Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-17-022 - Ranked Ballots for 2018 Election REPORT TO:Finance and Corporate Services Standing Committee DATE OF MEETING:February 13, 2017 SUBMITTED BY:Christine Tarling, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk, 519- 741-2200, ext. 7809 PREPARED BY:Christine Tarling, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk, 519- 741-2200, ext. 7809 WARD(S) INVOLVED:All DATE OF REPORT:January 23, 2017 REPORT NO.:FCS-17-022 SUBJECT:Ranked Ballots for 2018 Election ___________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Thatthe City ofKitchener’s2018 municipal election be conducted using the existing first-past-the-post election system; and, Thatstaffbe directed to monitor ranked ballot elections in Ontario, should any be conducted,and report back to Council before the 2022municipal election. BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Province of Ontario conducted an extensivepublic consultation process to receive feedback on the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (MEA). On April 4, 2016, Bill 181, named the Municipal Elections Modernization Act, 2016 (MEMA), was introduced andconstitutes the most significant update to the MEA in Ontario within the last 20 years. MEMA received Royal Assent on June 9, 2016. Amongst the many changes made, Section 1.1 of the MEA has been amended to give municipalities the option to use Ranked Ballot Voting (RBV) in future elections as an alternative to the current first-past-the-post system(FPTP) while Section 41.1 sets out theframework for RBV. Essentially, RBVallowsa voter to rank candidates in order of preference (i.e. first choice, second choice, third choice, etc.)instead of voting for just one candidate.Under this voting system, if a voter’s first choice candidate is eliminated, RBV takes into account the next choices on the voter’s ballotand transfers those votes to other candidates. This is theoretically meant to ensure the winning candidate(s) receives support from a majority of voters. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1 - 1 In late 2016, the Province published Ontario Regulation 310/16 (the Regulations) which prescribes how RBV will work. As previously communicated to Council,staff has reviewed theRegulations as well as gathered information from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO), other municipalities,andvoting equipment vendors. The main focus of this report is to provide information regarding RBV to inform a decision as to whether to deploy itfor the 2018 municipal election. REPORT: Currently, no Canadian jurisdiction uses RBV. Ontario is the first province to give municipal councils the option to pass a by-law to implement RBVelections starting with the next municipal election in 2018.To date, no Ontario municipalityhas passed a by-law to use RBV. The concept of RBVas well asthe many pros and cons ofthis form of voting system havebeen widely published in the mediaand in academic journals. It is not the intention of this report to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of RBV versus FPTP (see Appendix ‘A’for more information)but rather to provide information regarding the key requirements of RBVand factors to consider in deciding whether to use or not. Ranked Ballot Voting Regulations - Overview The details as to how a RBV election would work are contained in the Regulationsand cover the following requirements (see Appendix ‘B’for more information): 1.A By-law to authorize RBVincluding timelines, considerations Council must take into accountin deciding to use the RBV system, and the maximum number of rankings anelector may make. 2.Public consultation prior to implementingRBVwhich includes holding an open house and public meeting along withthetimelines and information that must be conveyed to the public. 3.The offices on a municipal council that may be elected using RBV. 4.Ballot requirements. 5. Vote counting for both single and multiple candidatesincluding how rankings will be interpreted, how candidates will be eliminatedusing either a single or batch elimination method, and how thresholds will be calculated(see Appendix ‘C’ for more information). 6.When and how RBV can be used for upper-tier municipal elections and the relationship to the lower-tier municipalities. 7.Information about Election Results. 1 - 2 Considerations for RBV System A change to the electoral landscape such as RBVcould have implications and requires many considerations before selecting it.RBV is new to Canada but has been used in severalmunicipalities in the United States. Significant time and review, however,is requiredin order to implement RBVhere as there have been no test cases within Canada.As well, to have Kitchener as the only municipality within the Waterloo Region (and potentially the Province) to use RBV would create an uneven method of voting. 1.Public education and voter turnout RBVis a fundamental departure from the experience of votersin Ontario who are familiar withselecting a specificnumber of candidates for each office. Theuse of RBV may be confusing to experienced and new voters alike, especially since the current FPTP system is solelyused at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. As well, RBV will not be used for school board trustees and since several lower-tier municipalities in the Waterloo Region have already decidednot to use RBVin 2018, it will not be used for the upper tier municipal election. If the City of Kitchener opted to use RBV for the Mayor and Ward Councillor positions, it could potentially add to voter confusion since the other municipal offices (Regional Council and School Board) on the ballot would be non-ranked positions. Since RBV is unlike anything voters in this country have experienced, it may have a negative impact on voter turnout which is typically quite low at the municipal level. Effective communication and public educationwould be essential to informthe public; otherwise, voters may perceive the system as too complicated or difficult to navigate and be discouraged from voting.A significant amount of time, effort and election funding would be needed forpublic education and resources to inform voters about RBV to help combat any negativeperception and to ensure voters fully understand the implications of their voting choices.At this time, the Province is not offering any funding to municipalities to help offset any costs needed for voter education. 2.Election workerrecruitment andtraining There is already a significant responsibility placed upon election workers, andtheir visibility has been heightened in recent years to the point that many citizens do not find it desirable to work at a municipal election.Those who handout the ballots and provide instruction to voters must have a solid understanding of howto fill outballots and an ability to explain the process to voters.Those who operate the election equipment must have a solid understanding of how the equipment functions, what it means when a ballot is rejected, and what to do to ensure the voter’s rightto recast their ballot. To better facilitate electors, municipalities needto recruit skilled election workers and prepare them well to fulfill their functions. It is expected RBV will further intensifythe training requirements of election workers, place even more responsibility on their shoulders to explain the system correctly, and make them more vulnerable tonegative scrutiny should any voterperceive they have been incorrectly instructed in how to vote. 1 - 3 Undoubtedly, election workers will need more time to explain RBV to voters at the polls which would likely impact wait times and further exert pressure upon them. Taken together, it could become even more challenging to recruit election workers as well as increase the number of workers who subsequently quit after being trained. 3.Public consultation and support Public consultation and engagement is required before passing a by-law to enable RBV because it is a significant change to the current electoral system. If Council directs staff to proceed with RBV for the 2018 municipal election, a thorough public consultation process will be needed to gather public feedback. The results of this consultation would be one of several factors taken into consideration in a future decision report that would need to comebefore Council before the legislated decision deadline of May 1,2017 to allow for a RBV by-law to be passed. If Council directs staff to pursue the option of RBV, significant staff time will be required to conduct and document public consultation and engagement as required by the legislation. Council should note thesame process for rescinding the RBV by-law would also be required. 4.Ballots Conversations with voting equipment vendors suggestthecomposite ballot currently used by the City, which displaysall elected offices on the same ballot, can be used for both ranked and non-ranked offices.While the composite ballot would be familiar to voters, the RBV ballot will look considerably different and will likely require more time for voters to orient themselves(see Appendix ‘D’ for a sample ranked ballot). Ballots would need to be carefully designed and laid out to ensure readability and to help eliminate confusion; otherwise, there could be an increase in spoiled ballots and wait times at voting locations.In 2014, voters expressed concern at the size of the boxes for marking their ballots. Finding the space on the ballot to accommodate both ranked and non-ranked contestswith type-face large enough to read and boxes large enough to mark, would likelyrequire either adual-faced ballotor even multiple ballots. While this can be accommodated, the ballotswill cost more and more time will be needed for election workers at voting locations to issue, manage, balance and reconcile ballots as well asanswer voters’ questions.Voters might also be discouraged by the ballots and not vote for some or all of the offices. 5.Voting equipment Dominion Voting, the City’s 2014 election equipment vendor, has indicated their equipment canhandle an RBV electionbutthey have limited experience with such elections. Dominion believes programming the tabulators would be more complicated, whichwould increase vendor costs, and concedesthere are no Canadian standards for the logic and accuracy testing of the equipment. 1 - 4 A change to RBV would affect the amount of time needed to prepare and test vote counting equipment and systems. Because RBV involves multiple rounds of voting based on a more complex mathematical calculation,testing would be more complicated and would take more time in order to ensure votes are counted correctly,andthe security and integrity of the system is intact. In 2014, it took approximately 140hours to conduct logic and accuracy testing for the tabulators in addition to another 21hours for the accessible tabulators. Based on information provided by Minneapolis, MN and Cambridge, MA, a minimum of one additional day, seven additional hours with tenstaff would potentially be needed to conduct logic and accuracy testing if RBVwas implemented. A significant portion of this additional time is based on testing of accessible devices using an audio ballot with each candidate for each office read out three or more times before selections can be made. 6.Election results and recount In order to be transparent with voting results, more in-depth information is required to be reported.In addition to the candidates who have been elected and the number of ballots cast, which are currently reported, the Clerk would also have to report on the following: The number of ballots that were declined or rejected; The threshold for each office; The number of votes each candidate received in the first round (and thereafter where applicable) of vote counting; The results of each round of vote counting, includingthe number of votes received by each remaining candidate and the number of exhausted ballots. The time it will take to release all these results mustbe seriously considered. RBV will very likely delay the time between the close of voting and the releaseof official results from the City Clerk's Office. With the current voting system, election results are typically generated very quickly with unofficial results announced at the end of Election Day and official results announced the following business day.With RBV, unofficial results might still be available the same night; however, the verification of official results would require more time and could take more than a week. This delay would be required to ensure results are accurate and can vary significantly depending on the number of rounds of counting required and the vote counting systems implemented. This assertion is based on the experiences of Cambridge, MA and Minneapolis, MN. Cambridgewas able toproducepreliminary results on the night of the election and unofficial results the following day. For the verification and posting of official elections results it took10 days to complete.Similarly, the Minneapolis conducted its first ranked ballot election in 2009. Following the first round of counting, ballots were hand counted starting Wednesday, November 4, 2009 and the count was completed Friday, November 13, 2009.It is expected than electronic tabulation will take less time than hand counting but will take more time than counting ballots for a FPTP election. 1 - 5 7.Accessibility The City has been committed to barrier-free elections for many years using accessible tabulators which give the voter the opportunity to listen to an audio ballot with candidate options read out over headphones. Various voting devices such as handheld touch pads, "yes/no" paddles, andsip and puff machines, are used to enable voters to choose their candidates. It can take a significant amount of timefor the ballotsto be read out in fullin a non-ranked ballot system. Depending on the number of rankings allowed and the number of candidates for an office, marking a RBV ballot using an accessibility device could be significantly longer and onerous than marking a non-ranked ballot. Dominion Votinghas indicatedthey have not deployed the accessible audio ballot featurein an RBVsystem before, which is concerning. They estimateit could take up to twice as long, with twice as much effort, for a voter to mark an audioRBV ballot for the Offices of Mayor and Ward Councillor. 8.Increased administrative costs It is anticipated there will be considerable new/increasedcosts to enact RBV as follows: Increase in paper ballot production costs based on the size and number of ballot faces required, as well as in anticipation of more spoiled ballots and replacement needs; Additional staff to support research, planning and implementation of new processes and audit procedures of an RBV system; Extensive public education to inform and assist voters and this will require additional staff, as well as, promotional materials and communication initiatives; Additional election workers at each location to assist voters who are unclear on the new voting method and to control an increase in wait times; Additional training for all election workers to ensure that they are knowledgeable on ranked ballotsand can assist voters; and, Additional staff time to conduct the significant testing of technologyfor RBV. 9.Impact of other changes to MEA Along with introducing the option for municipalities to use RBV, Bill 181, the Modernization of the Municipal Elections Act (MEMO), has brought other changes which will be significant for municipal clerks across Ontario. These changes affect: The elections calendar andthetiming of election activities; The nomination period and process; Campaign financesincluding corporate and trade union contributions, and review of filed financial statementsby the clerk; 1 - 6 Third party advertisingincluding determining eligibility, registration and the certification of third party advertisers; Expansion of the Clerk’s authority; Election signs and advertising; Recounts; and, The requirement for an election accessibility plan in advance of the election as well as a post-election accessibility report. These new requirements of municipal clerks placean increased workload to not only become familiar with the changes and their impact, but also to implement the necessary processes, policies and procedures to meet the requirements. While it might seem self- serving to request that Council not add the option of RBV to the 2018 election, it is for the best interest of candidates and voters.To run a legally-binding, democratic and accessible election requires a significant level of attention to detail and a thorough familiarity with the requirements of the MEA. It will take time to absorb the other new changes of MEA. Adding RBV to the mixwill add another element of complication to the election administration. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Priority:Effective and Efficient City Services Strategy: #5.2 – Improve the design and delivery of city services so that they provide what citizens want in the most reliable, convenient and cost-efficiency way. Strategic Action:#CS40 – 2018 Election. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Costs which would relate to RBV and would increase the budget for 2018 include the cost for ballots, tabulators, Ballot Clerks,advertising/publicity, and public consultation. Costs for these items in 2014 are shown in the table below along with the minimum anticipated costs for a RBV election in 2018. Item2014 Election–2018 Election with Increase for No RBVRBV2018 Ballots$18,248$27,372$9,124 Tabulators$104,564$121,564$17,000 Ballot Clerks$55,800$74,600$18,800 Advertising/Publicity$8,900$17,800$8,900 Public Consultation$0$14,000$14,000 Total$187,512$255,336$67,824 1 - 7 Ballots: At a minimum, thecost for ballots will increase assuming the same number of ballots as in 2014, dual-face RBV ballots,andthe same number of voting locations as 2014. This cost will double if multiple ballots are needed. Tabulators: Represents the cost of programming the tabulators for RBV only assuming the same number of voting locations and tabulators as 2014. Ballot Clerks: There will be a need for at least one additional Ballot Clerkat each advance poll location and each voting location on Election Day assuming the same number of locations as 2014. This cost will increase further if 2 extra Ballot Clerks are needed for some locations. Advertising/Publicity: In 2014, the municipalities in the Region of Waterloo pooled their resources in order to stretch their respective advertising/publicity budgets to help promote the election. The City of Kitchener would need additional funds to advertise/publicize RBV in order to help educate and inform the voters. It is difficult to predict how much this would actually cost. Public consultation:Given the requirements of the legislation to hold at least one public open house, there would be correlating costs to doing so which staff estimatesas follows: Communications staff: 30-35 hours Legislated Servicesstaff: 70-85 hours Total staff time: 100-120 hours It is difficult to calculate the cost of public consultation but other municipalities have estimated to range from $14,000 to $18,900 based on the numbers above. Conservatively, based on the above, it is estimated that a RBV election would cost an additional $67,824at a minimum. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: CONSULT – Consultation with the Waterloo Region Area Municipal Clerks and with officials from the Ministry of Municipal Affairsand Housing has been undertaken related to changes to the MEA including consideration of RBV. As well, information from other Ontario municipalities and AMCTO has been gathered to help understand RBV and its potential implications. There is consensus from the Waterloo Region Area Municipal Clerks that it is premature to undertake RBV because of issues associated with it; and therefore, the Clerks in Waterloo Region do not support RBV elections at this time. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: D. Chapman, DCAO, Finance &Corporate Services Dept. 1 - 8 Appendix ‘A’ – Advantages and Disadvantages of Ranked Ballot Voting Appendix ‘B’ – Details of Ontario Regulation 310/16for Ranked Ballot Voting Appendix ‘C’ – Vote Counting Using Ranked Ballot Voting Appendix ‘D’ – Sample Ranked Ballotfrom the City of Minneapolis Appendix ‘E’ – Municipalities using Ranked Ballot Voting Appendix ‘F’– Minneapolis Ranked-Choice Voting History. Appendix ‘G’– Single-member Ranked Ballot voting demonstrated by the following Minnesota Public Radio public education video Appendix ‘H’– Single transferrable voting demonstrated by the following Minnesota Public Radio public education video 1 - 9 APPENDIX ‘A’ – Advantages and Disadvantages ofRanked Ballot Voting Advantages of RBVDisadvantages of RBV Would not require redistribution of ward System isunfamiliar to Ontario voters and boundariesor polling subdivisionscould be seen asmore confusingor more complex No candidate/partywins without garnering Marking ballots could be seen as more more than 50 per cent of the votedifficult and discourage voters – could decrease voter turnoutor result in undervoting Voters might feel they are not “wasting” Voters whose first choices lose could still their voteas their second and third choices feel their votes didnot count will count towards a majority vote for a candidate Compels candidates/partiesto try to Could make it harder for less-known broaden their appeal to attract second and candidates/partiesbecause will need more third choice supportthan 50% of the vote to win. Under FPTP, a less-known candidate/partycan win with less than 40 per cent of the vote Helps to discourage negative campaigningAdditional costs associated with RBV and encourage issue-based campaigning including costs for public education, which could better assist voters with election worker training, programming and decision-makingtesting of vote counting equipment, ballot production Vote splittingor “spoilers”and strategic Could increase challenges for recruiting voting is less likelyskilled and willing election workers Could increase spoiled ballots resulting in decrease in voters’ voices being heard Fully marked ballots could theoretically count more than under-marked ballots Additional requirements under MEMO have increased complexity of municipal elections overall Most advantageous for party elections versus non-partisan municipal elections 1 - 10 Advantages of RBVDisadvantages of RBV More rigorous information gathering and decision-making required as voters must make comparisons between multiple candidates on multiple issues, and then order candidates based on their positions and on the relative importance of those issues to the voter = “information cost” Could potentially divert candidates’ conversations with electors away from issues to focus on RBV instead 1 - 11 APPENDIX ‘B’ – Details of Ontario Regulation 310/16for Ranked Ballot Voting 1.Municipalities must pass a by-law to authorize RBV: a. By-law must be passed no later than May 1 in the year before the year of the election(e.g. May 1, 2017, for the 2018 election). b.Before passing a by-law, the Council must consider: The costs of conducting the election; The availability of technology, including vote counting equipment and software; The impact the proposed by-law would haveon election administration. c. By-law may specify the maximum number of rankings that an elector may make and the maximum number of rankings may be different for each office being elected. If the by-law does not specify the maximum number of rankings, the default maximum is three(3). 2.Public consultation must occur prior to implementingRBV: a.Before passing a by-law, the municipality must hold an open house to provide the public with information about: How elections would be conducted, including a description of vote counting; Estimated costs of conductingan RBVelection; Any voting and vote-counting equipment that is being considered for use in the election; Any alternative voting method being considered for use in the election. b.Notice of the open house shall be published at least 30 days prior to the event. c. Following the open house, the municipality must hold a public meeting to allow the public to speak to council about the proposed by-law: Public meeting must be held at least 15 days after the open house is held; Notice of the public meeting shall be provided 30 days prior to the event. 3.Once a by-law to use RBV has been passed, a municipality must undertake the same public consultation to repeal that by-law as outlined in #2 above. 4.Which offices on a municipal council may be elected using RBV: a.If a by-law is passed, RBV must be used to elect all members of a Council; b.If RBV is authorized for a regular election, RBV must also be used in any by- elections that are held to fill council vacancies during the council term. 1 - 12 5.Ballot requirements: a.The general rules for what can appear on a ballot set out in the Municipal Elections Act would continue to apply to RBV; b.In addition to being required to be available in the voting place, the ballots to be used in a RBV election must contain the following information: The number of candidates to be elected for each office; Instructions to the voter on how to mark the ballot to rank their preferences; The maximum number of candidates that may be ranked on the ballot for each office. 6.Vote counting in a RBV election: a.Voting for one candidate or more than one (multiple) candidate. b.How rankings will be interpreted: The voter's preference will be determined by looking at the rankings given to candidates; If a voter gives the same candidate more than one ranking, only the highest of those rankings will be considered; If a voter skips a ranking, the next highest ranking will be considered; If a voter gives two candidates the highest ranking, so that it is not possible to determine which candidate is the voter's first preference, the ballot will be rejected; In any round of counting after the first round, if a ballot is to be transferred, but it is not possible to determine which candidate is the voter's next preference, the ballot becomes exhausted; A voter does not have to rank the maximum number of preferences. If a voter only ranks one candidate, that candidate would be the voter's highest preferenceand the ballot would become exhausted in the next round because it would not be possible to determine the voter's next preference. c. Elimination of candidates: Candidates may be eliminated either using “single elimination” or “batch elimination”; The clerk has the authority to decide which elimination method will be used. The same elimination method must be used for all offices, and all rounds of vote counting; In the single elimination method, the candidate who has the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and his/hervotes are distributed to the remaining candidates according to the next preference shown on each ballot; In the batch elimination method, all candidates who do not have a mathematical chance of being elected are eliminated at the same time, and theirvotes are distributed to the remaining candidates according to the next preference shown on each ballot. 1 - 13 d.Calculation of the threshold: A candidate must receive a predetermined number of votes for that office in order to be electedaccording to the mathematicalformulaas set out in the Regulation. 7.Upper-Tier Municipalities: a.Directly-elected upper-tier municipalities (i.e. the member does not also sit on a lower tier council) may pass a by-law authorizing the use of RBVforthose offices; b.An upper-tier municipality could only pass a by-law if all of the lower-tier municipalities within it have passed by-laws authorizing the use of RBV to elect the lower-tier offices. c. An upper-tier municipality must provide the public with information about how electionswould be conducted, and the estimated costs. d.The upper-tier municipality must hold a public meeting to allow the public to speak to council about the proposed by-law. e.The by-law must be passed no later than July 1 in the year before the year of the election (e.g. July 1, 2017 for the 2018 election). f.If an upper-tier municipality has passed a by-law authorizing RBV, the clerk of the lower-tier municipality with the largest number of electors would be responsible for counting the votes. 8.Information aboutElection Results: a.As soon as possible after voting day, the Clerk shall make the following information about the election available to the public: The number of ballots cast; The number of ballots declined; The number of ballots in which the votes for the office were rejected; The threshold calculated to determine the election of a candidate to office; The number of votes cast for each candidate at the first round of vote counting; The results of each round of vote counting, including the number of votes received by each continuing candidate for the round, and the number of exhausted ballots. 1 - 14 APPENDIX ‘C’ – Vote Counting Using Ranked Ballot Voting There are two types of ranked ballots: single-member RBV and multi-member RBV. In the City of Kitchener,and under the current governance structure, a single-member RBVprocess would apply to the Office of the Mayor and for each Ward Councillor office, where only one candidate is elected. Under the new regulations, RBV would not apply to school board trusteesor to Regional Council including both Regional Chair and Regional Councillors unless all lower-tier municipalities agreeto use RBV. To cross the threshold in a single-member RBVelection, votes aredistributed among candidates based on the rankings indicated by the voter on the ballot. In the event that a candidate does not receive enough votes to pass the threshold, subsequent rounds of vote counting would be conducted where the candidate(s) who received the lowest number of votes would be dropped from future counts, and his/her votes redistributed based on the rankings assigned to other candidates until the threshold is met. Single-Member ranked balloting Step 1:Determine the threshold. Threshold = \[(Total # of ballots cast - # of Rejected ballots) ÷ (# of Members to be Elected +1)\] + 1 Step 2:Count the first choice votes for all of the candidates. Step 3:Determine if a candidate meets the threshold. If Yes, s/he is elected. Step 4:Ifnone of the candidates meet the threshold,eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes and redistribute the voters’ second choiceto the remaining candidates. Step 5:Determine if a candidate meets the threshold. If Yes, s/he is elected. Step 6:If No, eliminate the candidate with the next fewest votes and redistribute the voters’ third choice to the remaining candidates. Source: mah.gov.on.ca 1 - 15 The table below illustrates the impact thatsingle-member ranked balloting would have had on the 2014 municipal election for the Officesof Mayor and each Ward Councillor positions. PositionMet Threshold st 50% + 1 on the 1Round Office of MayorYes Ward 1Yes Ward 2No Ward 3Not applicable Ward 4Yes Ward 5Yes Ward 6Yes Ward 7Yes Ward 8Yes Ward 9Yes Ward 10Yes Using the 2014 Election results, there would be only one (1) office whereby a further round of voting would have been needed to determine the outcome.Interestingly, this is also the office for which there were the most number of candidates running. Multi-member ranked balloting Given that RBV does not apply to school board trustees and will not be held for the upper tier municipal election in 2018, details as to how the regulations prescribe such ranked balloting are not contained within this report. At a high level, the regulations dictate that to cross the threshold in a multi-member ranked ballot election, votes would similarly be distributed among candidates based on the rankings indicated by the voter on the ballot. Unique to multi-member elections is that if any candidate receives more than the number of votes that they need to be elected (i.e., cross the threshold), their surplus votes are re-distributed to their second choice candidate based on the number of total voters who voted for that candidate. Surplus votes must be redistributed before eliminating the candidate with the fewest votes. If surplus votes are redistributed and the required number of candidates still have not crossed the threshold, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those votes are redistributed according to the voter's next choice. Subsequent rounds of elimination would continue until the required number of candidates cross the threshold and are elected. Below is the equation formulti-member ranked balloting. number of votes cast Threshold =()+1 number of candidates being elected+1 1 - 16 Source: mah.gov.on.ca 1 - 17 APPENDIX ‘D’– Sample Ranked Ballotfrom the City of Minneapolis 1 - 18 Appendix ‘E’ – Municipalities Using Ranked Ballot Voting City/townYears in useTypeNotes \[29\] Ann Arbor, MI1975 onlyInstant-runoff voting \[30\] Aspen, CO2009 onlyInstant-runoff voting \[31\] Berkeley, CA2010–presentInstant-runoff voting \[32\] Burlington, VT2005-2010Instant-runoff voting \[33\] Cambridge, MA1941--presentsingle transferable vote \[34\]\[35\] Hendersonville, NC2007–presentInstant-runoff votingpart of a statewidepilot program \[36\]\[37\] London, England2000-presentsupplementary vote \[7\] Memphis, TN2011–presentInstant-runoff voting \[38\] Minneapolis, MN2009–presentInstant-runoff voting \[31\] Oakland, CA2010–presentInstant-runoff voting \[7\] Portland, ME2011–presentInstant-runoff voting \[39\]\[7\] San Francisco, CA2004-presentInstant-runoff voting \[31\] San Leandro, CA2010–presentInstant-runoff voting 1 - 19 City/townYears in useTypeNotes \[40\]\[41\] St. Paul, MN2011-presentInstant-runoff voting \[42\] Takoma Park, MD2006–presentInstant-runoff voting \[43\] Telluride, CO2011–presentInstant-runoff voting Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting 1 - 20