City voters to decide: elected mayor and ranked-choice voting
The Charter Commission decides to send both proposals to Portland residents on the November ballot.
By Tom Bell tbell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer
PORTLAND - Voters will decide on Nov. 2 whether Portland will have a popularly elected mayor chosen through an unusual system called ranked-choice voting.
AT A GLANCE
CURRENT MAYOR
• A city councilor chosen by the council for a one-year term, subject to removal at any time by a council vote.
• A member of the City Council. Chairs council meetings.
• Official head of the city.
PROPOSED MAYOR
• Elected by voters for a four-year term; removed through a recall election.
• A member of the City Council. Chairs council meetings.
• Official head of the city.
• Facilitates implementation of city policies through the city manager's office.
• Oversees the process for hiring, reviewing and removing the city manager, corporation counsel and city clerk.
• Provides public policy guidance to the city manager in preparation of city budgets and capital improvement plans. May make comments about manager's budget upon presentation to the council.
• Facilitates passage of city and school budgets.
• Directs agenda preparation for council meetings.
• Leads an annual council workshop on city goals and priorities.
• Makes an annual State of the City address.
The city's Charter Commission voted Thursday to "bundle" the two issues into one ballot question.
While some members said confusion over a novel election system could derail support for a popularly elected mayor, supporters said it is the most effective way to ensure that the mayor has a political mandate from a broad section of the electorate.
Ranked-choice voting is so central to the proposal for the elected mayor that both issues must be on the same ballot question, said Commissioner Laurie Davis.
"This is our best proposal. Take it or leave it," she said.
The commission also voted to clarify the relationship between the mayor and the city manager, and give the mayor veto power over the city budget.
Thursday's meeting was the commission's last for making any significant decisions about proposed charter changes.
The 12-member commission, which began its work a year ago, will meet for the last time on July 8 to take a formal vote and pose for a group photograph.
The group's proposals will go directly to voters in November and do not need approval by the City Council.
As envisioned by the commission, the elected mayor would have "soft powers" and serve as a voting member of the City Council. The mayor would not be a chief executive.
Commissioner Jim Gooch said the mayor would be a "consensus-building, community-organizing mayor."
The mayor would serve a four-year term, chair council meetings and act as the city's official representative within the city and with other governments. It would be a full-time position that pays at least $67,359 a year.
On Thursday, the commission clarified the responsibility of the mayor and the city manager over formation of the city budget.
Rather than giving "policy direction" to the manager, as was written in a previous draft, the mayor would give only "policy guidance," a change that would tip the balance of power in favor of the city manager.
The commission also added wording to say the city manager would deliver the budget to the City Council, and the mayor would be able to provide comments on the budget at that time.
In a previous draft, the manager and the mayor would have "jointly" presented the budget to the City Council.
During Thursday's public hearing, former City Manager Tim Honey told the commission the previous draft would blur the line of executive authority and lead to confusion about who would be accountable. He urged the commission to restore the authority of the city manager.
The Portland Community Chamber also lobbied for the change.
The commission decided later to give the mayor veto power over the city budget, including budget amendments.
It's not a lot of power, though. Six councilors could override a veto. In effect, the mayor would issue a veto only if he or she were on the losing end of a 5-4 vote.
Much of the discussion Thursday centered on ranked-choice voting, which is essentially a series of runoff elections, tallied in rounds.
On ballots, voters rank candidates in order of preference by filling in the first-choice bubble next to their favorite candidate, the second-choice bubble next to their second favorite, and so on.
After the polls close, the first-choice votes are counted for all candidates. If no candidate gets a majority, the ballots are recounted and the last-place candidate is eliminated. The remaining candidates get any second-choice votes cast for them on the ballots won by the eliminated candidate.
The process continues by rounds until one candidate emerges with the majority.
Commissioner Nathan Smith, who chaired a subcommittee that researched the issue, said he has become convinced that the system is better than a primary or a runoff election because there is typically a sharp drop-off in voter turnout in a second election.
Also, holding a second election would be more costly for the city and the candidates, he said.
In a single plurality election with multiple candidates, a well-organized minority faction could elect a mayor with only narrow public support. Under ranked-choice voting, that would not happen, he said.
Staff Writer Tom Bell can be contacted at 791-6369 or at:
tbell@pressherald.com
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
23 COMMENTS
TM1986 said...
The worst case scenario was avoided. I wish the Mayor was stronger, but the veto power, combined with Ranked Choice Voting, make this a strong proposal.
July 2, 2010 at 2:43 AM Report abuse
Hagimallis said...
Whatta joke! the people again loose. This like every commitee and consultant is always fixed. At the end Mr and Mrs Maine street get the shaft! Thats why I wrote abook to stop this cronyism Mike Mallis.
July 2, 2010 at 3:11 AM Report abuse
TM1986 said...
What are you talking about? How does anyone "loose"? What is "Maine street"? Is that in North Deering?
July 2, 2010 at 3:58 AM Report abuse
jake007 said...
When Commissioner Laurie Davis says "This is our best proposal. Take it or leave it" I find that very condescending and arrogent. This is not "best" and is a homogenized version of what an elected mayor with authority to make change as mandeated by voters should be.
July 2, 2010 at 5:42 AM Report abuse
poboy said...
This proposal sould have been broken out into two seperate votes. I would have voted for an elected mayor but not for the Ranked Coice Voting. I will be voting NO.
July 2, 2010 at 7:19 AM Report abuse
WakeVerified said...
A single RCV election is not cheaper than a general election and a rarely needed runoff - if you do an honest accounting of all the costs. RCV elections are much more confusing for voters, and much more complex for administrators to count. And also, RCV does not always ensure a majority winner in a single election. In the big 2009 Minneapolis RCV election, it cost more (adjusted for inflation) than 2 elections cost in 2005. Turnout was the lowest in over 100 years, and the spoiled ballot rate was 3 times what it was for traditional elections. There is a lot more information out there about IRV/RCV elections that have not delivered on the promises that you are being sold on now. They have tried it here in NC since 2007, and it's failed to delver on ANY promise made. For more info on real world experience with IRV/RCV, check out my blog http://noirvnc.blogspot.com/ and check out the other blogs listed there
July 2, 2010 at 8:01 AM Report abuse
merrywidow said...
Perfect! I only have to vote "no" once.
July 2, 2010 at 8:07 AM Report abuse
JackStraw said...
In order to pay for the position some combination of layoffs, service cuts or tax increases will be needed. For what-to award the winner of popularity contest a full time job with benefits and perks? VOTE NO!!!
July 2, 2010 at 8:07 AM Report abuse
heyjoe said...
When Laurie Davis lived out here, she had the city put in a sidewalk from her house to the school so her little darlings wouldn't have to walk on the street....Thousands of dollars later the sidewalk was complete and she drove her kids to school every day....Ms. Davis has no credibility and is a civic busybody who's only agenda is her own....I'll be voting a big NO!!!!
July 2, 2010 at 8:26 AM Report abuse
MarkHB said...
I think the most entertaining thing Laurie Davis said during this whole process was that the discussion of non-citizen voting made her feel connected to the suffragettes in the time of the 19th Amendment. The ironic thing is, she was elected to this commission to represent Don MacWilliams' old district!
July 2, 2010 at 8:39 AM Report abuse
jake007 said...
I think a big no vote as well. As much as I would like to see a mayor with more than ribbon cutting scissors,I find Laurie Davis to be unfit to on the commission.NO
July 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM Report abuse
dumasilook said...
someone must like laurie davis and her side. she was after all voted into this commission. i dont know who she is but i agree her comment was terribly condescending and impolite.
July 2, 2010 at 9:20 AM Report abuse
PaulPortland said...
Leave it.
July 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
Looks to me like the "sides" of the commission played "lets make a deal". Ranked voting in exchange for veto power. Maybe that was the whole "purpose" behind changing their mind on ranked choice voting in the 11th hour, to begin with. I missed the meeting but will catch it on re-runs. While I like the idea of ranked choice voting. I don't see much sense in a veto, IF the commission wants to deliver a "weak" mayor to control potential abuse of power. IN fact that INCREASES the worry. 4 years is a VERY LONG time for voters to LIVE with the "mistake" of a veto wielding mayor "gone wild". Can you say "gridlock"???
July 2, 2010 at 11:41 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
RCV itself has the potential to curtail abuse of power BUT not when it is used as the means of "claiming" a majority that doesn't exist, in reality. If you don't have 50% in the "first vote", no matter HOW you try to get there, you DON'T have a majority and shouldn't be able to "claim" that you do. I have always thought it was rather silly that anyone had the unhealthy NEED to "claim" a majority( when it doesn't exist in reality). It seems to me to be a rather mind twisting,ego boosting, deceive the populace activity.
July 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
I envision a rather "mad' mayor running around the halls of city hall while shouting "BUT, but, but, I have a "mandate of the majority" "so you MUST do my will!!! "bully politics". I have always felt the "need" to claim a majority was rather bizarre. But what is really "sick" is a need to manipulate the vote( and add costs to taxpayers) to be able to "claim" that "imaginary" mandate!!! Get over the unhealthy "need" to feed egos. You got 35% of the vote and the most votes, period. It's creating a semblance( and claim) of POWER where one doesn't actually exist. That seems mentally unhealthy and well, subject TO abuse of power.
July 2, 2010 at 12:11 PM Report abuse
MarkHB said...
"Looks to me like the "sides" of the commission played "lets make a deal". Ranked voting in exchange for veto power." The Greens already had RCV sewn up; this half-baked veto power (which apparently only affects the budget, not any other appropriations or ordinances) was an attempt to find a middle ground between "Pay $60,000 a year to do what the mayor does now," which many commenters found silly, and "Put the mayor in charge of budget priorities," which threw Tim Honey into a tizzy.
July 2, 2010 at 12:55 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
"The Greens already had RCV sewn up;" Not really. The Greens don't have the majority of the commission votes. And the majority ,in the 11th hour, decided they "changed their mind" on RCV. The majority GOT veto power in exchange for dropping their 11th hour opposition to rcv, is my "read" of things. So $67,000 to do what the mayor is doing now for 4 years, BUT with veto power. There are alot of people, I don't want to see weilding veto power as a political threat. They won't wield it well or wisely.
July 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
PS Over all I think the greens( and others (valleau and rannigan ) have down a good job of trying to protect against potential abuse of power and avoid making the mayor's seat into a dictatorship, that usurps the role of city manager. The veto power concerns me.
July 2, 2010 at 1:56 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
IF greater voter acountablity is a goal of the commissioners, a 2 year term would better meet that goal.
July 2, 2010 at 2:00 PM Report abuse
ZWFzdHdpbmQ%3D said...
if Portland gets a paid mayor, is there still a need for a paid spokesperson like Nicole Clegg? Cut that position and the money saved could be used for this new position.
July 2, 2010 at 6:16 PM Report abuse
Hagimallis said...
Sorry about my speeling he he I write many comments! lol anyway this commission is so tainted and its so obvious. I am surprised no one with half a brain hasn't started a petition to repeal and disolve this mess. This is why I wrote a book. I am in Hong Kong. MIke Mallis
July 2, 2010 at 8:50 PM Report abuse
Mainedog said...
Ranked voting that is such a joke! The mandate is for the mayor to receive more than 50% of the vote! Their lying when they say its needed just to prevent the need for a special election ! The election for mayor could take place during the June primary election season and have the runoff if needed between the top two in the November elections - NO SPECIAL ELECTION NEEDED! This would allow for either terms of two or four years. The only thing ranked voting does is give the candidate that finished second or third in the voting an actual chance of winning with second choice votes and that is ridiculous!
July 3, 2010 at 9:00 AM Report abuse