Laserfiche WebLink
distinguished instant runoff voting from proportional representation, under which one only needed <br />a minority quota of votes to be elected. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked Mr. Belcher what happened with the undervote in instant runoff voting. Mr. <br />Belcher said that if a voter choose to only vote for two candidates, that would be their choice. Mr. <br />Rayor clarified that the voter's vote counted for the first round even if the voter chose to vote for <br />only candidate. Mr. Belcher concurred. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct staff to put instant runoff <br /> voting on the ballot. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the method a great improvement and a first step in campaign finance reform. <br />She did not support a November election date, preferring that elections occur in May and <br />councilors take office in January. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that it was better for the candidates and voters for the reasons expressed by Mr. <br />Tollenaar. He recognized the legal issues related to instant runoff voting but was not prepared to <br />spend money on a legal fight, preferring to seek a legislative remedy. He suggested the motion <br />be amended to read Enact instant runoff via an election with a clause that makes the effective <br />date contingent upon the approval of instant runoff voting at the Oregon legislature. Ms. Taylor <br />accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought there were legislative possibilities to take advantage of in the current session <br />and suggested a friendly amendment that the council Direct staff to lobby in support of legislation <br />enabling the City to take advantage of instant runoff voting in this session and the next session of <br />the legislature. Ms. Taylor accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson also preferred a legislative remedy to the legal issues surrounding instant runoff <br />voting. She thought instant runoff voting would benefit the community in the long-term, and <br />thought it could be explained to the community in a way it could understand. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was not interested in a judicial challenge and also preferred the legislative approach. <br />He did not think the Oregon legislature was interested in the topic this session, but the issue could <br />be pursued in the next legislature. He was less optimistic than Ms. Nathanson that the method <br />would be easily explained, and thought the City had a substantial education process to go <br />through. Mr. Meisner supported the motion with the qualification that, if it was the only measure <br />the council put on that ballot, he would change his vote as he did not want to pay for a separate <br />election to put the question to the voters. <br /> <br />City Manager Jim Johnson said that the council may want to have the understanding it would <br />review the issue again once it determined what else was on the ballot. <br />At the request of Mr. Farr, Mr. Kelly restated the motion: <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to enact instant runoff via an <br /> election with a clause that makes the effective date contingent upon the <br /> approval of instant runoff voting at the Oregon legislature, and direct staff to <br /> work to enable instant runoff voting in this and the next legislative session. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />