a fair proposition to put this election reform in front of voters again if there were a reasonable assessment before hand. But Pierce County political insiders rushed RCV on the ballot even though there's a credible study of the system in progress. There also needs to be an objective fiscal audit of RCV in comparison with Top-Two elections.

Like I say in the interview - elected leadership hope RCV will wither on the vine. Lawmakers like no-contest or uncontested elections. Competitive elections are a threat to politics-as-usual.

The Seattle Times Ed cetera Blog has another piece on the repeal effort.

RCV, also known as Instant Runoff Voting is in the Los Angeles Times.

Seattle Times blasts Pierce County Council

In an editorial on the Pierce County establishment's decision to put Ranked Choice Voting on the ballot for possible repeal, the Seattle Times takes exception to the County Council's decision.

"The Pierce County Council's charter amendment to repeal ranked choice voting is an insult to the voters who chose the system in 2006. According to the Tacoma News Tribune the council voted 6-1 to abolish ranked choice voting. The council's action sends ranked choice voting back to the voters in November.

The system was implemented this past year and seemed to work. The council should give the system at least a couple voting cycles. If ranked choice is not working in a few years then send it back to the voters.

What is ranked choice voting? The system, also called instant runoff voting or IRV, allows voters to rank candidates on the ballot in order of preference. Candidates only win when they get a majority of first-choice votes. A run-off is triggered when nobody achieves a majority. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the voters second and third place votes are tabulated. This continues until somebody gets a majority.

It sounds confusing but is rather simple. Check out this animated demonstration at FairVote. (Note the pictures of David Hasselhoff and Condoleezza Rice in the background. Funny).

The system has the added bonus of eliminating the primary. A good thing for cash-strapped counties. That should be incentive for the council to keep ranked choice. Problem is that politicians tend to not like the system because it takes some control away from the parties, which I wrote about during the campaign for ranked choice.

In an e-mail Richard Anderson-Connolly, a University of Puget Sound professor who lead the ranked choice campaign, said the Republican and Democratic parties are trying to ditch the system:

This is the predictable backlash of the two parties when faced with the prospect of voters having more choice. Of course this is not what they will say in public, at least not many of them.

Anderson-Connolly said that proponents will run a "vigorous" no campaign. Good. The voters should rebuke the council and give ranked choice a chance."