220303 0937 Thank youFrom:Frances Marquez
To:SteveCorrea@protonmail.com
Subject:Thank you
Date:Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:36:41 AM
Attachments:steve-correa-city-elections-letter.pdf
Mr. Correa,
Thank you for attending our community forum last Saturday and for reaching out to me. I
appreciate you sharing your views. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at
909-996-0619.
Sincerely,
Frances
From: Steve Correa <SteveCorrea@protonmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 10:02 AM
To: ADM <adm@cypressca.org>
Subject: City Elections
Steve Correa
6141 Orange Ave. #7
Cypress, CA 90630
stevecorrea@protonmail.com
March 2, 2022
Cypress City Council
Cypress Civic Center
5275 Orange Ave.
Cypress, CA 90630
ity Elections
Dear Mayor Morales and Councilmembers:
My name is Steve. I gave a public comment on city elections at February 28
council meeting. I’m attaching the more in-depth letter version of that
comment to this email for your reference. I want to quickly provide a
response to another comment made at this meeting in support of the “at-
large” system.
Harumi Lucak started a comment stating that many people have died for the
right to vote. Then, Lucak stated that Cypress is considering removing 80%
of “our” power. The right to vote and a group’s power are not the same, and
this distinction is very important.
In my own public comment, I provided the explanation for why the “at-
large” system tends to give all seats (power) to those in the largest group
(the plurality). Clearly, with this system, every citizen has the right to vote,
but nonetheless, most people can be denied any power (since a plurality can
be less than a majority).
Even without this observation, it is reasonable to think that members of the
plurality, if cynical, would want to maintain the monopoly of power that
they might have, and therefore support the “at-large” system. However, I
must give Lucak the benefit of the doubt and assume a good faith error.
I must also insist that good faith actually be exercised by all who comment.
What I mean is that good faith itself is the answer to the question “Why
should we lose 80% of our power?” Good faith is being fair to all. The “at-
large” system is not fair to all, since it tends to deny people their fair share of
power. Therefore, the “at-large” system should be replaced.
This response does not necessarily mean that district elections are the best
alternative, and that is not what I’ve found. This response can only motivate
one to begin considering all the alternatives to the “at-large” system and
decide which is the most fair. My own research led to the Single
Transferable Vote, and so that is what I proposed in my public comment.
The debate should be on the different alternatives, the many ways to
progress past the “at-large” system.
Thank you for your time. Contact me for any questions or clarifications. I
hope the council has benefited from this response.
Sincerely,
Steve Correa
Steve Correa
6141 Orange Ave. Apt #7
Cypress, CA 90630
stevecorrea@protonmail.com
February 26, 2022
Cypress City Council
Cypress Civic Center
5275 Orange Ave.
Cypress, CA 90630
Subject: City Elections
Dear Mayor Morales and Councilmembers:
Thank you for your time. My name is Steve. I am new to Cypress and I love it. I am a
Math major intrigued by the topic of election systems and fairness.
I learned a couple things from the city’s election forums which merit comment.
(1) Cypress currently uses plurality block voting (where all candidates are in the same
race, rather than in different races for different seats), which is called the “at-
large” system.
(2) Cities have lost California Voter Rights Act (CVRA) cases due to use of this
system.
(3) Losing a CVRA case results in a court order for the city to use electoral districts
and pay attorney’s fees, amounting to millions of dollars.
(4) There is strong disapproval for dividing into electoral districts, based on the ma-
jority of comments made at the forums.
(5) The city council is in communication with the challenging party for leniency on
deadline and possibly neogotiation.
Due to these facts, I will make the case that a game theory analysis suggests the best of
Cypress’s options is to reach an acceptable compromise with the challenging party. I
will also argue that compromise is preferable to battling in court, because millions of
dollars could be lost without merit. I will, then, specifically, advocate Proportional
Representation through the Single Transferable Vote, as well as increasing the size of
the city council.
Now, Cypress has three options, namely, (1) defending itself in court, (2) voluntarily di-
viding into districts, and (3) reaching a compromise for a different, acceptable reform,
which is the best option. With option 1, there is a percentage chance that the city will
prevail in court, p, between 0 and 100 percent. The results are that people against dis-
tricts’ chance to win (meaning finding the resulting system acceptable) is equal to p;
people supporting reform’s chance to win is equal to 100% minus p; and Cypress has a
risk of needing to pay millions in attorney’s fees equal to 100% minus p. With option 2,
the people against districts have 0 percent chance to win; people supporting reform
have a 100% chance to win; and Cypress has no risk of owing attorney’s fees. With op-
tion 3, both people against districts and people supporting reform will have a 100%
chance to win, and Cypress also has no risk of owing attorney’s fees. Each group’s
chances to win are the maximized under option 3, and the risk of owing attorney’s fees is
eliminated. Option 3 has only benefits compared to the other options, and is therefore
the best option, and therefore the option that Cypress should take.
people against
districts’ chance to
win
people supporting
reform’s chance to win
Cypress’s risk of needing to pay
millions in attorney’s fees
Option 1 0 < p < 100%0 < 100% - p < 100%0 < 100% - p < 100%
Option 2 0%100%0%
Option 3 100%100%0%
Secondly, Cypress should also take the compromise option, because the risk of having to
pay millions in attorney’s fees is not merited. Steven Hill is an electoral reform advocate
who wrote a book titled Fixing Elections. In Chapter 3, Hill describes the politics of the
time of the Independence. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and others did not like
what is now called the “at-large” system because this system disadvantages a minority
perspective (38–9). Hill explains the rationale in the endnotes. “[E]ach time the voters
step up to vote, the majority perspective has more votes than any minority perspective
and is able to out-vote the minority voters for each one of these seats. As a result, the
majority perspective in such a voting system usually wins all the seats, producing a
‘sweep’ effect. … [T]hese lopsided results are a product of the mechanics of this democ-
racy technology” (314–15). That the “at-large” system has, as a feature, disproportional
outcomes should make Cypress reconsider it’s use. Again, Hamilton, Madison and oth-
ers found it unfavorable. And this feature will not help Cypress’s chances in court. The
“at-large” system does not merit the risk in millions of dollars, and so Cypress should
again reach a compromise.
Next, I propose that Cypress reform elections by obtaining Proportional Representation
through the Single Transferable Vote, S-T-V, because in this system, voters’ candidate
preferences are respected and the transfer of excess votes supports proportionality. For
voters, STV is similar to the “at-large” system in that the voters can contribute to the
election of multiple candidates in a single election. The difference is that voters state
their ordered preference of the candidates. Then, candidates are seated in order of most
highest-preference votes. Next, there is the important step of transferring excess votes,
so that these votes also contribute to the result. The probability that this will produce
proportional representation is probably the highest among all options.
In addition, attention must be given to the amount of seats to be won. It is certainly the
most crucial component for ensuring proportional representation, because the different
voting groups cannot be represented if there aren’t enough seats. It is also preferable to
have a manageable size and diversity (including among people with similar general per-
spectives). Those criteria have been well met by the nine members of the Supreme
Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS is manageable and produces diverse opinions). Therefore, I
propose increasing the size of the city council to 9 members, all elected at the same time.
To recap, I made the argument that Cypress’s best option is to reach a compromise for
an election reform, because it maximizes the chance that the result will be acceptable for
all groups, while eliminating all risk of needing to pay millions in attorney’s fees. Then,
I argued that the risk of losing millions of dollars is not merited by Cypress’s “at-large”
system, due to it’s feature of disproportionality. I proposed the reform of the Single
Transferable Vote, because of respect for voters’ preferences, and its support of propor-
tional representation. Lastly, I recommended increasing city council size to 9 members
elected all at the same time, to enable proportionality, diversity and manageability.
Thank you again for your time. Contact me for any questions or clarifications. I hope
the council and public has benefited from these arguments and proposals.
Sincerely,
Steve Correa