San Francisco, California, Proposition A, Ranked-Choice Voting Measure (March 2002)
| San Francisco Proposition A | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Local charter amendments and Local elections and campaigns |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Referral |
|
City of San Francisco Proposition A was on the ballot as a referral in San Francisco on March 5, 2002. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported this charter amendment to adopt ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, for city officers in San Francisco. |
A "no" vote opposed this charter amendment to adopt ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, for city officers in San Francisco. |
Election results
|
San Francisco Proposition A |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
76,340 | 55.48% | ||
| No | 61,261 | 44.52% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition A was as follows:
| “ | Shall the City use instant run-off voting to elect City officers with a majority of votes without separate run-off elections? | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
THE WAY IT IS NOW: When the offices of the Mayor, City Attorney, District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, Assessor-Recorder, Treasurer, and Board of Supervisors are up for election, voters may select only one candidate for each of these offices. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes cast for the office, the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes compete in a run-off election at a later date. THE PROPOSAL: Proposition A is a Charter amendment that would require the City to use an instant run-off voting method that would eliminate separate run-off elections. A winner would still have to receive more than 50% of the vote. With this method, each voter would have the opportunity to rank at least a first, second, and third choice among the candidates for each office. The votes would be counted in rounds. If one candidate received more than 50% of the first-choice votes in the first round, then that candidate would be elected. If no candidate received more than 50% of the first-choice votes, the candidate who received the fewest first-choice votes would be eliminated. All voters whose first choice was eliminated would have their vote transferred to their second-choice candidate. This process of transferring votes to the voter’s next-choice candidate and eliminating candidates with the fewest votes would be repeated until one candidate received more than 50% of the votes. The City would start using the instant run-off voting method in November 2002. If the Department of Elections were not ready to use the new method in November 2002, the City would start using it in November 2003. A “YES”VOTE MEANS: If you vote yes, you want the City to use an instant run-off voting method to elect City officers and eliminate separate run-off elections. A “NO”VOTE MEANS: If you vote no, you do not want the City to use an instant run-off voting method to elect City officers and eliminate separate run-off elections. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Background
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
| Ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures | |
|---|---|
| Pages: • Ranked-choice voting (RCV) • History of RCV ballot measures • Electoral systems on the ballot • Local electoral systems on the ballot • Electoral systems by state | |
- See also: Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
The ballot measure has played a role in shaping electoral systems in the U.S., including ranked-choice voting (RCV) for state and local elections.
Since 1915, there have been more than 150 ballot measures to adopt or repeal ranked-choice voting systems. Ashtabula, Ohio, was the first jurisdiction to approve a ranked-choice voting measure in 1915.
RCV is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates on their ballots. RCV can be used for single-winner elections or multi-winner elections; when used for multi-winner elections, the system has also been called single-transferable vote or proportional representation. These terms were often used to describe multi-winner RCV before the 1970s. You can learn more about ranked-choice voting systems and policies here.
Local RCV ballot measures
Between 1965 and 2024, 79 ranked-choice voting (RCV) local ballot measures were on the ballot in 58 jurisdictions in 19 states.
- Ballotpedia has located 71 local ballot measures to adopt RCV. Voters approved 52 (78.9%) and rejected 15 (21.1%).
- There were eight local ballot measures to repeal RCV. Voters approved four (50.0%) and rejected four (50.0%).
- The year with the most local RCV ballot measures was 2022, when nine were on the ballot in nine jurisdictions. Voters approved seven of them.
- The state with the most local ballot measures related to RCV is California, where there have been 13.
The following table shows the number of ranked-choice voting measures by topic.
| Local ranked-choice vote measures by topic and outcome, 1965 - April 2025 | |||||
| Topic | Total | Approved | Approved (%) | Defeated | Defeated (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adopt RCV | 72 | 57 | 79.2% | 15 | 20.08% |
| Repeal RCV | 8 | 4 | 50.0% | 4 | 50.0% |
| Total | 80 | 61 | 76.3% | 19 | 23.7% |
Path to the ballot
On June 9, 2001, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors referred Proposition A to the ballot for the election on March 5, 2002. The vote was 10 to 1.[1]
See also
|
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
