Choice Voting (IRV for electing multiple candidates) will make possible the full representation of the Somerville community in the At Large offices.
Our current method for electing the At Large offices is known as “winner-take-all” because a demographic with just a slim majority of the vote can win 100% of the seats. Imagine, for example, that a 51% majority of the public wants candidates A, B, C, and D to be elected at large and a 49% minority wants candidates E, F, G, and H. Under our current winner-take-all system A, B, C, and D are elected, without a single representative for the substantial minority. A fairer voting system, such as Choice Voting (IRV for electing multiple candidates), would ensure the minority in this scenario would get at least one representative elected.
The idea that winner-take-all dilutes the voting power of minorities is not merely hypothetical. Indeed, it leads to serious under-representation of minority voting blocs in practice. In fact, the city of Port Chester, NY, which is 46% Hispanic, was recently found to be liable for a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act due to their use of a winner-take-all system for their At Large offices that diluted the voting power of the Hispanic minority. Among various potential legal remedies, Port Chester is considering the adoption of Choice Voting. The same minority-dilution dynamic happens in Cincinnati, OH, where the NAACP has just begun a big push for Choice Voting as well.
Choice Voting, if enacted, wouldn’t be entirely new to Somerville. Back in 1949, Somerville voters actually approved it at the ballot box for elections to the Board of Alderman, but the state legislature barred it from being implemented. If enacted today, it would help the At Large offices more broadly represent the entire Somerville community. Choice Voting achieves the fundamental ideal of minority representation while still preserving majority rule.
