For Voters, Choice Is as Easy as 1, 2, 3

When voters here go to the polls in November to select their top choice for a seat on the city’s Board of Supervisors, they also get to pick their second choice — and even their third.

Here, a winning candidate has to receive at least 50 percent of the vote for the Board of Supervisors, which is the local city council. In the past, if nobody did, there was a runoff election.

But this year, San Francisco has become the largest city in the nation to adopt a form of voting that proponents say is a little like walking into an ice cream shop to order a chocolate cone only to discover the shop is all out — no problem, just order your next favorite flavor, and if that’s out, your third.

I think this is a great idea, and one that would save the city money. Indeed, I advocated this idea for Alabama in a column a few months back.

However, this strikes me as a silly hope:

Advocates said the new system has made campaigning more civilized — candidates don’t want to lose out on the chance to be a voter’s second or third choice by appearing too negative. And they say it may increase turnout.

I don’t see how such a system creates an incentive for increased civility (nor increased turnout, for that matter). It certainly means that more people will have cast a vote for the runoff than would have done so if there was a gap between round one and round two.