How the KPFA elections model works
11-29-02
From: Carol Spooner
[Please Feel Free to Forward to Others]
HOW THE KPFA ELECTION MODEL WORKS
The KPFA Local Station Board election model is a "Proportional
Representation" voting system. Proportional representation
is a voting system used in most democracies around the world
to insure that an elected multi-seat body actually represents
the diversity of views of the voting pool, rather than a "winner-take-all"
system or a two party system where many of the voters are
unrepresented. The KPFA model uses the "Single Transferrable
Voting" method, also sometimes called "Choice"
voting. You can read in depth about this voting system at
The Center for Voting and Democracy web page at http://www.fairvote.org/
This is different from the usual "at large" elections
we have in this country, where 51% of the voters can control
ALL the seats on a city council, for instance, leaving 49%
of the voters unrepresented.
Using political parties as an example, if 15% of the voters
vote Green, 20% vote Labor, 15% vote Libertarian, 5% vote
Peace & Freedom, 20% vote Republican, 20% vote Democrat,
and 5% vote American Independent, then the seats on the council
would be distributed in those percentages among candidates
from those parties.
Of course, in our Local Board elections, we do not have "parties",
we have individual candidates. However, it is possible that
voters might choose to vote for candidates based upon their
racial or ethnic heritage or their primary political or cultural
interests (such as gay rights or environmental issues or peace
activism). In that event, the seats would be filled in proportion
to the voters' identification of their interests.
In addition, under the KPFA model, we require that a minimum
of 50% of the seats be filled by people of color and 50% be
filled by women (a woman of color is counted in both categories).
If those minimums are not met, then we replace the lowest
vote-getters who are not people of color or women with the
highest vote-getters who are people of color or women in order
to fulfill our 50% minimum requirements -- provided that anyone
seated must receive at least 1/3rd the minimum number of votes
ordinarily needed to be elected, and of course also provided
that there are candidates of color or women to fill those
seats
We have held two KPFA Local Board elections using this voting
system and it has been successful. In the first election,
one man of color was seated who would not have been seated
without the minimum diversity requirements -- and he has for
two years brought great thoughtfulness to our LAB. In the
second election, every person of color who ran was elected
without the necessity of applying the diversity minimums.
However -- and this may be a problem for some or all LABs
in the future, regardless of voting method -- we did NOT have
enough candidates of color to fill our minimum diversity requirements.
This is an outreach and recruitment problem, not a problem
with the voting system itself. Many, many people tell us they
are too busy with other work to do the job well, so they don't
want to run.
When I say that the KPFA Local Board elections have been
"successful", I mean that they have resulted in
a diverse LAB in many ways -- LAB members come from all around
our large signal area, with many cultural and political interests,
and from many different cultural/ethnic/racial heritages --
e.g., we have immigrants from Palestine, Puerto Rico &
Uganda, as well as people with Latino, African and Indigenous
heritages. (We do not currently have anyone of Asian heritage
on our LAB -- the only Asian candidate in the last election
withdrew due to a back injury, or he would have been seated.)
We also have a labor organizer, some musicians, advocates
for immigrants' rights, prisoners' rights, health care rights,
a CPA/peace activist, a youth advocate, a gay activist, an
artist, at least one writer, peace activists ... and so on,
quite a diverse group of people.
One point that should be emphasized about proportional representation
voting is that it allows self-determination among voting blocks
-- so if a large enough number of voters of Asian heritage,
for example, choose to vote for an Asian candidate, then they
can elect the Asian candidate of their own choosing. What
is large enough? It depends on the number of seats to be filled.
The more seats there are to be filled, the smaller the percentage
of the vote needed to gain a seat. So, if 1 seat is open,
then 1/2 +1 of the votes are needed; if 2 seats are open then
1/3 +1 of the votes are needed; if 10 seats are open the 1/11
+ 1 of the votes are needed ... and so on.
To give concrete examples -- if 20% of the eligible voters
actually vote in the upcoming local board elections, and there
are 18 seats available for listener-members to elect (as there
would be under the KPFA model with a 24-person Local Board
where 1/4 of the seats are elected by the station staff) --
At WPFW -- where there are about 6,000 subscribers, that
would be about 1,200 voters and it would take 1/19 + 1 of
those votes to be elected, or 64 votes.
At KPFT -- where there are about 10,000 subscribers, that
would be about 2,000 voters and it would take 1/19 + 1 of
those votes to be elected, or 106 votes.
At WBAI & KPFK -- where there are about 18,000 subscribers,
that would be about 3,600 voters and it would take 1/19 +
1 of those votes to be elected, or 190 votes.
At KPFA -- where there are about 25,000 subscribers, that
would be about 5,000 voters and it would take 1/19 + 1 of
those votes to be elected, or 264 votes.
An important feature of the single transferrable vote proportional
representation system is that no vote is wasted. If a voter's
first choice is eliminated, then his/her vote is transferred
to his/her second choice, or if a voter's first choice is
elected with excess votes, then the excess votes are transferred
(on a pro-rata basis) to each voter's second choice. So almost
everyone will end up with either their first, second, or third
choice candidate elected, and no one will be unrepresented
on the board.
KEYS TO SUCCESS: OUTREACH, OUTREACH, OUTREACH
Surprisingly, given the great amount of energy that "Pacifica
Activists" have devoted to this issue, recruiting candidates
to run for election is NOT easy. Many people are just too
busy and don't feel they can give enough time to do the job
well. Also, at KPFA, during our last two election cycles we
did NOT have carts on the air encouraging people to run and
giving them information about who to contact about running.
(Our station staff and management was NOT enthusiastic about
the LAB elections and didn't give us much help.) It will be
VERY IMPORTANT for all stations to run frequent carts -- at
all times of day -- announcing that people interested in serving
should contact the elections coordinator, announcing public
meetings where candidates can gather nominations signatures,
and so on. Under the KPFA model, 15 signatures from listener-subscribers
are needed to nominate a candidate. (Under the "hybrid"
constituency model 50 signatures are needed from a candidate's
own constituency group -- that looks like a VERY large hurdle
for most constituency candidates and could result in no candidates
or very few who qualify.)
On Air Announcements Public events throughout the signal
area where candidates can gather nominating signatures Contacting
good people you know and "twisting their arms" to
persuade them to run All will be needed to field a diverse
group of candidates ... and people should start recruiting
candidates NOW.
Giving the Local Boards Real Power -- Another problem in
recruiting candidates for the past two KPFA Local Board elections
was that the LAB had NO POWER ... many people felt it wasn't
worth the time and effort to run for an "advisory"
board that had no ability to affect station policies or programming
at all. Under the new bylaws we hope that the Local Station
Boards will be much more important in station oversight &
policy making -- and that the station managers will be accountable
to the local boards and not just the Executive Director (or
national board). I hope it will help to persuade people to
run if they know that their service on the local board can
really make a difference.
Convincing People that it is Important to Run -- Many activists
and political people are so busy with their other activities
that they think "someone else" will do it. Or they
don't think a radio station is as important as whatever other
political/community work they are doing. They take the station
for granted. But they should NOT take the station or the Pacifica
network for granted. First of all, we nearly lost it to a
cabal that wanted to take it into the mainstream and make
Pacifica pretty worthless to all the causes we are fighting
for. Secondly, ALTERNATIVE MEDIA is essential if any of our
causes are to succeed. I'm probably preaching to the choir
in writing this ... we all know that the mainstream media
does not cover our issues or covers them in the corporate
interests, not our interests. But it is surprising how much
difficulty there is in persuading people who have NOT been
involved in the Pacifica fight, that Pacifica Radio needs
them if Pacifica is going to remain free and strong. (The
unruly acrimony among many Pacifica activists also discourages
some people from running, because a lot of time is wasted
on it and it is quite unpleasant.)
WHY DOES THE KPFA MODEL HAVE MINIMUM DIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR?
Some people ask why we don't just "let the voters decide"
who gets elected without the minimum 50% requirements for
women and people of color? The answer is that we made a value
judgment that people of color or women or both -- for many
historical and societal reasons -- are underrepresented on
almost every decision making body of every organization we
know in this country, and that the decisions those bodies
make suffer and are poorer as a result. Regardless of the
number of women or people of color living in our station areas,
or among our listeners or subscribers, or heard on our air
-- we wanted to make absolutely certain that no Pacifica governing
body would ever be dominated by white people or by men. Some
people think that's "unfair" or "anti-democratic",
we do not. We think it is both "fair" and "democratic"
to ensure that those who have historically been oppressed
and unheard be a major part of the decision-making at Pacifica
which is, after all, dedicated to understanding the causes
of conflicts and peace with justice.
Why didn't we break our diversity requirements down further
into percentages for various ethnic or oppressed groups? I
think the main reason we didn't is because most of us felt
that the "democratic process" would take care of
it, given the 50% requirements, and that we do believe in
a political process where various groups and interests can
organize and build coalitions and gain support for their positions.
Proportional representation voting allows that to happen.
In addition, I think many of us felt that all of us are more
multi-dimensional than our racial/ethnic heritage or any particular
political cause. As we work to bridge our differences and
build understanding and working coalitions, many of us felt
that breaking people down into categories -- Asians, Latinos,
African Heritage, Middle Eastern, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender,
Prisoners, Immigrants, Youth, Artists, Peace Activists --
would ultimately reinforce our divisions and make it more
difficult for us to support one another in our struggles.
We have seen that kind of divisiveness along racial lines
playing itself out at KPFK and WBAI recently, and it appears
destructive of what we stand for and are working to achieve
at Pacifica. Others, of course, differ with this view, and
are forcefully arguing their case that guaranteeing seats
for certain defined constituencies is necessary. We simply
disagree, although I think we seek the same end result --
very diverse boards representative of a broad range of views.
The other reason we didn't break our categories down further
under the KPFA model is the complexity of running such an
election (and nominations procedures) would make it more difficult
for the voters and more difficult to hold successful elections.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of people who receive ballots
with numerous constituency seats to vote for, in addition
to at-large seats, will be so confused or perhaps turned off
that they will not bother to vote -- that's the opposite of
the result we all want.
Both the KPFA elections model and the "Hybrid"
constituency model are posted at www.wbai.net
--Carol Spooner
KPFA LAB Member & Interim Pacifica Board Member
Current Election Models Supported By The Various
LABs:
The KPFA Model
additional documents regarding this model
How this model works
(by Carol Spooner)
The "Hybrid" Model
[WBAI]; revised as of 11/29
additional documents regarding this model
the 11/22 Draft
the 11/25 Draft (written
after the 11/22 Houston meeting)
The "Unity Caucus"
Model
The "Mission
Based" Model [WPFW]
additional documents regarding this model
Frequently Asked
Questions
Models That Were Used Earlier On In The Bylaws Revision
Process:
Click here
to read the WPFW subcommittee proposal (or
the first (A) draft).
Click here
to read the Fertig/KPFK proposal (or the
third (C) bylaws draft).
Click here
to read the KPFK subcommittee proposal.
Click here
to read the KPFT subcommittee proposal.
Click here
to read comments sent in by the public regarding the various
proposed models.
|
