City elections in San Francisco, California (2020)
2022 →
← 2019
|
| 2020 San Francisco elections |
|---|
 |
| Election dates |
| Filing deadline: December 6, 2019 (judicial filing deadline); June 9, 2020 (supervisor filing deadline); August 7, 2020 (BART & community college boards filing deadline) |
| Primary election: March 3, 2020 General election: November 3, 2020 |
| Election stats |
| Offices up: San Francisco Superior Court judgeships, BART board districts 7 and 9, four seats on the community college board, and all odd-numbered seats on the board of supervisors |
| Total seats up: 37 |
| Election type: Nonpartisan |
| Other municipal elections |
| U.S. municipal elections, 2020 |
The city of San Francisco, California, held general elections for San Francisco Superior Court judgeships, BART board districts 7 and 9, four seats on the community college board, and all odd-numbered seats on the board of supervisors on November 3, 2020. A primary for the superior court judgeships was scheduled for March 3, 2020. Candidates for superior court judge could win outright in the primary if they received a majority of votes. The filing deadline for judicial candidates was December 6, 2019, the filing deadline for supervisors was June 9, 2020, and the filing deadline for BART board and the community college board was August 7, 2020.[1]
Election procedure changes in 2020
Ballotpedia provided comprehensive coverage of how election dates and procedures changed in 2020. While the majority of changes occurred as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, some changes occurred for other reasons.
California modified its absentee/mail-in and in-person voting procedures for the November 3, 2020, general election as follows:
- Absentee/mail-in voting: Mail-in ballots were sent to all registered voters in the general election.
- In-person voting: Counties were authorized to consolidate precincts and defer opening voting centers until the third day before the election.
For a full timeline about election modifications made in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, click here.
Elections
Click on the tabs below to show more information about those topics.
Board of Supervisors
District 1
General election
General election for San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 1
The ranked-choice voting election was won by Connie Chan in round 6 . The results of Round are displayed below. To see the results of other rounds, use the dropdown menu above to select a round and the table will update.
|
Total votes: 36,076 |
|||
 = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
District 3
General election
General election for San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 3
The ranked-choice voting election was won by Aaron Peskin in round 3 . The results of Round are displayed below. To see the results of other rounds, use the dropdown menu above to select a round and the table will update.
|
Total votes: 28,893 |
|||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
District 5
General election
General election for San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 5
The ranked-choice voting election was won by Dean Preston in round 3 . The results of Round are displayed below. To see the results of other rounds, use the dropdown menu above to select a round and the table will update.
|
Total votes: 41,764 |
|||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
District 7
General election
General election for San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 7
The ranked-choice voting election was won by Myrna Melgar in round 6 . The results of Round are displayed below. To see the results of other rounds, use the dropdown menu above to select a round and the table will update.
|
Total votes: 39,332 |
|||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
District 9
General election
General election for San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 9
The ranked-choice voting election was won by Hillary Ronen in round 1 .
|
Total votes: 29,275 |
|||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
District 11
General election
General election for San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 11
The ranked-choice voting election was won by Ahsha Safaí in round 3 . The results of Round are displayed below. To see the results of other rounds, use the dropdown menu above to select a round and the table will update.
|
Total votes: 31,350 |
|||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
BART board
District 7
General election
General election for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board of Directors District 7
Incumbent Lateefah Simon defeated Sharon Kidd in the general election for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board of Directors District 7 on November 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Lateefah Simon (Nonpartisan) | 64.1 | 101,519 |
| Sharon Kidd (Nonpartisan) | 35.9 | 56,848 | ||
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.1 | 113 | ||
| Total votes: 158,480 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
District 9
General election
General election for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board of Directors District 9
Incumbent Bevan Dufty defeated David Young, Michael Petrelis, and Patrick Mortiere in the general election for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board of Directors District 9 on November 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Bevan Dufty (Nonpartisan) | 65.3 | 108,632 | |
 | David Young (Nonpartisan) | 19.1 | 31,814 | |
 | Michael Petrelis (Nonpartisan) | 9.4 | 15,579 | |
 | Patrick Mortiere (Nonpartisan) | 6.2 | 10,380 | |
| Total votes: 166,405 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Community college board
General election
General election for San Francisco Community College Board (4 seats)
The following candidates ran in the general election for San Francisco Community College Board on November 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Shanell Williams (Nonpartisan) | 18.0 | 195,356 |
| ✔ |  | Tom Temprano (Nonpartisan) | 17.2 | 186,583 |
| ✔ |  | Aliya Chisti (Nonpartisan) | 11.7 | 126,904 |
| ✔ |  | Alan Wong (Nonpartisan) | 11.4 | 123,437 |
 | Anita Martinez (Nonpartisan) | 10.8 | 117,629 | |
 | Marie Hurabiell (Nonpartisan) | 8.0 | 86,726 | |
| Han Zou (Nonpartisan) | 6.9 | 74,975 | ||
 | Victor Olivieri (Nonpartisan) | 6.7 | 72,840 | |
 | Jeanette Quick (Nonpartisan) | 5.3 | 57,925 | |
 | Geramye Teeter (Nonpartisan) | 2.4 | 25,580 | |
| Dominic Ashe (Nonpartisan) | 1.7 | 18,556 | ||
| Total votes: 1,086,511 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Superior Court
Seat 1
General election
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for Superior Court of San Francisco County
Maria Evangelista won election outright against Pang Va Ly in the primary for Superior Court of San Francisco County on March 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Maria Evangelista (Nonpartisan) | 64.9 | 159,502 | |
| Pang Va Ly (Nonpartisan) | 35.1 | 86,292 | ||
| Total votes: 245,794 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Seat 2
Incumbent Brendan P. Conroy was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 3
Incumbent Richard Darwin was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 4
Incumbent Gail Dekreon was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 5
Incumbent Harry M. Dorfman was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 6
Incumbent Rochelle C. East was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 7
Incumbent Eric Fleming was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 8
Incumbent Daniel A. Flores was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 9
Incumbent Loretta M. Giorgi was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 10
Incumbent Alexandra Robert Gordon was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 11
Incumbent Charles F. Haines was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 12
Incumbent Harold E. Kahn was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 13
Incumbent Charlene P. Kiesselbach was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 14
Incumbent Rita Lin was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 15
Incumbent Anne-Christine Massullo was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 16
Incumbent Michael McNaughton was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 17
Incumbent Vedica Puri was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 18
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for Superior Court of San Francisco County
Michelle Tong won election outright against Dorothy Proudfoot in the primary for Superior Court of San Francisco County on March 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Michelle Tong (Nonpartisan) | 57.1 | 137,702 | |
| Dorothy Proudfoot (Nonpartisan) | 42.9 | 103,664 | ||
| Total votes: 241,366 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Seat 19
Incumbent Gerardo C. Sandoval was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 20
Incumbent Ethan P. Schulman was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 21
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for Superior Court of San Francisco County
Carolyn Gold won election outright against Kulvindar Singh in the primary for Superior Court of San Francisco County on March 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Carolyn Gold (Nonpartisan) | 50.4 | 121,026 | |
| Kulvindar Singh (Nonpartisan) | 49.6 | 119,011 | ||
| Total votes: 240,037 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Seat 22
Incumbent Christine Van Aken was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 23
Incumbent Mary E. Wiss was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 24
Incumbent Garrett L. Wong was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Seat 25
Incumbent Braden C. Woods was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
Endorsements
Do you know of an official or organization that endorsed a candidate in this race? Let Ballotpedia know by email at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Ballot measures
- See also: California 2020 ballot measures
March 3
- See also: March 3 local ballot measures
Statewide:
City:
- San Francisco Community College District, California, Proposition A, City College Bond Issue (March 2020)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition B, Earthquake Safety and Emergency Services Bond Issue (March 2020)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition C, San Francisco Housing Authority Retirement Benefits (March 2020)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition E, City Office Development Limit Initiative (March 2020)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition D, Vacant Property Tax (March 2020)
Additional elections on the ballot
- See also: California elections, 2020
Ranked-choice voting
Overview
 | |
|
How ranked-choice voting works
Broadly speaking, the ranked-choice voting process unfolds as follows for single-winner elections:
- Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
- If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
- If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
- All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots.
- A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted voters.
- The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.
Example
Assume that there are four candidates for mayor in a hypothetical city. The table below presents the raw first-preference vote totals for each candidate.
| Raw first-preference vote tallies in a hypothetical mayoral race | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | First-preference votes | Percentage |
| Candidate A | 475 | 46.34% |
| Candidate B | 300 | 29.27% |
| Candidate C | 175 | 17.07% |
| Candidate D | 75 | 7.32% |
In the above scenario, no candidate won an outright majority of first-preference votes. As a result, the candidate (Candidate D) with the smallest number of first-preference votes is eliminated. The ballots that listed candidate D as the first preference are adjusted, raising their second-preference candidates. Assume that, of the 75 first-preference votes for Candidate D, 50 listed Candidate A as their second preference and 25 listed Candidate B. The adjusted vote totals would be as follows:
| Adjusted vote tallies in a hypothetical mayoral race | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Adjusted first-preference votes | Percentage |
| Candidate A | 525 | 51.22% |
| Candidate B | 325 | 31.71% |
| Candidate C | 175 | 17.07% |
On the second tally, Candidate A secured 51.22 percent of the vote, thereby winning the election.
Note: The above is a simplified example used for illustrative purposes. Specific procedures vary by jurisdiction and according to the nature of the election (i.e., whether it is a single-winner or multi-winner contest).
Ranked-choice voting in California
At the time of the 2020 election, California did not use ranked-choice voting on a statewide basis. However, four California cities did use ranked-choice voting: Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Leandro.
San Francisco voted to adopt ranked-choice voting for municipal elections in 2002. Oakland voted in favor of adopting ranked-choice voting in 2006, while Berkeley and San Leandro switched to ranked-choice voting in 2010.[2] As of the 2020 election, ranked-choice voting was only used to elect local officials in the four cities; elections for state and federal office did not use ranked-choice voting.[3][4]
What was at stake?
Report a story for this election
Ballotpedia researches issues in local elections across the United States, but information availability is a challenge for us in many areas. Please contact us about the issues that impact your local election. Note that not all submissions may meet Ballotpedia's coverage requirements for inclusion.
Candidate survey
|
|
Ballotpedia invites candidates to participate in its annual survey. |
Ranked-choice voting
- See also: Ranked-choice voting
In San Francisco, ranked-choice voting is used in all elections for mayor, assessor-recorder, city attorney, district attorney, public defender, sheriff, treasurer, and the board of supervisors.[5] In a ranked-choice voting system, voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. First-choice votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. This system is sometimes referred to as an instant runoff voting system.[6][7]
About the city
- See also: San Francisco, California
San Francisco is a city in California. It is consolidated with the County of San Francisco, which means that the city and county share a government and their boundaries are coterminous. As of 2020, its population was 873,965.
City government
- See also: Mayor-council government
The city of San Francisco uses a strong mayor and city council system. In this form of municipal government, the city council serves as the city's primary legislative body and the mayor serves as the city's chief executive.[8]
Demographics
The following table displays demographic data provided by the United States Census Bureau.
| Demographic Data for San Francisco, California | ||
|---|---|---|
| San Francisco | California | |
| Population | 873,965 | 39,538,223 |
| Land area (sq mi) | 46 | 155,858 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White | 40.5% | 44% |
| Black/African American | 5.1% | 5.5% |
| Asian | 35% | 15.3% |
| Native American | 0.7% | 1.1% |
| Pacific Islander | 1.3% | 1.2% |
| Other (single race) | 7.7% | 17.4% |
| Multiple | 10.7% | 16.3% |
| Hispanic/Latino | 15.9% | 39.8% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate | 88.8% | 84.6% |
| College graduation rate | 60.1% | 36.5% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income | $141,446 | $96,334 |
| Persons below poverty level | 10.6% | 12% |
| Source: population provided by U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census" (2020). Other figures provided by U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2018-2023). | ||
| **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Pivot Counties
- See also: Pivot Counties by state
There are no Pivot Counties in California. Pivot Counties are counties that voted for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and for Donald Trump (R) in 2016. Altogether, the nation had 206 Pivot Counties, with most being concentrated in upper midwestern and northeastern states.
In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton (D) won California with 61.7 percent of the vote. Donald Trump (R) received 31.6 percent. In presidential elections between 1900 and 2016, California voted Republican 53.33 percent of the time and Democratic 43.33 percent of the time. In the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016, California voted Democratic all five times. In 2016, California had 55 electoral votes, which was the most of any state. The 55 electoral votes were 10.2 percent of all 538 available electoral votes and were 20.4 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election.
Presidential results by legislative district
The following table details results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections by state Assembly districts in California. Click [show] to expand the table. The "Obama," "Romney," "Clinton," and "Trump" columns describe the percent of the vote each presidential candidate received in the district. The "2012 Margin" and "2016 Margin" columns describe the margin of victory between the two presidential candidates in those years. The "Party Control" column notes which party held that seat heading into the 2018 general election. Data on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections broken down by state legislative districts was compiled by Daily Kos.[9][10]
| In 2012, Barack Obama (D) won 58 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 38.4 points. In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won 66 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 40.3 points. Clinton won 11 districts controlled by Republicans heading into the 2018 elections. |
| In 2012, Mitt Romney (R) won 22 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 12.2 points. In 2016, Donald Trump (R) won 14 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 13 points. |
| 2016 Presidential Results by State Assembly District | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Obama | Romney | 2012 Margin | Clinton | Trump | 2016 Margin | Party Control |
| 1 | 39.63% | 57.31% | R+17.7 | 36.09% | 56.75% | R+20.7 | R |
| 2 | 64.68% | 30.51% | D+34.2 | 62.20% | 28.98% | D+33.2 | D |
| 3 | 42.41% | 54.46% | R+12.1 | 39.47% | 53.31% | R+13.8 | R |
| 4 | 63.16% | 33.86% | D+29.3 | 63.03% | 29.95% | D+33.1 | D |
| 5 | 41.27% | 55.92% | R+14.7 | 38.51% | 54.85% | R+16.3 | R |
| 6 | 38.59% | 59.09% | R+20.5 | 41.17% | 52.02% | R+10.9 | R |
| 7 | 67.59% | 29.61% | D+38 | 67.63% | 25.69% | D+41.9 | D |
| 8 | 51.72% | 45.62% | D+6.1 | 51.77% | 41.03% | D+10.7 | D |
| 9 | 60.56% | 37.52% | D+23 | 61.47% | 32.89% | D+28.6 | D |
| 10 | 73.76% | 23.28% | D+50.5 | 75.65% | 17.96% | D+57.7 | D |
| 11 | 60.96% | 36.87% | D+24.1 | 58.86% | 35.17% | D+23.7 | D |
| 12 | 45.19% | 52.50% | R+7.3 | 43.11% | 51.05% | R+7.9 | R |
| 13 | 64.23% | 33.88% | D+30.4 | 62.97% | 31.79% | D+31.2 | D |
| 14 | 68.80% | 28.72% | D+40.1 | 69.55% | 24.47% | D+45.1 | D |
| 15 | 86.82% | 9.56% | D+77.3 | 87.39% | 7.04% | D+80.4 | D |
| 16 | 57.74% | 40.10% | D+17.6 | 64.47% | 29.23% | D+35.2 | R |
| 17 | 87.07% | 9.36% | D+77.7 | 88.12% | 6.95% | D+81.2 | D |
| 18 | 86.89% | 10.23% | D+76.7 | 85.89% | 8.44% | D+77.5 | D |
| 19 | 78.94% | 18.38% | D+60.6 | 81.63% | 13.34% | D+68.3 | D |
| 20 | 75.74% | 22.15% | D+53.6 | 75.52% | 19.12% | D+56.4 | D |
| 21 | 55.61% | 42.03% | D+13.6 | 54.63% | 39.46% | D+15.2 | D |
| 22 | 71.43% | 26.31% | D+45.1 | 75.16% | 19.75% | D+55.4 | D |
| 23 | 43.46% | 54.71% | R+11.2 | 43.95% | 50.78% | R+6.8 | R |
| 24 | 72.16% | 24.96% | D+47.2 | 78.19% | 15.93% | D+62.3 | D |
| 25 | 72.40% | 25.26% | D+47.1 | 73.61% | 20.90% | D+52.7 | D |
| 26 | 41.15% | 56.68% | R+15.5 | 41.54% | 52.93% | R+11.4 | R |
| 27 | 76.36% | 21.54% | D+54.8 | 77.76% | 17.29% | D+60.5 | D |
| 28 | 66.64% | 30.77% | D+35.9 | 70.63% | 23.08% | D+47.6 | D |
| 29 | 69.95% | 26.66% | D+43.3 | 70.00% | 22.96% | D+47 | D |
| 30 | 66.99% | 30.86% | D+36.1 | 66.70% | 27.32% | D+39.4 | D |
| 31 | 61.98% | 36.21% | D+25.8 | 62.13% | 32.93% | D+29.2 | D |
| 32 | 56.20% | 41.81% | D+14.4 | 56.50% | 37.98% | D+18.5 | D |
| 33 | 41.80% | 55.51% | R+13.7 | 40.02% | 54.61% | R+14.6 | R |
| 34 | 33.96% | 63.85% | R+29.9 | 34.07% | 60.21% | R+26.1 | R |
| 35 | 47.82% | 49.42% | R+1.6 | 49.57% | 43.43% | D+6.1 | R |
| 36 | 48.79% | 48.48% | D+0.3 | 49.94% | 43.86% | D+6.1 | R |
| 37 | 60.97% | 36.28% | D+24.7 | 64.27% | 29.21% | D+35.1 | D |
| 38 | 46.73% | 50.84% | R+4.1 | 49.64% | 44.39% | D+5.2 | R |
| 39 | 73.75% | 23.67% | D+50.1 | 74.64% | 19.80% | D+54.8 | D |
| 40 | 53.14% | 44.72% | D+8.4 | 54.08% | 40.01% | D+14.1 | R |
| 41 | 59.74% | 37.72% | D+22 | 62.82% | 31.27% | D+31.5 | D |
| 42 | 44.98% | 52.93% | R+7.9 | 45.61% | 49.70% | R+4.1 | R |
| 43 | 67.35% | 29.62% | D+37.7 | 68.94% | 25.45% | D+43.5 | D |
| 44 | 52.37% | 45.51% | D+6.9 | 57.12% | 36.99% | D+20.1 | D |
| 45 | 63.46% | 34.12% | D+29.3 | 67.36% | 27.39% | D+40 | D |
| 46 | 73.73% | 23.65% | D+50.1 | 76.20% | 18.48% | D+57.7 | D |
| 47 | 71.49% | 26.54% | D+44.9 | 70.10% | 24.80% | D+45.3 | D |
| 48 | 64.08% | 33.44% | D+30.6 | 65.60% | 28.50% | D+37.1 | D |
| 49 | 64.69% | 33.26% | D+31.4 | 67.57% | 27.17% | D+40.4 | D |
| 50 | 70.79% | 26.51% | D+44.3 | 76.72% | 18.33% | D+58.4 | D |
| 51 | 83.48% | 13.50% | D+70 | 84.05% | 10.19% | D+73.9 | D |
| 52 | 65.01% | 32.92% | D+32.1 | 65.78% | 28.71% | D+37.1 | D |
| 53 | 84.64% | 12.59% | D+72 | 84.83% | 9.63% | D+75.2 | D |
| 54 | 83.62% | 13.88% | D+69.7 | 85.15% | 10.12% | D+75 | D |
| 55 | 45.77% | 52.23% | R+6.5 | 49.92% | 44.61% | D+5.3 | R |
| 56 | 62.14% | 36.26% | D+25.9 | 64.21% | 31.24% | D+33 | D |
| 57 | 63.71% | 34.01% | D+29.7 | 65.92% | 28.39% | D+37.5 | D |
| 58 | 70.24% | 27.80% | D+42.4 | 72.54% | 22.26% | D+50.3 | D |
| 59 | 93.24% | 5.19% | D+88 | 90.70% | 5.09% | D+85.6 | D |
| 60 | 51.32% | 46.31% | D+5 | 52.48% | 41.97% | D+10.5 | D |
| 61 | 63.43% | 34.55% | D+28.9 | 62.47% | 31.62% | D+30.9 | D |
| 62 | 80.81% | 17.00% | D+63.8 | 82.05% | 13.06% | D+69 | D |
| 63 | 76.06% | 21.73% | D+54.3 | 77.35% | 17.38% | D+60 | D |
| 64 | 88.74% | 9.98% | D+78.8 | 86.21% | 9.61% | D+76.6 | D |
| 65 | 51.90% | 45.68% | D+6.2 | 56.73% | 37.28% | D+19.4 | D |
| 66 | 54.18% | 43.24% | D+10.9 | 59.97% | 33.60% | D+26.4 | D |
| 67 | 39.61% | 58.33% | R+18.7 | 38.89% | 55.94% | R+17.1 | R |
| 68 | 42.55% | 55.12% | R+12.6 | 49.42% | 44.58% | D+4.8 | R |
| 69 | 67.37% | 30.30% | D+37.1 | 71.94% | 22.33% | D+49.6 | D |
| 70 | 67.38% | 29.93% | D+37.5 | 68.13% | 25.09% | D+43 | D |
| 71 | 38.47% | 59.51% | R+21 | 38.19% | 56.26% | R+18.1 | R |
| 72 | 46.71% | 51.06% | R+4.4 | 51.40% | 43.13% | D+8.3 | R |
| 73 | 38.68% | 59.36% | R+20.7 | 43.89% | 50.38% | R+6.5 | R |
| 74 | 45.14% | 52.42% | R+7.3 | 50.71% | 43.29% | D+7.4 | R |
| 75 | 39.42% | 58.50% | R+19.1 | 43.22% | 50.68% | R+7.5 | R |
| 76 | 48.76% | 49.04% | R+0.3 | 53.11% | 40.38% | D+12.7 | R |
| 77 | 48.25% | 49.83% | R+1.6 | 55.16% | 38.94% | D+16.2 | R |
| 78 | 63.15% | 34.08% | D+29.1 | 67.48% | 25.85% | D+41.6 | D |
| 79 | 61.21% | 36.91% | D+24.3 | 64.24% | 30.04% | D+34.2 | D |
| 80 | 69.47% | 28.67% | D+40.8 | 73.15% | 21.34% | D+51.8 | D |
| Total | 60.35% | 37.19% | D+23.2 | 62.25% | 31.89% | D+30.4 | - |
| Source: Daily Kos | |||||||
See also
| San Francisco, California | California | Municipal government | Other local coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ San Francisco Board of Elections, "November 3, 2020, Consolidated General Election Calendar," accessed July 13, 2020
- ↑ FairVote, "History of RCV in Bay Area," accessed August 28, 2020
- ↑ Google Cache - Alameda County, California, Registrar of Voters, "Ranked-Choice Voting," accessed August 28, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Department of Elections, "Ranked-Choice Voting," accessed August 28, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Department of Elections, "Ranked-Choice Voting," accessed November 4, 2019
- ↑ FairVote, "Electoral Systems," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ MinneapolisMN.gov, "Frequently Asked Questions about Ranked-Choice Voting," accessed July 7, 2017
- ↑ City of San Francisco, "Government," accessed September 3, 2014
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' statewide election results by congressional and legislative districts," July 9, 2013
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' 2016 presidential results for congressional and legislative districts," February 6, 2017
| |||||||||
