Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ranked‑choice proposals for county and Charter Review Commission elections fall short amid heated debate
Summary
Two related charter amendments to adopt ranked‑choice voting — a comprehensive change for county elections and a pilot for Charter Review Commission races — were both defeated 8‑7 after extended public testimony and commissioner debate.
Two separate proposals to introduce ranked‑choice voting (RCV) in Whatcom County were debated on June 11 and both failed by narrow margins.
Amendment 31 — a broad proposal cosponsored by multiple commissioners — would have implemented single‑winner ranked‑choice voting for applicable races and proportional ranked‑choice voting for multi‑seat contests, eliminated primary elections where state law permitted, and reorganized county council districts (moving from five single-member districts plus two at‑large seats to three multi‑member districts electing three members each).
Amendment 32 was a narrower, pilot‑style measure to use RCV for Charter Review Commission elections with a null‑and‑void clause giving the county council an off‑ramp if implementation proved fiscally or operationally infeasible.
Both measures generated substantial public input on both sides. Supporters said RCV reduces wasted votes, increases turnout, and yields more proportional representation — points emphasized by Alan McConkie of FairVote and local advocates. “One voter, one vote,” McConkie said, arguing the Charter Review election format (block voting) can produce unrepresentative outcomes and that RCV would help minority viewpoints win representation.
Opponents called RCV confusing and expensive and cited recent statewide defeats for RCV ballot measures in other states. John Westerfield told the commission he believed jurisdictions that tried RCV later abandoned it and that voters in several states had rejected it.
Commission debate reflected the division. Supporters argued RCV would address concerns raised earlier in the meeting about at‑large seats and minority representation; detractors questioned pilot costs, potential voter confusion, and whether the commission should send such a substantial procedural change to the ballot without clearer implementation details.
The commission held recorded roll calls on each amendment; both measures failed 8–7. Commissioners who opposed the amendments pointed to the need for more public education, clearer implementation plans, or alternative reforms such as proportional systems adopted through different mechanics.
No charter changes on ranked‑choice voting were advanced at this meeting. Sponsors said they may pursue further study and outreach before bringing revised language back to the commission.
