Comments from the N. C. Coalition for Verified Voting, Jan. 21, 2008
1. DOES IRV SAVE MONEY? NO. IRV would require new voting machines, more expensive programming, additional voter education, and increased ballot printing expenditures. The Town of Cary would need to spend at least $360,000 or about $400,000 to purchase IRV compatible voting machines and more software. Wake’s taxpayers spent an estimated $9,000 on IRV voter education for the Cary IRV Pilot, which was augmented heavily by IRV advocacy groups. A feasibility study by Vermont’s Secretary of State’s recommends from .10 - .15 cents per registered voter, while San Francisco actually spent $1.80 per registered voter.
2. CAN NC’S VOTING MACHINES COUNT IRV? NO. NC machines cannot tabulate IRV According to the State Board of Elections Voting Systems Manager Keith Long, “There are no provisions on ES&S equipment to tabulate IRV.”
3. DOES IRV INCREASE TURNOUT? NO. In fact, IRV would have prevented the increase in turnout seen in the Nov 07, 2007 runoff election in Rocky Mount, NC. More voters turned out in the runoff election than did in the first election. In San Francisco, the largest IRV jurisdiction in the US, voter turnout has decreased since the implementation of IRV. San Francisco had 100,000 fewer voters in the 2007 IRV mayoral election than in the traditional mayoral runoff in 2003.
4. DOES IRV PROVIDE A MAJORITY WINNER? NO. Not in Cary, and not in San Francisco (the largest IRV jurisdiction in the US). In the Cary experiment, the winner of an "instant runoff" in the District B Town Council contest took office with less than 40 percent of the first-choice votes cast, and less than 50 percent of the votes of people who showed up on Election Day. In the 20 IRV elections in San Francisco held since the referendum establishing it passed, any elections going into a “runoff” were won with less than a majority of the vote.
5. DOES IRV CREATE CHAOS? YES. IRV creates more confusion in casting and counting the ballots. Some voters ranked the same candidate more than once. Some came to the polls facing an unfamiliar voting method. One Hendersonville voter advised “It doesn't make any sense to me, and I can guarantee you because of the way they have it set up there are people in this town that are going to lose their vote," he said. ..."I call it instant confusion." Manual counts in Cary were inaccurate - and had to be re done at a later date. Candidates reported diverting chunks of campaigning time to educating voters. Rueben Blackwell, Rocky Mount City Council Member and co-chair for the NC Justice Center advised that: "To cast out an instant runoff speculative experiment in communities that have had historic voting rights violations issues is absolutely wrong…"
6. DOES IRV REQUIRE VOTER EDUCATION? YES. Both election officials and candidates must spend time educating the voters and their supporters on how the process works, and how to mark their choices. According to exit polls - 25% in Cary weren't prepared to rank choices and more than 35% in Henderson weren't prepared. These numbers will likely worsen if the instant runoff experience in San Francisco is any predictor. In San Francisco, the number of voters prepared to rank their choices dropped from 67% in 2004 to 54% in 2005. We can't even get straight ticket right after 20 years, and have the highest under-vote for president in the US because of this.
7. DOES IRV HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES? YES. You can hurt your preferred candidate by voting for him. IRV fails the monotonicity criterion - the principle that voting for your favorite candidate should always benefit that candidate. Mathematical models prove that ranking a candidate lower can cause that person to climb in the overall rankings.
Documentation
OCTOBER 3, 2007 Democracy N.C.'s Bob Hall ... on Instant Runoff Voting
“The Wake County Board of Elections is using about $9,000 in money from their existing budget for routine mailings.” http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A161472
2007 Report to the Vermont General Assembly by the Vermont Office of the Secretary of State Instant Runoff Voting (IRV): Administrative Implementation Options and Costs
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/2007IRVReport3.8.07.doc
Jan. 07, 2008 email from Keith Long NCSBOE on voting machine IRV compatibility
“There are no provisions on ES&S equipment to tabulate IRV.”
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Keith_Long_Machines_Not_IRV_Compatible.pdf
See “Councilwoman wins by big margin” By Eric Klamut Rocky Mount Telegram on Nov. 07, 2007.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/local/content/news/stories/2007/11/07/ward4.html
San Francisco’s drop in voter turnout after Instant Runoff Voting implementation
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/turnout.html
Oct 30, 2007 Instant runoff needs scrutiny Raleigh News & Observer
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Instant_runoff_needs_scrutiny_Oct_30_2007.pdf
Instant Runoff Consistent Majority Failure. Instant runoff voting facts or fiction.
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/majority.html
Oct 19, 2007 Voter finds new system frustrating By Harrison Metzger Times-News
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20071019/NEWS/710190361
April 23, 2007. More resist new runoff voting idea_ Rocky Mount Telegram
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/IRV_More_Resist_New_Runoff_Voting_idea_Apr_23_07.pdf
Oct 30, 2007 Critics Take Runoff Concerns To Elections Board NBC 17
http://www.nbc17.com/midatlantic/ncn/search.apx.-content-articles-NCN-2007-10-30-0028.html
October 5, 2004 ELECTION 2004 Ranked-choice voting a matter of picking 1, 2, 3. Despite outreach efforts, many S.F. residents confused Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/05/BAG0N93Q5S1.DT L
2007 Report to the Vermont General Assembly by the Vermont Office of the Secretary of State
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/2007IRVReport3.8.07.doc
An Assessment of Ranked-Choice Voting in the San Francisco 2005 Election
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/election/Elections_Pages/July1706.pdf
Oct 17, 2007 To stem runoff votes, new ballots have voters rank top 3
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-10-17-Runoff_N.htm
San Francisco RCV elections: consistent majority failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Instant-runoff_voting#More_on_San_Francisco_RCV_elections:_consistent_majority_failure.
Instant Runoff Can Hurt Your Preferred Candidate, North Carolinians
http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/2008/07/instant-runoff-can-hurt-your-preferred.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Long
To: joyce mccloy
Cc: Don Wright; Gary Bartlett; Johnnie McLean
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:51:41 AM
Subject: RE: req info i.e IRV implementation
Please advise what enhancements must be made to North Carolina's optical scanners, touch screens and automarks in order to accommodate IRV.
There are no provisions on ES&S equipment to tabulate IRV.
Please advise the results of Stephen Berger's work, any reports or correspondence, and the timelines for IRV enhancements.
No additional work was authorized or received.
-----Original Message-----
From: joycemccloy
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:40 PM
To: Keith LongCc: Don Wright
Subject: req info i.e IRV implementation
North Carolina State Board of Elections
Don Wright, General Counsel
Keith Long, Voting Systems Manager
Dear Keith,
I have two requests for information:
Please advise what enhancements must be made to North Carolina's optical scanners, touch screens and automarks in order to accommodate IRV.
Please advise the results of Stephen Berger's work, any reports or correspondence, and the timelines for IRV enhancements.
