Rebuttal to argument for Measure E

The proponents of Measure E say they want a mayor who will “talk with and listen to all City voters,” all 63,000 of us. Such a mayor would be a corrective to the danger that 6 council members might put the concerns of their respective districts first. We agree that localism is one of the serious dangers of Measure E’s proposals, a danger that only ranked-choice voting would remedy.

The proponents raise the important question as to whether a separately elected 4-year mayor would “be in a better position to work on long-term initiatives and outcomes.” This is a very important issue but does not require a city-wide vote. It could be passed by a simple majority of the Council. But, dangerously, voting yes on Measure E would automatically cement district elections into the City Charter.

Under ranked-choice voting, the mayor and Council would represent about 90% of the 63,000 voters. In contrast, only about 50% of all the voters would typically be represented if the Council were elected according to Measure E’s plan.

A ranked-choice elected city government would be in the best position to satisfy the proponents’ expressed desire for a Council that (1) is responsive to all residents and that (2) has a 4-year mayor. The trouble is that Measure E slams the door on any future council choosing the more democratic option of using ranked-choice voting.

Please vote NO on Measure E.

/s/ Stephen Bosworth
/s/ L. Stevan Leonard
/s/ Rick Longinotti
/s/ Jane Doyle
/s/ Barbara Riverwoman

If an asterisk (*) appears after a name, it means the person is signing on behalf of that agency/organization.

If no asterisk (*) appears after a name, it means the person is signing as an individual.