“You can’t put them inside mailboxes, because that’s tampering with the federal mail,” she cautions him about the fliers. “My favorite place to put them is under welcome mats.”

Serpe, who is known for her work campaigning for voting reform, has come to Oakland to help pass a measure that would install Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), a system where voters rank candidates in order of preference.

Serpe has worked on similar campaigns in New Zealand and in British Columbia. She volunteered to manage Yes on Measure O, and commute from her home in Los Angeles every few weeks, because Oakland presents an opportunity to expand IRV around the state. Instant runoff has never passed the statewide ballot. By focusing on individual cities, Serpe hopes to familiarize voters with the system, get it back on the state ballot and, ultimately, onto a national one. This week, Serpe plans to canvass District 2, the only district in Oakland with a runoff election November 7.

“Remember, no mailboxes, be friendly and let the dogs stay in,” she says to Tony Franco, the rookie precinct walker, as he heads out the door.

Both city council candidates in District 2, Pat Kernighan and Aimee Allison, have endorsed Measure O, which would amend the city charter to install IRV, a system that ranks candidates. If there isn’t a clear majority for the winner, the “instant runoff” begins. In each runoff, the last-place candidate is eliminated and the votes cast by his or her voters are recounted toward their highest ranked candidate still remaining. This process continues until there is a winner. If the measure gets approved, IRV will by used for all local elections starting 2008.

The measure, which was introduced by city councilmember Nancy Nadel, has received endorsements from such disparate groups as the Oakland Green Party, East Bay Libertarians and the Alameda County Democrats. The League of Women Voters, the NAACP, and the Oakland Tribune have also given their support.

“The real beneficiaries are third party candidates,” said Serpe. “People are turned off from voting for who is most likely to win. Measure O will let people vote for who they want.”

“We can move all local elections to November, when people are more attuned to elections,” said Judy Cox, spokesperson for Yes on Measure O. She added that the votes cast in primaries tend to come from the party base, which votes along partisan lines.

“We can have an electorate that’s more representative,” she said.

However, opponents to IRV say exactly the reverse will happen. Willie Yee, chief of staff to Councilmember Henry Chang, Jr, who opposes the measure, says IRV could disenfranchise voters whose English skills are limited.

“The candidates names are written in English and it’s really difficult to get them to recognize even one name,” said Yee of some elderly Chinese voters. “To tell them to have to recognize 3 names on the ballot, it’s hard.”

Cox disagrees. “People make 1st, 2nd, 3rd choices all the time,” she said. Her campaigns website states that if you can rank your three favorite ice cream flavors, you can vote using IRV.

“That’s because they (consumers) have experienced these flavors,” countered Yee. “When you’re talking about the qualifications of candidates, it’s not tangible.”

Yee is also not convinced by proponents, who argue that IRV will help save the city money.

“Democracy isn’t cheap,” he said. He added that instead of introducing a new system to try to increase voter turnout, Oakland should simply move the June elections to November and have a runoff in January.

San Francisco initiated an IRV system for the 2004 municipal elections. Officials there said they needed to do extra outreach to voters to get them to understand the system, but that most voters eventually learned.

“Whoever’s doing this needs to have a strong outreach team, a bilingual approach,” said Linda Tulett, Deputy Director, Department of Elections in San Francisco.

Tullett added a number of costs needed to be considered: voting machines had to be reconfigured, new software to tabulate the votes installed, extra ballot cards were ordered. She estimated the city spent $1.6 million and that didn’t include the cost of poll worker training, voter education and recertification. This, said Tulett, cut significantly into the savings the instant runoff system provides, although she didn’t know how much the net figure was.

“Eventually it’ll all balance itself out,” she said of the cost to the city.

Proponents of the measure are confident they can ensure that all voters will receive the necessary training. “We’ve had discussions with people in the Asian community, Spanish Speaking Citizens Foundation,” said Judy Cox. “After we win, they will help us educate voters.”

To secure that win, Serpe and her team walked around Oakland’s District 2 one recent Saturday, spreading the message.

“Are you a registered voter?” Serpe asked an athletic looking middle-aged man on his way out the door. He was clearly preoccupied and mumbled monosyllabic answers. “Yep, nope, OK,” he said, before vanishing into his car.

“One-on-one direct voter contact is the best way,” she said, despite the brush-off. “I get stuff in the mail all the time, doesn’t mean I read it.”

Different house, same question. “Are you a registered voter?” “No,” a woman answers from inside. “We get that a lot,” said Serpe.

After walking up and down the precinct depositing fliers under doormats, Serpe is clearly exhausted. Direct mail, internet, newspaper ads, signs. “All the little hits add up,” she said.

Similarly, volunteer Jeff Godin was out canvassing in District 2, his 4th time pounding the pavement for Measure O.

“Half the people have never heard of it, are not interested in anything you have to say. Half are really happy,” said the former Green Party worker of the reactions he gets.

“Have you heard about Measure O?” he asked a young woman tending her plants.
“I’ve read about it, but I’m not sure what it is” she answered. Godin explained the measure and what instant runoff voting means, before moving on to the next home.

“We all think it’s a pretty good idea,” said Bill Branca, who was standing outside with his neighbors Eric Schad and Eric Steiner when Godin approached him. “But it could turn out to be a law with unintended consequences. If there really is a contested election and IRV comes under attack, there’ll be a new ballot measure to put things back in place.”