Letter from San Francisco: Politicos turning against Instant Runoff and Politics are nasty as ever

Yep, one of the "progressives" who pushed for IRV no longer believes in it. Here's a letter from a blogger who lives in San Francisco, the largest IRV jurisdiction in the country. Supervisor. Daly is one of the "progressives" who pushed for IRV. Blogger H. Brown says now Daly is against IRV because he wants to try and control votes. He even advocated "bullet voting" - something you CAN'T DO under IRV.

From: "h. brown"
Date: September 5, 2008 5:36:55 AM PDT
To: h@ludd.net
Subject: Tenants Union stabs Sanchez

Morning boys and girls,

Ed Jew won his seat in D-4 by telling all Chinese
voters to ONLY vote for Chinese candidates. Ugly and
racist it is true. But, it worked.

It worked because Jew realized that in a tight
race no candidate was likely to get 50% of the vote
and second and third choices allowed under the City's
IRV (Ranked Choice) system ...

the system could help
elect a member of a 3-slate card while leaving lone
wolves to die in the snow a few percentage points
from the finish line (you hear me, Ron Dudum?). This
morning Fog City Journal reported that the Tenants
Union will not take advantage of IRV.

Chris Daly and Ted Gullickson do not understand
this. Daly, in fact, has gone so far as to pressure
the top ranked Progressive in the D-9 race (Mark
Sanchez) to drop out of the race entirely so that
Chris' choice (Eric Quezada) will (by Daly's
reasoning) have the Progressive voter block to
himself.

What Daly's tactics will do however is to insure
that 'astro-turf' faux progressive David Campos will
be elected. And, immediately vote for Bevan Dufty
for Board President.

Daly has bragged that he controls the coveted
endorsements of both the Bay Guardian and the Tenants
Union. And, that he doesn't believe in Ranked
Choice voting. Ted Gullickson has joined him and
the results could be disastrous for both the local
Progressive movement and Daly's own shot at the
Board presidency.

This is one of those 'I told you so' moments in
the making. Come January if Daly's tact fails and
David Campos makes Daly the permanent Board rep to
the SFUSD, I'll be saying it. "I told you so."

h.

Asheville North Carolina "Claims favoring Instant Runoff Voting don't hold up

Oh snap! The Asheville Citizen Times ran another Op Ed piece critical of IRV. The Minnesota Voters Alliance says everyone is missing the point. They say that the logistical problems and transparency problems with IRV pale in comparison to the fact that IRV can cause a voter to hurt their preferred candidate by voting for them. Matt Marchetti blasts John Hudson's editorial ("Don't be misled; N.C. has one of the best election systems in the country,'' AC-T, Aug. 14)

Asheville Citizen Times Claims favoring Instant Runoff Voting don't hold up to scrutiny
Matt Marchetti • published September 2, 2008

John Hudson's editorial ("Don't be misled; N.C. has one of the best election systems in the country,'' AC-T, Aug. 14) in favor of Instant Runoff Voting (or IRV) was a failed attempt to rebut Joyce McCloy's earlier editorial ("Instant runoff voting will only complicate things,'' AC-T, July 2) which was critical of the system. Hudson's piece reveals the ignorance of the self-proclaimed experts who seek to impose IRV on the people of North Carolina.


He attacks McCloy's expertise regarding voting machines then falsely claims that voting machines handled IRV in certain North Carolina elections. He says the procedure is understandable, and that complications with multiple ballots can be easily overcome, but these arguments completely miss the point.

The problem is not whether voters can understand the procedure of ranking choices, but rather how IRV affects the nature and value of a vote, and how election outcomes are arrived at. It's not just about logistics; it's about the severe problems that arise because of the complex mathematics inherent in preferential voting.

According to elections expert Steven J. Brams, Ph.D. New York University, with IRV "ranking your favorite candidate first could cause him to lose, whereas ranking him last could cause him to win—just the opposite of what you want the system to do." This is utterly unacceptable. Voters shouldn't need to bring a calculator to the voting booth!

The only way anyone who values democracy could support such a dubious and undemocratic system is if they are ignorant of the serious flaws of IRV, or if they see it as a way to consolidate power among the elites who run the system.

IRV is billed as a "new" idea, which will empower voters, provide more choices and make elections fair. This "new" system, which was devised over a century ago, is touted as eliminating the "Nader effect," and as guaranteeing a majority winner. However, this "spoiler effect" is a legitimate form of political speech which should not be frivolously eliminated. Moreover, IRV doesn't guarantee a majority winner anyway!

A plurality should be acceptable in a representative system, but if some people insist on having majority winners, IRV won't help. A runoff is used only when no candidate wins a majority on the first ballot. Whatever happens after that doesn't change the fact that the eventual winner never got a majority of "first choices." Thus, IRV merely creates the illusion of a majority.
The real issue is simply that preferential voting disenfranchises voters. Our organization, the Minnesota Voters Alliance, is fighting against the implementation of IRV in Minnesota. We recently filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court, challenging the implementation of IRV in Minneapolis on constitutional grounds.

IRV has several constitutional flaws. These include the fact that IRV allows voters more than one vote, that the ballots are not counted or transferred equally and that voters have no way of knowing whether they are helping their favored candidate by the way they rank their choices. IRV puts blindfolds on the voters.

In the 1915 Brown v. Smallwood case the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that voters have a right "to cast a vote for the candidate of his choice unimpaired by the second and additional choice votes cast by others." Although the method at issue in the 1915 case was slightly different, this principle still applies. IRV makes it possible for one voter's choices to affect how another voter's choices might influence the election. This problem cannot be avoided under any preferential system.

This is a violation of freedom of association, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. A person's vote is an expression of association with a particular candidate seeking office. Each voter is entitled to have his or her vote counted as a numeric "one" as applied to the candidate of his or her choice. IRV violates these constitutional rights; making preferential voting an issue of national concern.

IRV proponents like Mr. Hudson claim that it's easy as 1-2-3; even if true, does that make it good? IRV is impractical, costly and confusing, but more importantly, it disenfranchises voters! As the Minnesota court said in the Brown v. Smallwood case "the preferential system directly diminishes the right of an elector to give an effective vote for the candidate of his choice."
Much more detail on this vital issue can be found at: www.mnvoters.org

Mr. Marchetti, a husband and father of two, has worked in state government for more than 20 years and is co-founder of the Minnesota Voters Alliance. He has also worked on several campaigns for various candidates and is frequently published in the letters to the editor section of Minneapolis and St. Paul newspapers. The Minnesota Voters Alliance is not affiliated with any political party or any other advocacy organization.

Mr. Marchetti, a husband and father of two, has worked in state government for more than 20 years and is co-founder of the Minnesota Voters Alliance. He has also worked on several campaigns for various candidates and is frequently published in the letters to the editor section of Minneapolis and St. Paul newspapers. The Minnesota Voters Alliance is not affiliated with any political party or any other advocacy organization.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880829032

North Carolina: Instant Runoff Voting is no solution, says election official who was there

On Aug 27, 08 the Asheville Citizen Times published an Op/ed by by Debra Goldberg, who served on the Wake County Board of Elections. Ms. Goldberg observed the only counting of an instant runoff voting election in North Carolina - first hand.

Debra Goldberg corrects the mis information put forward by the pro Instant runoff voting op/ed published in the August 14, the Asheville Citizen Times . John Hudson, an election official from Transylvania County, wrote Don’t be misled; N.C. has one of the best election systems in the country . Mr. Hudson, Chairman of the Transylvania Board of Elections had vigorously defended IRV, highly praised "cutting edge" voting machines which he wrongly credits with improving our elections, and attempted to discredit me and my writeup Instant runoff voting will only complicate things published on Wed Jul 2, 2008 also in the Asheville Citizen Times.

Instant Runoff Voting is no solution, says election official who was there

Debra Goldberg • published August 27, 2008

I was a Board of Elections official in Wake County during the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) pilot in Cary in October 2007. As one of only three officials in North Carolina to have administered an IRV runoff, I can tell you that John R. Hudson Jr.’s guest commentary, “Don’t be misled; N.C. has one of the best election systems in the country,” (AC-T, Aug. 14), contained incorrect claims about instant runoff voting in North Carolina and improperly discredited statements made by voting integrity activist Joyce McCloy.


Hudson states that the voting machines handled IRV well “in the two elections in which it was used.” Untrue — no machines have been used for counting instant runoff votes in North Carolina and cannot be used because no certified software exists that can count IRV votes. Furthermore, the Hendersonville election did not trigger an instant runoff. In Cary, in which one race triggered an instant runoff, the IRV votes were counted by hand. N.C. Board of Elections Voting Systems Manager Keith Long verified in writing that, “The EAC has not approved any software. There is no software available for the ES&S equipment to count IRV voting!” ES&S is the only voting machine manufacturer certified in North Carolina.

Many problems

The Cary election was only about 3,000 votes, yet the process was labor-intensive, difficult to monitor and observe and resulted in incorrect vote counts. The discrepancies were reconciled using hand recounting, done by staff members after the official count. These errors were not, as Hudson states, “easily spotted and quickly corrected.” I can’t imagine the onerous amount of time, resources, space and personnel that might be needed were we to hold an IRV election of any significant size, nor the numerous and potentially irreconcilable discrepancies a large IRV runoff would likely cause.

Hudson states, “North Carolina is known nationwide as one of the foremost election systems in the country” and attributes this to “being innovative, using cutting-edge equipment and thoroughly training our election staff and boards…”. I agree that N.C. is exemplary in many ways as it pertains to voting. I disagree as to the reasons. Cutting-edge equipment does not make for the best elections and creates opportunities for compromising voting integrity. This concern led Joyce McCloy and many other citizen activists to lobby the legislature to pass our voter integrity laws. As a result, N.C. now requires that every vote have a paper trail, in clear recognition of the fallibility and vulnerability of “cutting- edge equipment” used in voting.

Strong evidence refutes claims such as Hudson’s that “Voters in the two counties who had IRV in their city elections were overwhelmingly happy with it and had no trouble understanding it.” In the Cary IRV pilot, I can tell you that many voters left their backup choices blank, and that many other voters wrote in backup candidates with names such as “Mickey Mouse” and “Donald Duck.” This is direct evidence that many voters did not understand or accept IRV. Candidates involved in the IRV pilot in Cary have voiced doubts about the process.

Integrity of the process

Although many people, including some election officials, seem eager to embrace IRV, and some have been zealously vocal in their support of IRV, it is important to recognize that these same people often ignore and misconstrue the facts which are most important to those of us who are concerned, above all, with the integrity of each and every vote and with the confidence of all voters that their votes are counted fairly and accurately. It is important, when assessing the IRV issue to recognize these key points:

1. We cannot reasonably count IRV until we have certified software. Hand counting, as we must do now, consumes many man-hours and resources, and is error-prone.

2. The push to computerize IRV will surely result in pressure to weaken our exemplary certification requirements and standards.

3. There is no proof that IRV saves money. The costs for necessary machinery and software, increased voter assistance and voter education and other associated costs would, likely, negate cost savings from elimination of runoffs.

4. IRV violates a basic principle when dealing with masses of people — KISS — Keep It Simple … We should resist IRV until straightforward, verifiable, reliable, auditable, certified systems are available to count IRV votes. Only then should we perform pilots while making sure that they are well documented and carefully evaluated.

To responsibly address the issue of costly runoffs, let’s use our North Carolina “innovation” to come up with safe, trustworthy alternatives to IRV. North Carolina voters deserve the most accurate and reliable voting system available, without compromise, for any reason.

Debra D. Goldberg is a former member of the Wake County Board of Elections.
She lives in Raleigh--

Instant Runoff North Carolina: There Is No IRV Software For North Carolina's Voting Machines

North Carolina's voting machines do NOT have software needed to tabulate Instant runoff voting, according to a report by the NC State Board of Elections to legislators. But IRV proponents are saying there is and promoting IRV as a "cost saver" anyway.

In 2007 the cities of Cary and Hendersonville NC participated in an instant runoff pilot.
Cary's District B City Council race did not find a majority winner in the first round, so the "instant" runoff count was required. Hendersonville did not require a count of IRV.

Since NC's voting machines do not have software and firmware that can read or count the additional rankings, the 2nd and 3rd choices for the Cary District B contest were counted by hand:

"We knew from the outset that the board would have to sort out those first choice votes and then hand tally the second choice," said Cherie Poucher, Wake County's Board Of Elections director. Oct 30, 2007 Critics Take Runoff Concerns To Elections Board NBC 17

There was confusion during the counting of the "instant runoff" of Cary District B contest:

Debra Goldberg, who was on the Wake County Board of Elections and present for the counting of Cary's IRV ballots described the process in an email dated July 15, 2008:

"Even with the very few votes we counted in the one small race which went to a runoff during the Cary IRV pilot, complications and questions from the public arose. The process was complex and extremely time and staff intensive. I foresee a logistical nightmare scenario were IRV to be used in an election of a substantial size."

On Dec 12, 2007 the NC State Board of Elections reported back to lawmakers on the 2007 pilot:

These pilot programs serve as basic foundations for counties to continue testing the IRV method of voting on a larger scale in 2008. Consideration for funding by the General Assembly for the IRV pilot program for voter education in 2008 could contribute to the overall success of the program. Funding will be required for software development, after the pilot program is completed, if there is to be any future use of IRV voting in North Carolina elections.

In a June 17, 2008 email, Keith Long, the Voting Systems Project Manager for the NC State Board of Elections advised that there is no software:

From: Keith Long
Cc: Don Wright
Subject: RE: 2nd request plse reply FW: IRV software for NC machines?
Date: Jun 17, 2008 7:55 AM

The EAC has not approved any software. There is NO software available for the ES&S equipment to count IRV voting!

Keith Long, PMP
NC Voting Systems Director
keith.long@ncmail.net

Did everything go just fine with the IRV pilot in Hendersonville, NC? Hendersonville NC has touchscreens and they participated in the Instant runoff experiment, but - they didn't have to utilize the instant runoff counting process. They had a winner in the first round. So we don't know how "well" it would have gone.

What concerns me most about IRV on touchscreens is the "work around" that the State Board of Elections cobbled together for Henderson County. It is very complex. This work around involves a 5 page single spaced set of instructions that boggles the mind. This puts the entire outcome of the election into the hands of a single person - whoever follows those instructions. Take a look for yourself, see what I am talking about.

Instant runoff voting goes against a key principle of elections the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid. Not so stupid advice. Protect elections, don't make them more complex.

Instant Runoff: Messing Up North Carolina Elections and Efforts to Reduce the Damage

Instant runoff mess to deal with again. Another Instant Runoff Pilot for North Carolina? Yes, it is true, another IRV pilot was buried within a large omnibus election law bill and ultimately passed. (It would never have passed in a bill by itself). Some lawmakers tried to amend it to delay or kill the experiment to 2011, but intense lobbying by well funded sources prevailed. Lawmakers were desperate to get out of session and go home, and several had items in the big bill that they cared about.

The good news is that lawmakers put several restrictions on the pilot and will require that this pilot adhere to existing election laws.

WUNC has the story of a last ditch effort to kill the IRV pilot:

Instant runoff nearly went down in flames

Election Law Amendments S1263 passed easily, but the Instant Runoff Voting pilot section darn near went down in flames after Jackson Dem Phil Haire launched a cranky diatribe against the recent IRV near-meltdown in Cary. The pilot funding survived, but not by much and only after pleas for support on both sides of the aisle. Watch this one next year.

Rep Haire's amendment would have delayed the implementation of the IRV Pilots until 2012 ,which would have had the effect of killing the IRV pilot because the pilot, as described by law, is only provided for through 2011.

The amendment failed 47-65, which at least shows that not all of our lawmakers are lemmings heading towards a cliff (and dragging us with them).

The fact is that our voting machines are not set up to handle IRV:

On December 17, 2007 the State Board advised lawmakers that:

"Funding will be required for software development, after the pilot program is completed, if there is to be any future use of IRV voting in North Carolina elections."

And here's an email from the Voting Systems Project Manager for the State Board of Elections from June 17, 2008, stating that there just isn't any IRV software for North Carolina's voting machines.

From: Keith Long Cc: Don Wright
Subject: RE: 2nd request plse reply FW: IRV
software for NC machines?
Date: Jun 17, 2008 7:55 AM
The EAC has not approved any software. There is NO software available for the ES&S equipment to count IRV voting!

Keith Long, PMP
NC Voting Systems Director
keith.long@ncmail.net

Lawmakers put restrictions on the IRV pilot this time, in order to (hopefully) ensure that the pilot is conducted within accordance of existing election laws, require that voter education is addressed (and funded!) and that jurisdictions cannot be forced by their Board of Elections into participating:

SECTION 3.(a)The State Board of Elections is authorized to select elections for offices of local government in which to use instant runoff voting in up to 10 local jurisdictions in each of the following years: 2009, 2010, and 2011. The selection of jurisdictions and administration of instant runoff voting shall follow the provisions of Section 1(a) of Session Law 2006‑192, except that the local governing board that is the subject of the election must approve participation in the pilot and also must agree to cooperate with the county board of elections and the Board in the development and implementation of a plan to educate candidates and voters about how to use the runoff voting method. In a multiseat contest, the Board shall modify the method used for instant runoff voting in single‑seat contests to apply its essential principles suitably to that election.

In the case of a board of education election where the "local governing board" must be asked to authorize instant runoff voting because nonpartisan plurality elections are normally used, the "local governing board" is the board of education itself. If instant runoff voting is used in place of the nonpartisan election and runoff method as described in G.S. 163‑293, the county board of elections, with the approval of the local governing board, may hold the election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The State Board of Elections, in consultation with the School of Government at the University of North Carolina, shall by January 1, 2009, develop for the pilot program authorized in this section goals, standards consistent with general election law, and criteria for implementation and evaluation. The pilot program shall be conducted according to those goals, standards, and criteria. SECTION 3.(b) This section is effective when it becomes law.

Is Instant Runoff Voting Hurting Minorities in Fair Vote's Home Town?

Ground Zero for IRV is also "Ground Zero" for minority representation in government. Zero meaning zilch, nada nothing.

The latest canard is that IRV helps minorities. A July 24 news article shows that this is not true, at least not in the home town of the Fair Vote Director, Rob Richie. The "IRV helps minorities" claim was used on the North Carolina State Legislature last month, and I believe it worked, even though it was challenged by Representative Angela Bryant.

Yes, "the truth is out there", right there in Fair Votes' own back yard. It turns out that Fair Vote Director Rob Richie's home town of Takoma Park Maryland, the home base for IRV, has Zero (0) zilch NADA minority representation. And voter turnout flat out sucks. A July 24 news article compares minority representation in the governments of 3 Maryland towns. Takoma Park is the loser.

Greenbelt mulls changes to its voting system Thursday July 24, 2008

...Takoma Park and College Park both have district systems, but each still has majority white councils. College Park has two women, one of whom is African-American...

"Takoma Park is 34 percent African-American.." yet "....Takoma Park, in Montgomery County, has no minority representative. "

Turnout in Takoma Park?

"Of the 17,299 total city population, only 1,010 people voted in the last City Council election."

....Takoma Park is divided into six voting districts. There are six council members and one mayor. All of its elected officials are white.

Takoma Park City Manager Barbara Burns Matthews admitted the council was not representative of the community according to census data, especially since the city has a large immigrant population.

One of the problems, Matthews said, is lack of contention. In the last election, only one district had multiple delegates running. The others only had one name on the ballot.

Doesn't this sound like San Francisco in 2007? Low turnout, stale stagnant politics with no real competition for the mayors contest, one candidate for DA, and 2 candidates for Sheriff? Incumbent protection.

Is it worth it?

Update on Instant Runoff - Raleigh Could Be Sending an Election Disaster Your Way

Dear Verified Voting Activists:

Today we lost the battle, but not the war. The legislature approved the Instant Runoff Pilots in spite of our warnings. Your efforts did encourage the lawmakers to put limits on these pilots that weren't applied in the previous ones. Please stay with us as we continue the fight to protect our elections. There is more work to do. Thank you for your hard work!

Limitations for the new pilot include:

Rep Angela Bryant's amendment - that "...the local governing board that is the subject of the election must approve participation in the pilot and also must agree to cooperate with the county board of elections and the Board in the development and implementation of a plan to educate candidates and voters about how to use the runoff voting method."

and

Representative Verla Insko's amendment - "The State Board of Elections, in consultation with the School of Government at the University of North Carolina, shall by January 1, 2009, develop for the pilot program authorized in this section goals, standards consistent with general election law, and criteria for implementation and evaluation. The pilot program shall be conducted according to those goals, standards, and criteria."

I urge you to press your County Boards of Elections and local officials to avoid the IRV experiments.

Here is my press release sent to media across the state, if you have touch screens in your county you should be really scared:

#

Press Release

Is an election disaster headed to your neck of the woods?

North Carolina, July 18, 2008/ NCVVNewswire/NC Coalition for Verified Voting

Today Raleigh has authorized another Instant Runoff Voting pilot, this time for a 3 year period. At risk is the public confidence in elections regained after a Florida style election debacle in 2004. After passing the Public Confidence in Elections Law in 2005, North Carolina began to lead the nation in election reliability and transparency. Now our state is headed down a slippery slope, eating away at our model election system.

We urge cities and counties - don't be the next guinea pig.

You have a choice - between simplicity or complexity with our nations most vital instruments of democracy. Choose wisely, our votes should not be an experiment to be discounted, miscounted, or mis-appropriated. Remember, we warned about a paperless voting meltdown long before it happened in November 2004 and weren't listened to then.


Consider that officials couldn't handle counting IRV in Cary North Carolina on simple paper ballots. Jan 22, 2008 Raleigh News and Observer. Opinion mixed on Cary's instant-runoff trial.
Counties using touch screens are in for a real treat, or maybe a nightmare election meltdown.

See for yourself the State Board of Election's "work around" to count instant runoff votes on touch screens: Just glance at the full 5 pages single spaced details on how to perform this work around. You don't have to read each line to understand the risks with this. *Beneath this list, we explain what is wrong with using this work around to run an election.

Determine if there are any candidates that have received the 50% threshold to be declared winner(s).

To tabulate a runoff election follow these procedures:

1. Announce the two (2) candidates that are in the Instant Runoff.
2. Print document - Hendersonville IRV-Ballot Position Numbers.pdf to determine the voting positions for each candidate in the Instant Runoff.
3. Remove the “Compact Flash Cards” from the iVotronic voting devices in the City of Hendersonville precincts.
4. Capture the Election Data in ERM;
a. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
b. Import Compact Flash Audit Data
c. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
d. Select machines from Armory Precinct only.
e. Consolidate Audit Data.
f. Create Vote Image Log.
g. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
h. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_Armory.txt and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
i. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
j. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
k. Select machines from Southwest Precinct only.
l. Consolidate Audit Data.
m. Create Vote Image Log.
n. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
o. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_Southwest.txt and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
p. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
q. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
r. Select machines from all remaining Hendersonville precinct machines.
s. Consolidate Audit Data.
t. Create Vote Image Log.
u. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
v. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_All and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
5. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_Armory.txt to import – Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name IRV_Armory.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
6. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_Southwest.txt to import – Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name IRV_Southwest.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
7. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_All.txt to import –Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the nameIRV_All.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
8. Open file Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls.
9. Open the Excel file that you created in Step 5d.
a. Delete Column B
b. Sort data on Column A
c. Delete all rows without machine numbers.
d. Highlight all the data for Armory Precinct and copy.
e. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the RED Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
f. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B
g. Using the file created in Step 5d, highlight all the data for Southwest Precinct and copy.
h. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the BLUE Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
i. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B
j. Using the file created in Step 5d, highlight all the data for all the other precincts in the City of Hendersonville (excluding Armory and Southwest) and copy.
k. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the BLACK Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
l. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B.
10. Verify that the vote totals for the candidates match the ERM Report.
a. Click on Yellow Tab Grand Totals – Totals for each candidate should match the report on ERM.
b. Print copy of YELLOW Tab Grand Totals.
11. Click on BLACK Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 3 thru 7 – example: Caldwell=3, Caraker=4, etc.).c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 13 thru 17).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
12. Click on BLACK Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 9e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 13 thru 17 – example: Caldwell=13, Caraker=14, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
13. Click on BLACK Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 10e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 20 thru 24 – example: Caldwell=20, Caraker=21, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
14. Click on RED Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice in Armory Precinct.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 16 thru 20 – example: Caldwell=16,Caraker=17, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 26 thru 30).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
15. Click on RED Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 12e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 26 thru 30 – example: Caldwell=26, Caraker=27, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
16. Click on RED Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 13e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 33 thru 37 – example: Caldwell=33, Caraker=34, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
17. Click on BLUE Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice in Armory Precinct.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 11 thru 15 – example: Caldwell=11, Caraker=12, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 21 thru 25).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
18. Click on BLUE Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 15e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 21 thru 25 – example: Caldwell=21, Caraker=22, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
19. Click on BLUE Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 16e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 28 thru 32 – example: Caldwell=28,Caraker=29, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
20. Click on YELLOW Tab Grand Totals – The votes displayed in the grand totals for the Runoff Candidates should be the final results.

What is wrong with this?

1. This work around removes vote data from the ES&S Unity system to a system not tested with it - exporting data first to notepad/wordpad and then excell to tabulate the votes.

a. neither word pad, note pad or excell have been tested for their vote tabulation ability.

b. this process erases audit data as it progresses, excell doesn't have an audit trail, and some versions of excell have bugs.c. it is not known what happens to the data as it is moved from the ES&S vote tabulation system to a non ES&S vote tabulation system.

2. All parts of the vote tabulation system must be federally tested together, to ensure they work together. This set up has not been federally tested or approved.

3. There are over 100 steps in the process, with instructions like "click on the red tab, or click on the blue tab", and one single keystroke error would change the outcome of the election, and there is no audit trail for this process.

4. Audit data is deleted as steps are performed.
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Henderson_County_IRV%20Tabulation.pdf

Instant Runoff - If I Were Crazy, I'd Count Votes THIS Way

Since North Carolina passed the Public Confidence in Election Law, its been harder to mess up the vote. But then came the boutique style, rube-goldberg-esque Instant Runoff Voting. A creative way to complicate voting. In 2007, Instant runoff voting was piloted/tested in Hendersonville and Cary, North Carolina. There is no federally approved software to count instant runoff voting so the NC State BoE set up this "workaround" to help out Henderson County, NC, a touchscreen jurisdiction. Luckily there was no "runoff" so the work around was not used. The pilot program has since expired. In this case, a boutique-style election fad trumps election transparency:

If I were crazy, this is how I would have counted the instant runoff election for Hendersonville, North Carolina:

The Henderson IRV Touch Screen Tabulation Work-Around -
Is it as easy as 1-2-3?


1. This work around removes vote data from the ES&S Unity system to a system not tested with it - exporting data first to notepad/wordpad and then excell to tabulate the votes.

a. neither word pad, note pad or excell have been tested for their vote tabulation ability.
b. this process erases audit data as it progresses, excell doesn't have an audit trail, and some versions of excell have bugs.
c. it is not known what happens to the data as it is moved from the ES&S vote tabulation system to a non ES&S vote tabulation system.

2. All parts of the vote tabulation system must be federally tested together, to ensure they work together.

3. There are over 100 steps in the process, with instructions like "click on the red tab, or click on the blue tab", and one single keystroke error would change the outcome of the election, and there is no audit trail for this process. Audit data is deleted as steps are performed.

Just glance at the full 5 pages single spaced details on how to perform this work around. A glance is all you need to get the point. It is crazy.

The Full Hendersonville County IRV Tabulation Procedures
If you have trouble printing this from the email, you can download the document from this file

Determine if there are any candidates that have received the 50% threshold to be declared winner(s). Use document - Henderson County IRV Tabulation –Threshold.pdf.

To tabulate a runoff election follow these procedures:
1. Announce the two (2) candidates that are in the Instant Runoff.
2. Print document - Hendersonville IRV-Ballot Position Numbers.pdf to determine the voting positions for each candidate in the Instant Runoff.
3. Remove the “Compact Flash Cards” from the iVotronic voting devices in the City of Hendersonville precincts.
4. Capture the Election Data in ERM;
a. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
b. Import Compact Flash Audit Data
c. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –
c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
d. Select machines from Armory Precinct only.
e. Consolidate Audit Data.
f. Create Vote Image Log.
g. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
h. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_Armory.txt and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
i. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
j. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
k. Select machines from Southwest Precinct only.
l. Consolidate Audit Data.
m. Create Vote Image Log.
n. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
o. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_Southwest.txt and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
p. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
q. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
r. Select machines from all remaining Hendersonville precinct machines.
s. Consolidate Audit Data.
t. Create Vote Image Log.
u. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
v. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_All and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
5. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_Armory.txt to import – Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name IRV_Armory.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
6. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_Southwest.txt to import – Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name IRV_Southwest.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
7. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_All.txt to import –
Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name
IRV_All.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
8. Open file Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls.
9. Open the Excel file that you created in Step 5d.
a. Delete Column B
b. Sort data on Column A
c. Delete all rows without machine numbers.
d. Highlight all the data for Armory Precinct and copy.
e. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the RED Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
f. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B
g. Using the file created in Step 5d, highlight all the data for Southwest Precinct and copy.
h. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the BLUE Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
i. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B
j. Using the file created in Step 5d, highlight all the data for all the other precincts in the City of Hendersonville (excluding Armory and Southwest) and copy.
k. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the BLACK Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
l. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B.
10. Verify that the vote totals for the candidates match the ERM Report.
a. Click on Yellow Tab Grand Totals – Totals for each candidate should match the report on ERM.
b. Print copy of YELLOW Tab Grand Totals.
11. Click on BLACK Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 3 thru 7 – example: Caldwell=3, Caraker=4, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 13 thru 17).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
12. Click on BLACK Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 9e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 13 thru 17 – example: Caldwell=13, Caraker=14, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
13. Click on BLACK Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 10e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 20 thru 24 – example: Caldwell=20, Caraker=21, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
14. Click on RED Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice in Armory Precinct.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 16 thru 20 – example: Caldwell=16,
Caraker=17, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 26 thru 30).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
15. Click on RED Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 12e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 26 thru 30 – example: Caldwell=26, Caraker=27, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
16. Click on RED Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 13e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 33 thru 37 – example: Caldwell=33, Caraker=34, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
17. Click on BLUE Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice in Armory Precinct.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 11 thru 15 – example: Caldwell=11, Caraker=12, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 21 thru 25).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
18. Click on BLUE Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 15e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 21 thru 25 – example: Caldwell=21, Caraker=22, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
19. Click on BLUE Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 16e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 28 thru 32 – example: Caldwell=28,
Caraker=29, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
20. Click on YELLOW Tab Grand Totals – The votes displayed in the grand totals for the Runoff Candidates should be the final results.

News and Observer: Instant runoff voting well intentioned but expensive

Here's a letter to the editor of the Raleigh News and Observer that debunks the claim that Instant Runoff Voting saves money. The fact is that IRV is costly. Perry Woods of Raleigh writes:

A costly change July 15, 2008

Officials of the Wake County Board of Elections made an apples-to-oranges comparison of costs in a July 2 People's Forum letter advocating instant runoff voting.

IRV does not save money. It would be expensive to implement, and there are higher recurring costs as well. New equipment and software, worker training, voter education, ballot printing and programming all add up. Utilizing estimates from the state of Maryland, it would cost North Carolina approximately $20 million to start and nearly $3 million annually whether we have a runoff or not.


In the IRV pilot program in Cary, ballots were taken from where they were cast to be counted, and IRV ballots were counted before provisional votes. In Hendersonville, uncertified software was used. This undermines transparency and confidence in our elections.

IRV is a well-intentioned idea that violates the keep-it-simple principle of election integrity. It is more challenging to audit, recount and detect errors. It can be confusing to voters. How many who participated in the May 8 statewide primary could have confidently ranked all four candidates in the Democratic primary for labor commissioner, much less every race on that long ballot? There are less risky and less costly solutions to the problem of high cost/low interest runoffs.

Perry Woods
Raleigh

Debra Goldberg Warns Take Action Now - IRV Pilot Advancing in NC Senate

"We don’t want to experiment with or to further complicate our voting system in North Carolina. We need to protect our wonderful public confidence in elections laws by refusing to allow IRV to proceed in North Carolina, thereby keeping elections auditable, verifiable, clean and straightforward." - Debra Goldberg, former Wake Board of Elections Official

From: Debra Goldberg
Subject: WARNING - Take Action Now - IRV pilot advancing in NC Senate

Tuesday, July 15, 2008, This is an action alert requiring your immediate attention. (Please share this message, right away, with anyone who cares about verified voting and wants to keep our North Carolina Public Confidence in Elections Law intact.)

Please contact members of the NC State Senate today and tomorrow to let them know that they should NOT with concur SB-1263a in its current form. SB1263a is an omnibus elections bill. The NC House amended SB1263a to extend the piloting of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). (The bill passed its third reading in the House on July 14, and is before the senate for concurrence on July 15 or 16. If the senate votes not to concur, the bill will be referred to a conference committee.) Tell the senators to stop IRV from further piloting. We don’t want to experiment with or to further complicate our voting system in North Carolina. We need to protect our wonderful public confidence in elections laws by refusing to allow IRV to proceed in North Carolina, thereby keeping elections auditable, verifiable, clean and straightforward.

I served on the Wake County Board of Elections when the first pilot for IRV was held in Wake County – Cary, during last fall’s municipal elections. I am one of only a very few people in NC with direct experience implementing IRV. I am convinced that IRV, even if it saves money, which is highly questionable, is not practical to implement while still protecting the integrity of our votes and voter confidence in our elections. Even with the very few votes we counted in the one small race which went to a runoff during the Cary IRV pilot, complications and questions from the public arose. The process was complex and extremely time and staff intensive. I foresee a logistical nightmare scenario were IRV to be used in an election of a substantial size.

Furthermore, IRV opens the door to pressures to relax our wonderful state standards for voting machinery and software. (IRV votes are counted by hand – there is no acceptable software on which to count IRV). Because counting IRV votes is so complicated, IRV proponents will surely press for allowing uncertified software and undesirable voting machines to be used in North Carolina. We cannot allow this to happen – voting is so important.

IRV seems like an innocent or even good idea on the surface, and is being touted as a convenience and cost saver, but it is not. IRV fundamentally changes many aspects of our voting process, making voting more complicated, more technology dependent, more expensive, more confusing, and less auditable. IRV has changed the outcome of elections and has threatened, if implemented, has the likelihood to further disenfranchise minority candidates and minority voters.

Protecting our democracy by keeping our verified voting standards is not a special or partisan issue. North Carolina voters of every background (republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, disabled groups, minority groups, mainstream groups) agree that we do not want any changes to our voting which may, in any way, compromise the integrity of our votes or which makes the voting process complicated. Please join in our effort to halt IRV in NC.

Contact immediately Senator Martin Nesbitt (919-715-3001 email martinn@ncleg.net) and your own NC State Senator to look up your own senator's email: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=Senate
Again, I urge you to squash the efforts to expand or continue Instant Runoff Voting in North Carolina. IRV is expensive and makes our system of voting difficult and complex, opening the door to questions about the integrity of our voting system. We must protect our democracy by protecting the integrity of our votes. I am counting on you to help protect NC voters.

Sincerely,
Debra D. Goldberg
Raleigh, NC
Email: dgoldbergvote2008 at earthlink.net

Instant Runoff Can Hurt Your Preferred Candidate, North Carolinians

A Critical Failure of Instant Runoff Voting – hurting your preferred candidate by voting for him. Also called non-monotonicity – when a candidate can lose if more voters favor him/her or win when fewer voters favor him/her.

Dr. Steven Brams of New York University explains: "The example below… shows how nonmonotonicity can occur when all except the top two candidates are eliminated.." 12/09/07

Here's the nonmonotonicity example from Approval Voting, pp. 142-143, with four classes of voters (total: 17 voters) ranking three candidates:


Candidate “A” wins . Because nobody has a majority of 9 votes on the 1st round, C, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes (5), is eliminated. His 5 votes go to A, who wins with 11 (6 + 5) votes.

Here are the same classes of voters, with class # 4’s rankings changed:

Candidate “C” wins. Now assume the 2 class (4) voters change their preference ranking to the following: 4'. 2: ABC (as above)

Again, nobody has a majority of 9 votes on the 1st round. Because B gets the fewest first-place votes (4), he is eliminated, and his 4 votes go to C, who wins with 9 (5 + 4) votes.

In summary, candidate “A” wins when he is ranked second by the class (4) voters, but he loses (to C) when he is ranked first by these voters. Thus, “A” wins when fewer voters favor him, and he loses when more voters favor him.

This example is not as dramatic as my earlier example, when raising a candidate from last to first place--instead of second to first--causes him to lose, but it is still an example of nonmonotonicity. It shows that when one drops all except the top two candidates in the 1st round (in this example, only one candidate since there are a total of three), nonmonotonicity can still occur. This example can be easily extended--by adding voters and candidates--so that when one drops more than one candidate on the 1st round to eliminate all except the top two, nonmonotonicity can still occur.

Steven J. Brams
Dept. of Politics
19 West 4th St., 2d Fl.
E-mail: steven.brams at nyu.edu
New York University, New York, NY 10012

Update On Instant Runoff Experiments and North Carolina Elections, Judiciary I Committee Results

We're in better shape then we were yesterday, but much vigilance will be required. Two amendments were passed today in Judiciary I that should protect our Public Confidence in Elections Law, ensure that standards and safeguards are developed, and require that instant runoff experiments cannot be forced on governing bodies in North Carolina if they do not want them. Our hope, followed by our continued vigilence is that the standards will be the highest and that no pilot program will be undertaken lightly.

Thanks to Janice Sears for preparing this message:

Dear Voting Integrity Advocate,

Two amendments were passed today, and they represent a nice compromise. The Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) pilot can proceed, but with some very important added requirements.

The first amendment requires that the governing body that will be up for IRV election has to agree to it instead of just the local board of elections, and that educating voters must be part of the plan so that people will know how to mark their ballots and the boards of elections will not have to depend on the kindness of any advocacy groups. This is important because the voter education can be standardized and the legislature will get a true picture of the costs for effective voter ed. It is difficult if not impossible to tell how much money is needed to educate voters over the long term when groups with a vested interest step in to help for free temporarily.

The second amendment that requires the State Board Of Elections and the Institute of Government to develop goals, standards, and criteria consistent with current election law by Jan. 1 for implementation and evaluation of pilots. This should insure that we have uniform measurements of success, failure, advantages and pitfalls of any pilots conducted across the state in different communities. We have a very important and pleasant job to do now! Please ask everyone you know who cares about voting integrity to send thank you e-mails to the members of the Judiciary 1 Committee with “Thank you” in the Subject line.

Please thank Chairman Debra Ross for allowing a hearing, debate and amendments on the issue. She did not have to do that, and in many ways was counter to what she was working to accomplish, which was moving the bill.

Please thank Melanie Goodwin, the bill sponsor for supporting a reasonable compromise amendment.

And please give special thanks to Rep. Insko and Rep. Bryant for standing up for voters and the Public Confidence in Elections Act, and say thanks to the other members for supporting goals, standards and criteria consistent with current election law for implementation and evaluation of pilots.

Here are the members of Judiciary 1 and their email addresses for your convenience:

Chairman: Representative Deborah Ross email address Deborahr@ncleg.net
Vice Chair: Rep. Melanie Goodwin email address melanieg@ncleg.net
Vice Chair Rep. Paul Stam email address Pauls@ncleg.net
Vice Chair Rep. Bonner L. Stiller email address Bonners@ncleg.net
Members: Rep. Martha Alexander email address marthaa@ncleg.net
Rep. John Blust email address johnbl@ncleg.net
Rep. Angela Bryant email address angelab@ncleg.net
Rep. Debbie Clary email address debbiec@ncleg.net
Rep. Larry Hall email address larryh@ncleg.net
Rep. Pricey Harrison email address priceyh@ncleg.net
Rep. George Holmes email address georgeh@ncleg.net
Rep. Verla Insko email address verlai@ncleg.net
Rep. Grier Martin email address grierm@ncleg.net
Rep. Annie Mobley email address anniem@ncleg.net
Rep. Roger West email address rogerw@ncleg.net

I am including samples of my thank you letters to each below that you can personalize for your own use or just write your own! And last but not least, I want to thank each and every one of you from the bottom of my heart for all of your hard work on this matter. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, [the price of voting integrity is constant vigilance] and thanks to the vigilance of each and every one of you, we have encouraged and supported the legislature to preserve the protections of the Public Confidence in Elections Act.

Very truly yours,

Janice Sears
Member NC Coalition for Verifiable Voting
Member For All NC

#

Subject: Thank you for the fair and equitable compromise on SB1263--Thanks a million!

Dear Chairman Ross,

I want to express to you my utmost gratitude for your patience and willingness to hold a hearing, debates and amendments on the IRV section of SB1263. You did not have to do this but you wanted us to all have a chance to be heard. I know that this hasn't been easy for anyone on the Judiciary 1 Committee, especially you, having to deal with such a polarizing issue where the emotions of the voters run high, especially when it was just one part of a much bigger bill that is going to do so much good for the voters of North Carolina, especially since time is running out in this legislative session.

After attending two sessions of your committee, I saw how hard your committees have to work to construct and refine our laws for the best interests of the citizens of this state within very real time constraints. You never seem to lose your smile or your composure or your vision of a better future for the citizens of our state. Thanks again for being such a wonderful representative of all of the people and a great committee chairperson, too. And most of all, thanks to you and all of your committee for preserving Public Confidence in Elections.

Very truly yours,

Janice Sears
Member North Carolina Verifiable Voting
Member For All NC
Precinct Chair Wake County

Subject: Thanks a million for supporting a reasonable compromise amendment to SB1263 and preserving Public Confidence in Elections

Dear Representative Goodwin,

I wanted to give you my heartfelt thanks for supporting the compromise amendments to SB1263 that will ensure that we will still have Public Confidence in Elections. I know that you have the best interests of all of the citizens of North Carolina at heart, and SB1263 will provide some very real enhancements and protections. Thank you for your patience and willingness to listen and help work out a compromise on such a polarizing issue.

There are many of us who put our hearts and souls into working to help pass the Public Confidence in Elections law. I realize that there are many people now who are pinning their hopes on the IRV pilot for many reasons. You have made it possible to preserve election integrity while allowing this new voting method to be tested. Thank you so much for a fair and equitable solution to this very emotional matter.

Very truly yours,

Janice Sears
Member North Carolina Coalition of Verifiable Voting
Member For All NC
Precinct Chair Wake County

Subject: Thank you for preserving Public Confidence in Elections and standing up for voters with the great amendments to SB1263!!!

Dear Representative Bryant:

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for protecting the rights of the voters and Public Confidence in Elections with the great amendments to SB1263. If we are going to test a new way of voting, we must be very sure that we do not disenfranchise our voters in the process and we do not want to weaken any voter protections that are already in place. Thank you so much for realizing the possible dangers of the IRV pilot right away and insisting on making provisions to protect all our voters to make sure that their ballots are not spoiled and their voices are heard.

You have a lot of courage and insight and the voters of North Carolina are lucky to have you representing us in the General Assembly. I hope to get to work with you again in the future, because I admire and respect your wisdom and your sense of responsibility for well being of the citizens of this state.

Very truly yours,

Janice Sears
Member North Carolina Coalition for Verifiable Voting
Member For All NC
Precinct Chair Wake County

Subject: Thank you a million times for protecting Public Confidence in Elections and finding a way to a good compromise on SB1263

Dear Representative Insko,

I feel deeply indebted to you for your tireless work to protect voting integrity in North Carolina. Four years ago I was horrified to learn that the Board of Elections wanted to move toward the use of all touch screen voting machines with no means of voter verification or meaningful audit. Thanks to you and Senator Kinnaird and many others, we have a wonderful law that protects voter verified paper ballots, federally certified software held in escrow, meaningful random audits of vote counts, and safeguards against voting software revisions without certification.

It was very frightening to learn of the IRV amendment as it first appeared in SB1263, because we had already seen with the first pilot that there were problems due to the lack of federally certified software, the inability to conduct all of the vote counting at the polling place, the very small amount of officially funded voter education, and the seeming lack of a standardized way to measure the success, failure, advantages and pitfalls of such an experiment.

Thank you for being so wise and brave and standing up for our right to vote and have our vote count!

Very truly yours,

Janice Sears
Member North Carolina Coalition for Verifiable Voting
Member For All NC
Precinct Chair Wake County

Subject: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! For your support of the very important amendments to SB1263!

Dear Representative xxxxxxx:

Thank you for your willingness to listen to our concerns and your patience in working out a compromise that preserves Public Confidence in Elections while providing a safer way to test a new method of voting and vote counting without sacrificing important voter protections.

I appreciate your work on the Judiciary 1 Committee in crafting not only SB1263 but many other laws that improve the well being of every citizen of this state. It must be very stressful to go through such a heavy work load of bills, especially as you near the end of a legislative session, so I am doubly grateful for your willingness to let us be heard and your help in working out this very good solution.

Very truly yours,

Janice Sears
Member North Carolina Coalition for Verifiable Voting
Member For All NC
Precinct Chair Wake County

URGENT ACTION ALERT AND UPDATE: SB 1263 Instant Runoff Voting Pilot for North Carolina - same problems, same risks

“This is not a ballot, this is a portal into hell.” — Asheville City Council member Carl Mumpower on instant-runoff ballots, in ”Votes and Slopes,” May 16, 2007

IRV Pilot to be voted on July 9, 2008 at 1 PM. A well intended amendment to have a 3 year pilot program for instant runoff voting was inserted in an "omnibus" election bill last week. This pilot does not address the problems from the last pilot for IRV, breaks our own laws, and will repeat the same mistakes. No funding for voter education! This plan for an IRV pilot should NOT be rushed through in the short legislative session.

To House Judiciary I: Please table Instant Runoff Voting Amendment in SB1263--It violates the Public Confidence in Elections Law!!! (see http://www.ncvoter.net/ )

The message below is from Janice Sears, a concerned Wake Co resident and supporter of verified voting


Dear Verified Voting Activist, Regarding SB 1263 - the amendment to allow a 3 year pilot program for "instant runoff voting".

The bill is being heard again on Wednesday, July 9, 2008.

Three amendments were introduced at the committee meeting today by Representative Insko and Representative Bryant. I encourage you to thank them both for trying to safeguard the integrity of our votes and the vote count. Representative Insko does see how the pilot violates the Public Confidence in Elections law, which is not surprising. She helped write it. Her amendment to make the pilot non-binding--to run the pilot and do the instant runoff but not have that vote count be official so that the results could be compared to the regular runoff to see how they matched up as far as expressing the will of the voters, was not approved by the committee. Representative Stam and Representative Martin in particular seemed to think that this would be like elementary school voting and pointless. I thought it was a great idea since the pilot is supposed to be a study and this would safeguard the election outcomes since the procedures being used do violate the Public Confidence in Elections law.

We did not get to hear any discussion of Representative Insko's second amendment which was to do away with statewide runoffs on several council of state races. This is logical in view of the fact that North Carolina is one of only seven states that has statewide runoffs at this time. It would also go a long way toward making statewide use of Instant Runoff Voting a moot point. I believe that Representative Bryant's amendment was a companion amendment to Representative Insko's first amendment which was voted down. Representative Bryant was concerned with how IRV might affect minority voters.

The committee meets again tomorrow at 1:00 pm.

I also received an email from Representative Blust and he is very concerned about how the voters would be educated for such an election experiment. I wrote him back and pointed out that even though Gary Bartlett with the State Board of Elections reported today that it only cost Hendersonville $500 and Wake County $1000 in voter education, this wasn't a true picture of the cost because of groups like Fairvote and Democracy NC who are treating this issue as their pet agenda at the moment and have volunteered to conduct a massive voter education effort wherever the pilot is run. We have no assurance that they would continue such efforts should instant runoff become law and at that point the local govenments would bear the financial burden of educating voters. It cost San Francisco $1.87 per voter the first year and now five years later, there are still poll workers and voters who do not understand how to cast their votes. Grand Jury Report issued July 3, 2008

Chris Telesca did get to show Representative Bryant the report in writing from the State Board of Elections which said that instant runoff was too risky to use in any races for the primary elections this past spring. "We can use November 2007 as a pilot and not use IRV in May 2008 because it poses too much of a risk." We needed to make this point since Gary Bartlett was trying to say that our current voting machine software can handle instant runoff, even with optical scan. We found his statement surprising since we know that Hendersonville had to use an illegal work-around with their touch screens in order to count the irv votes and Raleigh had problems counting 3000 votes, and then the SBOE themselves pronounced IRV to risky to use this spring.

It was also quite informative that Anita Earles was unable to give Representative Bryant any instances of where IRV had helped minorities. Some very good points did get brought up about the shortcomings of the pilot that was conducted that really should be changed if any future study is to be done.

The lawmakers should spell out the conditions under which the pilot is to be run, how it is to be tested and evaluated and how they would measure success or failure of the pilot extension. There were several representatives who felt that the whole IRV portion of their current bill needs further study before any vote is taken. There were others who felt that since there was already a pilot conducted, there is no reason to disapprove an extension.

I did find it interesting and disturbing that we had speeches from the State Board of Elections, Perry Woods (on the pitfalls of the pilot extension and how IRV in its current state of development violates Public Confidence in Elections), Anita Earle (a civil rights attorney who coincidentally works for the same non-profit as Elena Everett--one of the most vocal proponents of IRV--who told the committee that IRV helps minorities), and an official IRV proponent, Dr. John Gilbert (the Chairman of the Wake County Board of Elections and Elena Everett's father in law).

It does seem that we should have gotten to have two people speak against IRV under these circumstances. If you are free and can go to the Judiciary 1 committee meeting tomorrow, it should be interesting to see what happens.

Phone calls to the Judiciary 1 members might be a good idea, especially if you are from their district. They really should not extend the pilot in its present state. It is impossible for them to guage the success or failure of such an experiment when there are no guidelines, no certified software, no way to do the count at the precinct level, no consistent method of voter education, heavy involvement from nonprofits who have a vested interest in the success of the pilot, no plan to measure and compare the different demographics of the voters wherever the experiment is tried, and the list goes on.

In the event that you would like to call the members of the Judiciary 1 committee yourself, here are their phone numbers and their known stance on the issues:

(Their email addresses and a sample message are at http://www.ncvoter.net/ ) Ask them to pull the IRV pilot program from SB 1263.

Chairman: Deborah Ross 919-733-5773
Vice Chair: Melanie Goodwin 919-733-5823--supports the pilot extension
Vice Chair: Paul Stam 919-733-2962--opposed Insko's amendment to make pilot non-binding
Vice Chair: Bonner Stiller 919-301-1450
Member:
Martha Alexander 919-733-5807
John Blust 919-733-5781--concerned about voter education issues
Angela Bryant 919-733-5878--concerned about possible issues with minority voters
Debbie Clary 919-715-2002
Larry Hall 919-733-5872
Pricey Harrison 919-733-5771--one of original supporters of IRV amendment
George Holmes 919-733-5654
Verla Insko 919-733-7208--supports verified voting and Public Confidence in Elections
Grier Martin 919-733-5758--supports the pilot extension and didn't want it to be non-binding
Annie Mobley 919-733-5780
Roger West 919-733-5859

*email addresses and documented facts at http://www.ncvoter.net/
And once again, thanks for everything you do!

Protect North Carolina Elections! Call these lawmakers Monday -Vote is Tues, Instant Runoff Pilot is Flawed

CRITICAL ALERT: Protect Voters and the Public Confidence in Elections Act. Take action now!
Following the low turnout Labor Commissioner runoff, some organizations are promoting "instant runoff"as a solution to the low interest runoffs. Their solution is worse than the problem.

Urgent! On Tues July 8, 10:00 AM the House Judiciary I Committee will hear an amendment in SB 1263 to allow a 3 year Instant runoff pilot. Instant runoff is a well intended reform that does not meet its promise and as written, the pilots do not follow important election laws and protections.

Critical! Call and email the Judiciary Committee before Tuesday JULY 8th: House Judiciary I Committee email addressess, phone numbers and a sample message below.

Phone: Chairman Rep. Ross 919-733-5773, Vice Chairman Rep. Goodwin 919-733-5823 , Vice Chairman Rep. Stam 919-733-2962 , Vice Chairman Rep. Stiller 919-301-1450 , Rep. M. Alexander 919-733-5807, Rep. Blust 919-733-5781, Rep. Bryant 919-733-5878 , Rep. Clary 919-715-2002 , Rep. Hall 919-733-5872 , Rep. Harrison 919-733-5771 , Rep. Holmes 919-733-5654 , Rep. Insko , Rep. Martin 919-733-5758, Rep. Mobley 919-733-5780 , Rep. West 919-733-5859

Email: Deborahr@ncleg.net, Melanieg@ncleg.net, Pauls@ncleg.net, Bonners@ncleg.net, Marthaa@ncleg.net, Johnbl@ncleg.net, Angelab@ncleg.net, Debbiec@ncleg.net, Larryh@ncleg.net, Priceyh@ncleg.net, Georgeho@ncleg.net, verlai@ncleg.net, Grierm@ncleg.net, Anniem@ncleg.net, Rogerw@ncleg.net

Subject: SB 1263 - Please say no to the Instant runoff voting pilot

Chairman Rep. Ross, Vice Chairman Rep. Goodwin, Vice Chairman Rep. Stam, Vice Chairman Rep. Stiller, Rep. M. Alexander, Rep. Blust, Rep. Bryant, Rep. Clary, Rep. Hall, Rep. Harrison, Rep. Holmes, Rep. Insko, Rep. Martin, Rep. Mobley, Rep. West

Dear Honorable Judiciary I Committee Members;

Protect Voters and the Public Confidence in Elections Act. Recent Pilots used uncertified software, counted votes away from where they were cast, and counted instant runoff (IRV) votes before provisionals. All violations of our own law, and against best election integrity practices.

Please do not extend pilots as they are currently constructed.
1) The pilot in Cary was very small scale, yet flawed, and many of the real costs were absorbed by volunteers.
2) The proposed pilot does not require safeguards recommended for IRV voting as used in other IRV jurisdictions.
3) The costs of a statewide IRV, especially if there are several affected races are unknown but grossly underestimated and misrepresented by the proponents.
4) The pilot proposes several regressions of our 2005 law that established NC as the leader in honest voting. The most significant regressions are uncertified software and lack of transparency and auditability.
5) IRV may harm the estimated 18% of NC voters with serious literacy
difficulties.

There are other simpler less expensive ways to eliminate costly runoff elections. We can stop having statewide runoffs - 42 states don't have them, do as 45 other states do and appoint the Labor Commissioner , or adjust the thresholds for these elections. Other states have estimated that voter education would cost at least $1.5 million each election year. Third parties can be helped by making ballot access easier, and considering other voting methods that don't require complex tabulation.

Thank you.

Bad news for those who worked for paper ballot law in North Carolina

The mad rush to experiment with Instant runoff voting in North Carolina has created some very bad news for the supporters of NC's paper ballot law.

Anything goes in North Carolina, or Welcome back Diebold and gang.

Yesterday the House Election Law Committee passed the bill SB 1263 which extended the IRV pilot program for 3 years. It goes to the House Judiciary I committee next Tuesday. See http://www.ncvoter.net/ for details. The experiments would even be allowed in November, where IRV voting could appear on a ballot that also has regular voting on, which will confuse voters. This is what happened in Scotland when they switched to STV, a form of ranking ballots similar to IRV. Scotland combined IRV voting with regular voting in 2007 and spoiled 100,000 votes.

If there is no intervention, then we can only sit back and watch North Carolina election law be weakened little by little.

Why would an extended IRV Pilot hurt verified voting, or hurt our Public Confidence in Elections Law?

Because lawmakers feel that we have to make it easy for cities/counties to experiment with an "automated" IRV, and that means:

Not requiring same standards for IRV ballots that are required for regular ballots, like having all ballots counted where cast (if cast at the polls, counted at the polls). This means a lack of equal protection for the different votes.

Less accountability and protection for IRV ballots. No software available to report IRV results on election night, but as far as our BoE is concerned, these 2nd and 3rd choices votes don't exist unless there is a runoff, so don't need to be accounted for or protected in the same manner as regular ballots. In other words, less protection for those 2nd and 3rd choices.

Current audit law will not be sufficient for IRV ballots - with IRV ballots - each round must be 100% correct in order for the next round to be correct. That means virtually a complete recount of each of 1st and 2nd rounds.

"Paper Trail" on DRE/touchscreens becomes irrelevent, it is so difficult to audit or recount for an IRV ballot, especially the early voted ballot - that using the paper for any purpose becomes so prohibitive and nearly undoable that it will be phased out. This incentivizes the spread of touchscreens just when we were making them obsolete.

Allowing uncertified software - why is this bad? if we allow uncertified software then we lose important quality control and fraud controls:

We can't legally bind the vendor from installing uncertified software if we break our own law. If a vendor wants to install "special" software just before an election, and pretend it is just doing maintenance then how can we stop them?

We void the vendor's requirement to post bond if we are breaking our own law. The bond is to protect us if something the vendor does causes an election meltdown as happened in Carteret County in 2004. Since we would voluntarily be doing things that we argued could cause risk to our votes, then we could no longer blame the vendor for computer malfunctions or fraud. We know that iVotronics are vulnerable to viruses.

If we break our own law, then we can no longer charge the vendor with criminal and civil penalties if they break it. If we break our own law, then my lawsuits against Diebold were for nothing - anything goes in North Carolina, so welcome back Diebold.

We made it illegal to use or install uncertified software, and created civil and criminal penalties against doing so because the software affects how votes are counted or not counted. Diebold was caught installing uncertified software on California machines and later it was found that they never applied for federal certification for that software. It has been noted that Diebold installed uncertified software in Georgia prior to the 2002 election (Rob Georgia Files/Mac Clelland lost). ES&S was caught installing uncertified software and lying about it in Indiana in 2004.

December 2003 California. Secretary of State discovers that Diebold installed uncertified software throughoutCalifornia before the recall election, without informing county officials."An audit of Diebold Election Systems voting machines in California has revealed that the company installed uncertified software in all 17 counties that use its electronic voting equipment. ... Diebold admitted wrongdoing Tuesday at a meeting of the state's Voting Systems Panel."12December 2003 Bev Harris found that Diebold software had been written by a convicted felon who had embezzled from his employer using computers. 12 E-Voting

Undermined by Sloppiness. Wired News. December 17. 2003. By Kim Zetterhttp://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61637,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 13 Con

Job at Diebold Subsidiary. Wired News. December 17, 2003. by AP. http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3

March 2004 Indiana – four counties. It was discovered that ES&S had installed an uncertified version of firmware in the iVotronics in four counties. When confronted, representatives agreed to reinstall the certified version. Then it was determined that the certified version doesn't tabulate the votes correctly, so the county allowed the use of the uncertified version but required ES&S to put up a $10Million bond to insure against problems and lawsuits. Excerpts from a WISH TV story:

Election Commission Bails Out Voting Machine Maker In Time for May Primary. March 11, 2004; http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1706282 You only need to see Voters Unite's database of election problems to see the problems with voting machine software. http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp

Instant runoff could cost North Carolina $20 million first year

A switch to instant runoff voting could cost North Carolina taxpayers an estimated $20.3 million in the first year. Voter education could cost $2.9 million per year.

Last Tuesday North Carolina set a record low for voter turnout in the Labor Commissioner runoff. Activists are saying that the state should adopt instant runoff voting as a way to save money. The fact is, a switch to instant runoff voting could cost North Carolina taxpayers an estimated $20.3 million in the first year.


Other states such as Maryland have studied the costs of implementing instant runoff for their fiscal analysis for legislation. If the fiscal analysis prepared for Maryland lawmakers hold true, voter education alone would cost North Carolina taxpayers approximately $2.9 Million. This is based on the estimate of spending only .50 cents per registered voter per year on voter education.

These estimates do not even include the costs of purchasing new software (not yet developed) to tabulate instant runoff, or new machines, if needed.

There are other simpler less expensive ways to eliminate costly runoff elections. We can stop having statewide runoffs - 42 states don't have them, do as 45 other states do and appoint the Labor Commissioner , or adjust the thresholds for these elections. Third parties can be helped by making ballot access easier, and considering other voting methods that don't require complex tabulation. These reforms are compatible with North Carolina's Public Confidence in Elections Law, whereas Instant Runoff is not. (See Raleigh N&O: Instant runoff voting poses problems )

#

Fiscal analysis by Maryland's state legislature: figures do not include the cost of buying new voting machines and or special IRV software.

Note: Maryland had 3,135,773 registered voters on Jan 22, 2008 and 3,056,657 registered voters on Oct 17, 2006 while North Carolina had 5,816,510 registered voters on June 30, 2008

Maryland Bills for IRV in 2009 and 2007 that have fiscal analysis included: the Maryland legislature estimates that costs could be as high as an additional $3.50 per registered voter in their 2006 IRV bill, and a little less in the 2008 bill which did not include the cost of software.

Fiscal Summary of two IRV bills in Maryland (none have passed)

Senate Bill 292 (Senator Pinsky, et al.)

Elections - Instant Runoff Method of Voting

This bill establishes an instant runoff method of voting intended to ensure majority rule in an election. The bill takes effect January 1, 2007.

Fiscal Summary


State Effect: General fund expenditures would increase by roughly $11.1 million in FY2008 and $1.5 million in FY 2009, reflecting documentation revision, information technology, voter education, and election judge training development costs leading up to the 2008 presidential primary and general elections. General fund expenditures also would increase by $1.5 million in FY 2011 due to voter education costs prior to the 2010 gubernatorial elections. These estimates do not include costs that cannot be reliably estimated for additional staff to assist in the ballot counting process and additional voting machines possibly needed if allowing voters to rank candidates will cause significantly longer voting lines.

Local Effect: Local election boards would experience increased expenditures due to
voter education and election judge training costs.

House Bill 1502 (Delegate Hixson)
This bill establishes an instant runoff method of voting intended to ensure majority rule in an election. The bill takes effect January 1, 2009.

Fiscal Summary

State Effect: General fund expenditures would increase significantly prior to the 2010 and 2012 elections to implement an instant runoff method of voting. Implementing the new method of voting is anticipated to require revisions to various aspects of the election management process and a considerable voter outreach campaign to educate voters on the new method of voting. The extent of the increase in expenditures cannot be reliably estimated at this time.

Local Effect: Local election boards are expected to also experience increased expenditures for voter outreach and for election judge training costs.

State Fiscal Effect: General fund expenditures would increase significantly leading up to the 2010 elections to implement an instant runoff method of voting, with expenditure increases expected to begin in fiscal 2009. General fund expenditures are also expected to increase prior to the 2012 elections for continued voter outreach and possibly further revisions to documentation and SBE’s election management system. The increases in costs, however, cannot be reliably estimated at this time.

SBE indicates it is difficult to determine the full extent of the changes that would need to be made to accommodate the new method of voting, though such a change would require revisions to regulations and documentation used in the election process (including judges manuals and canvassing instructions), SBE’s election management system, and election procedures. A considerable voter outreach campaign would also be required, likely including advertising through television, radio, and print media, direct mailing, and staff outreach to various organizations.

Local Fiscal Effect: Local boards are also expected to experience increased expenditures primarily due to voter education (in addition to SBE’s voter education costs) and election judge training. Local boards likely would need additional staff or would
need to hire a public relations firm to assist with voter education. In addition, SBE recommends, as a part of voter education, that a mandatory primary election specimen ballot mailer be sent to each voter to allow them to determine how they will rank
candidates prior to voting.

SBE advises that election judge training has become more complex due to added security requirements and Help America Vote Act mandates. Adding subject matter on the instant runoff method to election judge training may increase time needed for training and therefore compensation costs for the judges.

...more on costs of Instant runoff voting here