Robin Ye: "Geography is important, but it's not king".
Charter Commissioner Robin Ye on why he thinks proportional representation is a big win for Portland.
Portland’s Charter Commission wants to blaze a new trail for city council representation.
The commission wants to divide Portland into four districts with three representatives each and adopt ranked choice voting for city elections.
Rose City Reform asked Charter Commissioner Robin Ye why he thinks Portland should be the first large city in the nation to use this system.
Robin Ye has served as a co-chair of the Charter Commission’s City Council Elections Subcommittee. Robin is a resident of St. Johns and active in Oregon politics. He is passionate about electoral justice and expanding the vote to achieve greater representation in our democracy. Follow him on Twitter here.
How did you land on this system as the best solution for Portland?
We were looking to move away from the winner-takes-all system, because we didn’t want a politics of dominance, where the same majority coalition could just repeatedly win all the seats in Portland.
We also heard from the public that there was a desire to ensure geographic representation. You can just look at the 150-year history of Portland and you absolutely see which neighborhoods get to make up the council. And then that council decides on millions of dollars of allocation that just reinforces the vicious cycle.
Multi-member districts – meaning districts that have more than one assigned representative – are popular overseas to allow voting blocs to form coalitions. In the United States the norm is one representative per district. How will you convince Portlanders that this is a better system?
Proportional representation systems are the most common in the world. We just lack an equivalent in the United States. We landed on a multi-member district system because of the simple fact that it is incredibly difficult for any one single elected individual to represent the vast diversity of viewpoints and experiences in a single geographic district. I think Portlanders understand that just because you live in the same place as someone that does not mean you share the same politics, or even the same priorities, let alone the same lived experience. Geography is important, but it's not king.
Proportionality matters. If you can form a political coalition to try to earn power, that's the whole damn point, right? If you identify as a renter, or a homeowner, or a business owner, find the community you care about and make it happen for your candidate of choice.
I'm a huge fan of proportional representation. I think it's such a cool story to tell people once they get past the initial shock factor. I think it's a story that people can get behind.
Was four districts with three representatives your first choice? Several commissioners wanted a larger council and some wanted a smaller size.
We wanted at least four districts because geographic representation is a big win, especially if we can make sure that east Portland gets guaranteed representation. I was open to more. Four districts with three representatives will increase possibilities for communities of common interest to come together to get a seat of power to have their beliefs expressed in government. If 1/3 of your district really, really cares about climate and transportation, then they should be able to get 1/3 of the representation.
There is no magic number. But we heard people’s worries about going from five members to 15, or 20, or 35, or 121 like in the Netherlands. That caused anxiety. Twelve appeared to be a number that people could live with.
I make the point that over a hundred years our population has tripled and we have done nothing about the city council. This is just a blatant catchup. But sure, when someone says “they’re tripling the size of the council” it could make people scared. I think it's an overblown point. But I also operate in politics.
The Charter Commission wants to make ranked choice voting and multi-member districts contingent upon each other. If the ballot amendments have to stand on their own, do you see value in one of the amendments passing without the other?
They absolutely have to be intertwined. I think voters understand that our elected government is a reflection of our democratic systems. I've heard so many people of a particular demographic, who are used to being in power, say: “Don't risk the one real thing that needs to change: the form of government. Don't risk it with your shenanigans around elections.” But they are living in a world where they have never had to question or even think about whether their opinion is expressed.
Of course, we don't want to do any harm. It remains to be seen what will be legally permissible to package together.
Would ranked choice voting without multi-member districts be a win for Portland?
I think ranked choice voting improves our system no matter what. Using ranked choice voting, we can eliminate the primary and make sure that in November the most people turn out to express what they want for the city. That's a win. And it contributes to more positive campaigning, more people being engaged.
Right now, electoral politics is a zero sum game. It's like, “hi, will you vote for me?” and if the answer is anything short of “yeah, maybe” or “I'm undecided”, then the conversation ends. The candidate is like, “okay, I lost you”. But with ranked choice voting, the conversation keeps going. It's like, “I want to talk to you about how I can earn your support, no matter where I place.” Let's actually have a conversation because your vote matters to me, you're not in a preconceived algorithm that tells me you're never going to vote for me and I write you off because of your neighborhood choice, your gender, and your consumer choices. We know that is the algorithm now. So yes, ranked choice voting should happen, no matter what.
What about multi-member districts without ranked choice voting?
Multi-member districts without ranked choice voting gives me serious concerns. That weighs heavily on me as we think about the ballot measures. Something would have to change in our current voting system if we’re going to have multi-member districts, because otherwise we’re going to have some really perverse results that do not reflect Portland and give undue power to people that don’t have enough support. Let’s say you have four candidates and three of them get elected. One of them could get 80% of the vote and the other two could each have less than 10% of the vote but they still get elected. That is worse than what we have now. So let's not do that.
Elections would be staggered every two years. Were there any equity concerns with some districts having the benefit of greater turnout during election years?
I have come around to be in favor of staggered elections because of the gains we’ll hopefully make eliminating the primary and implementing RCV. In Portland, both turnout in the midterm and presidential elections are pretty robust, something like 74+% in the 2018 midterm and 79+% in the 2020 presidential election.
For Oregon, the November midterm brings the governor’s race every four years, which drives turnout as well, so there’s a large top of ticket draw. The net benefit is still huge, and I hope future charter commissions could evaluate if we need to consolidate elections yet again.
Need more information?
Curious to understand how voting will work under this system? Watch this video. You’ll hear another term, single transferable vote (STV), which is actually the technical term for ranked choice voting with multiple winners in the same election. While the video is not objective – it clearly promotes the method – it is a good illustration of the mechanics of the system.
Maja Viklands Harris is a Portland resident, a recovering journalist, a policy activist and a serial citizen advisory board member. Her writing focuses on government reform, public process, decision-making psychology and policy best practice.