Some proponents of municipal election reform advocate for the adoption of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), a method that allows voters to rank multiple candidates according to their preferences. Although supporters claim that IRV is superior to the traditional primary-runoff election system, research on IRV is limited. We analyze data taken from images of more than 600,000 ballots cast by voters in four recent local elections. We document a problem known as ballot “exhaustion,” which results in a substantial number of votes being discarded in each election. As a result of ballot exhaustion, the winner in all four of our cases receives less than a majority of the total votes cast, a finding that raises serious concerns about IRV and challenges a key argument made by the system's proponents.

This study uses multiple methods to compare campaign styles, voter turnout, and diversity of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco before and after their implementation in 2004 of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)--also known as Ranked Choice Voting--a system that allows voters to rank three candidates instead of choosing just one. There has been very little empirical analysis of this new voting system, which is being implemented by increasing numbers of municipalities throughout the United States. To determine whether or not IRV may lead to improved democratic outcomes, this study examines negativity and cooperation in campaigns, turnout data, and the demographics of who is elected before and after the institution of IRV in San Francisco. Original data was gathered and analyzed and interviews conducted to evaluate whether or not IRV leads to enhanced democratic capacities compared to traditional runoff elections. Specifically, mass mailers from the years 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 were analyzed for both degree of negativity and whether or not the mailers added valuable information or simply attacked opposing candidates. The study also examined the degree of cooperation that existed under the new system. Voter turnout and the diversity of the elected Board of Supervisors were also analyzed, before and after IRV, and interviews added context to the research. The results indicate that IRV does lead to improved democratic processes and outcomes by creating a less negative and more cooperative campaign environment. Additionally, turnout is higher under IRV, even during presidential elections. Finally, in the case of the demographic makeup of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, after IRV there was a trend toward increased minority representation, although there are still very few female supervisors holding office.

Recent U.S. elections have defied nationwide majority preference at the White House, Senate, and House levels. This work of interdisciplinary scholarship explains how “winner-take-all” and single-member district elections make this happen, and what can be done to repair the system. Proposed reforms include the National Popular Vote interstate compact (presidential elections); eliminating the Senate filibuster; and proportional representation using Ranked Choice Voting for House, state, and local elections.

The early 21st century has not been kind to California's reputation for good government. But the Golden State's governance flaws reflect worrisome national trends with origins in the 1970s and 1980s. Growing voter distrust with government, a demand for services but not taxes to pay for them, a sharp decline in enlightened leadership and effective civic watchdogs, and dysfunctional political institutions have all contributed to the current governance malaise. Until recently, San Diego, California—America's 8th largest city—seemed immune to such systematic governance disorders. This sunny beach town entered the 1990s proclaiming to be "America's Finest City," but in a few short years its reputation went from "Futureville" to "Enron-by-the-Sea." In this eye-opening and telling narrative, Steven P. Erie, Vladimir Kogan, and Scott A. MacKenzie mix policy analysis, political theory, and history to explore and explain the unintended but largely predictable failures of governance in San Diego. Using untapped primary sources—interviews with key decision makers and public documents—and benchmarking San Diego with other leading California cities, Paradise Plundered examines critical dimensions of San Diego's governance failure: a multi-billion dollar pension deficit; a chronic budget deficit; inadequate city services and infrastructure; grandiose planning initiatives divorced from dire fiscal realities; an insulated downtown redevelopment program plagued by poorly-crafted public-private partnerships; and, for the metropolitan region, inadequate airport and port facilities, a severe underinvestment in firefighting capacity despite destructive wildfires, and heightened Mexican border security concerns. Far from a sunny story of paradise and prosperity, this account takes stock of an important but understudied city, its failed civic leadership, and poorly performing institutions, policymaking, and planning. Though the extent of these failures may place San Diego in a league of its own, other cities are experiencing similar challenges and political changes. As such, this tale of civic woe offers valuable lessons for urban scholars, practitioners, and general readers concerned about the future of their own cities.