With a list of 22 Board of Supervisors candidates to choose from, voters already had a tough decision to make. But those decisions were tripled by the introduction of Ranked-Choice Voting, or RCV, being used today for the first time in the city's history in Supervisor races much to the surprise of voters unaware of the new system.

"I had no idea I had three choices," said Colin, a District 5 voter who declined not to provide his last name. "I just ended up not voting [for a supervisor] because I didn't know any of them."

Passed by voters under Proposition A in March 2002, the RCV ballot has three identical columns of candidates' names — one for first choice, one for second choice, and one for third choice. If no candidate receives over 50 percent of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. Then, the votes are tallied again, with second-choice votes counted in place of the eliminated first choice candidate. The process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes continues until a winner emerges.

Also known as "instant runoff," the system is designed to eliminate the need for costly runoff elections. Proponents like Steven Hill of the Center for Voting and Democracy also boast, "under RCV, everybody's vote counts. You can vote with your conscience for your first choice, even if you know that candidate doesn't stand a chance. And then you can vote for the likely winner second."

In District 5, where would-be incumbent Matt Gonzalez declined to run for reelection, RCV is under the microscope, with its best and worst qualities magnified. In other Board of Supervisors races, the incumbent has a better-known name and a reputation. District 5 candidates have clean slates and little baggage.

Several candidates decided to collaborate with each other, an otherwise verboten election tactic, hoping to maximize second- and third-choice votes.

Candidates Brett Wheeler and Bill Barnes put out joint literature that stated, "Vote for Us," and highlighted the location of their names on the ballot.

Even candidates who didn't make formal alliances see the benefit of that approach for themselves and the community.

"I've certainly said, 'If you're strongly supporting another candidate, I hope you'll consider me as a second choice,'" said candidate Lisa Feldstein. "The advantage to all of us working together is to make sure we have strong lines of communication, now and into the future."

As a result of cooperation among candidates, the District 5 race has been relatively free of mud-slinging and negative campaigning — another rarity in San Francisco politics.

Candidate Dan Kalb said RCV also does a better job of electing the "right" candidate than traditional voting systems.

"It gives the opportunity for a consensus candidate to be victorious," he said. "With a more typical runoff, you are often stuck with two candidates," both of whom had already been rejected by most voters.

But regardless of what candidates think about RCV, the real proof of its efficacy lies with voters today. Despite voter turnout across the country reaching record highs, Haight Ashbury residents may not have enough information to make their three selections.

District 5 voter Madeline Eaton attended the District 5 candidate debate night several weeks ago and felt overwhelmed by the number of choices.

"I kind of think having 22 candidates is not the greatest idea in the world. I'd rather have, like, maybe five," she said. "It's just too much. It's like democracy run amok."

Candidates have struggled to differentiate themselves from each other and Feldstein acknowledged that being an RCV guinea pig has been stressful.

"I had someone tell me on the street that she understood that RCV was fraudulent because she understood that they would give your vote away," she said. "When I hear things like that, I'm concerned."

Whether a reflection on the futility of trying to stand out in the crowd or simply the reality of running without an incumbent, campaign spending in District 5 has been modest.

"All the candidates are adhering to the spending caps," said Feldstein. "No one is going over the $83,000 limit. It's created a more equitable campaign."

Similar ranked voted systems are used in London, England; Ireland; and Australia. RCV was also used in the 1975 Ann Arbor, Michigan, mayoral race in which the incumbent was defeated. Voters turned around the following year and repealed the use of RCV.
Updated 11/2/04 9:13 PM