The Instant Runoff Voting method that Hendersonville NC's city council is considering is FAKE. Did national IRV lobbyists think we are ignorant hillbillies who "just fell off the turnip truck"?
It makes no sense to use instant runoff voting for multi seat "pick two" contests, especially since IRV is intended for single winner contests. This fake IRV would have voters "pick two" in their first round and then rank 3 more candidates. Having a threshold of 25% is even more ridiculous, given that IRV is touted by proponents of providing a majority outcome.
IRV used this way will also change the character of the election. The current guidelines and procedures still violate key values of election transparency. Standards of the Public Confidence in Elections Act will be compromised. Hendersonville is not yet committed to the IRV pilot, as the Board of Elections has not yet voted. Concerned citizens can still contact the County Board of Elections and City Council. (see lower down)
Hendersonville participated in the 2007 IRV pilot, and since no computers burst into flames it was deemed a success. An exit poll (conducted using IRV advocates) said that one third of voters polled came to the polls unprepared to rank their choices, but thats ok in the minds of IRV advocates. In that election, the threshold to win was only 25%, and voters voted for 2 candidates in first round. Voters chose their top two candidates for the two open seats, as usual. Then they ranked the other three candidates by preference. There is very little chance that any of the "IRV" votes will ever come into play.
Hendersonville would be using FAKE IRV for two reasons: 1. Henderson's election is a "vote for two", while IRV is defined as a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters can rank candidates in order of preference. 2. IRV proponents claim that IRV selects a candidate that has the support of the majority. A threshold of 25% is not majority support.
The main support for IRV has been ginned up by a national group called FairVote which has gone so far as to launch national alerts asking citizens around the country to lobby the Cary NC City Council members this month.
If by some odd occurrence the 25% threshold were not met in the Hendersonville 1st round, then the 2nd and or 3rd choice votes would be tallied by an uncertified "workaround" that requires a 5 page algorithm of steps on a spreadsheet. Meanwhile computer scientists and even business spreadsheet experts warn against using this workaround.
IRV has proven to be a very flawed election form, even when used as it is intended, in a single winner election. The recent Burlington Vermont mayoral election exhibited paradoxes where IRV likely thwarted the will of the voters. See March 12th, 2009Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out A Case Against Instant Runoff Voting
Also see Burlington Instant Runoff Election riddled with pathologies The instant runoff election in Burlington,Vermont suffered from nearly every pathology in the book! Non monotonicity, the spoiler effect, the no show effect, and majority failure.
There is no federally certified software to tally the IRV votes, hence some erosion of the nationally recognized "The Public Confidence in Elections Law" NC SL 323 (2005). The erosion comes in the form of a "workaround" created by the NC SBoE using a spreadsheet that requires a 5 page single spaced algorithm to tabulate the votes.
Berkely Professor Philip B Stark strongly advises against the use of a spreadsheet to tally IRV saying that "Spreadsheets mix data and programming. It is not possible to tell at a glance whether a cell in a spreadsheet is data or the result of a calculation. As a result, it is quite easy--deliberately or inadvertently--to corrupt a calculation or the data on which it is based. In principle that can be detected, but it requires additional scrutiny--such as clicking each cell and looking at what is displayed. And even that is not foolproof. "
Tom Dahlberg of Dahlberg Business Logic Inc. (his business IS spreadsheets) warns: "How can the state prove, to those who have standing (all voters) consistent with the compelling state interest, that the automation is working properly and not committing fraud? And who has the burden of proof if not the election officials responsible for the integrity of the process?"
Regardless of whether you like IRV or not, with the current guidelines and procedures, NC's Instant Runoff Voting pilot violates core principles of election integrity and harms voter confidence.
Trying to do Instant Runoff Voting in US elections is like trying to put a square tire on a car...
Take Action Now:
Contact your County Board of Elections Members ASAP, and also your City Council Members.Henderson County Board of Elections Members (Term Expires June 2009)Tom Wilson, Chairman Betty Gash, Secretary Joe Abrell, MemberBoE Members phone numbers and at least one email address listed here under District OneSend emails to henderson.boe@ncmail.net and ask Director of Elections Beverly W. Cunningham to forward them to Board of Elections members.
The County BoE Phone (828) 697-4970 Fax (828) 697-4590
Hendersonville City Council
The Council meets on the first Thursday after the first Monday of each month at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Regular meetings begin with public comment time.
Mayor Greg Newman
Mayor Pro-Tem Barbara Volk
Councilman Jeff Collis
Councilman Bill O'Cain
Councilman Steve Caraker
Email addresses:gnewman@cityofhendersonville.org; bvolk@cityofhendersonville.org; jcollis@cityofhendersonville.org; wocain@cityofhendersonville.org; scaraker@cityofhendersonville.org
City Hall, 145 Fifth Avenue East, PO Box 1670, Hendersonville, NC 28793. 828/697-3000
Monday, March 23, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Will Instant Runoff Voting be forced on Hendersonville Voters without Public Hearing?
It looks like the Hendersonville City Council plans to experiment with elections again, never mind asking the voters if it is alright with them. On March 6, the City Council sent a letter of interest in participating in the Instant Runoff Voting Pilot to the NC State Board of Elections. There was no public hearing inviting voters to comment on changing how their elections would be held. No advance warning to the public. What could be less democratic than changing how votes are cast and counted without the consent of the governed? In 2007, cities didn't have a choice, the County Boards of Elections could ram IRV down their throats. But that isn't the case with this years' pilot program. In fact, out of a state that has over 5.8 million voters, and 100 counties, Hendersonville will likely be the only IRV guinea pig this year. Fortunately it isn't too late to stop this mess, the County Board of Elections hasn't yet agreed.
What is Instant Runoff? Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters can rank candidates in order of preference. It isn't instant to count - it can take days to figure out who won the election. All votes are not counted - only votes for the "top two" candidates are. It does not produce the same results as a runoff election, either.
On March the 10, 2009 an email from the NC State Board of Elections made us aware that the City of Hendersonville is considering the use of Instant Runoff Voting for the municipal eleections. The SBoE forwarded to us a letter of interest in IRV from Hendersonville's City Attorney dated March 6, 2009.
The Hendersonville City Council had met on March 5, 2009 and discussed participating in the "instant runoff voting" pilot. I cannot tell if the City Council voted to participate in IRV or not, because there are no notes or mention of a vote listed on the agenda for that meeting.
In a phone call with Henderson's city attorney Samuel Fritschner, he advised me that there wasn't been a public hearing about the matter. Ironically, public hearings are not required if city govt wants to participate in election experiments like Instant Runoff Voting, but are required to if the city wants to adopt another election method already codified in NC law (like non partisan plurality). The city doesn't post an advance agenda on its website so the public would not know this was to be discussed.
If the public did get to speak: In cities like Raleigh, Rocky Mount and Asheville, that invited public comment on the adoption of IRV, the answer was "no" to the Instant Runoff experiment. This year, the Cary City Council who held a public hearing on IRV, and decided not to participate a second time. (Cary tried it in 2007). Cary City Council member Don Frantz was elected in the only contest where the IRV ballots were counted, and he is strongly opposed to IRV. See Cary North Carolina turns down second bite of Instant Runoff Voting Pilot, process still too flawed .
A March 17th email from the Henderson County Elections Director, Beverly Cunningham indicates that the topic of IRV had not been discussed by the County Board of Elections.
There hasn't been a vote by the County Board of Elections on participating. This is critical because the County Board of Elections has to agree to participate in the Instant Runoff Election or it can't go forward. The new IRV pilot authorized in 2008 requires agreement between Municipality and County BoE. Language for the new IRV pilot is in this election law amendment bill SB 1263
The Henderson County Board of Elections should be interested in hearing from the public, given that its website states the following mission:
Citizens should email and phone their City Council members and County Board of Election Members and urge them to say NO to Instant Runoff Voting and do NOT experiment with Hendersonville elections! IRV forces us to compromise on election transparency and discriminates against certain classes of voters and often fails to provide a majority winner. This compromise leads to erosion of the Public Confidence in Elections Law and opens it up to more watering down.
The Public Has Not Been Asked!
No public hearing was held. Even the media didn't know about this. In a phone call with Henderson's city attorney Samuel Fritschner, he advised me that there hasn't been a public hearing about the matter. Ironically, public hearings are not required if city govt wants to participate in election experiments like Instant Runoff Voting, but are required to hold public hearings if the city wants to adopt another tried and true election method already codified in NC law (like non partisan plurality). The public was not notified about the City Council's discussion about participating in the Instant Runoff Voting experiment and the city doesn't post an advance agenda on its website.
In cities like Raleigh, Rocky Mount and Asheville, that invited public comment on the adoption of IRV, the answer was "no" to the Instant Runoff experiment. This year, the Cary City Council (who held a public hearing on IRV, and decided not to participate a second time. (Cary tried it in 2007). Cary City Council member Don Frantz was elected in the only contest where the IRV ballots were counted, and he is strongly opposed to IRV. See Cary North Carolina turns down second bite of Instant Runoff Voting Pilot, process still too flawed .
The Instant Runoff Voting Pilot as is bad for Verified Voting
The procedures to tabulate IRV in touch-screen jurisdictions cut corners on election transparency. Since there is no federally certified software to tabulate IRV votes, the State Board of Elections has devised a work around. This "workaround" employs a spreadsheet using a 5 page single spaced algorithm to tabulate the votes. Doing manual recounts or audits of complex IRV ballots on the long paper trail rolls would be difficult if not impossible, since these printouts do not have a ballot summary. Until the touchscreens print a simple voter verified ballot summary, IRV shouldn't even be considered, or Hendersonville should agree to use paper or optical scan ballots instead.
A threat to our election integrity standards. The NC Coalition for Verified Voting argues that this uncertified "workaround" is an encroachment on the hard fought for and nationally acclaimed standards of SL 323, The Public Confidence in Elections Law which requires federally certified software for tabulating the votes.
Recounts and audits of the "voter verified" paper trail would be laborious and confusing, since these printouts do not have a ballot summary. Until the touchscreens print a simple voter verified ballot summary, IRV shouldn't even be considered, or Hendersonville should agree to use paper or optical scan ballots instead.
Berkely University Statistics Professor Philip Stark, warns against using a spreadsheet to tabulate the instant runoff results. In a Dec 26, 2008 email, Professor Stark explained his concerns, here are a few:
Instant Runoff Voting does not produce a majority winner most of the time:
Take Action Now:
Contact your County Board of Elections Members ASAP, and also your City Council Members.
Henderson County Board of Elections Members (Term Expires June 2009)
Tom Wilson, Chairman Betty Gash, Secretary Joe Abrell, Member
BoE Members phone numbers and at least one email address listed here under District One
Send emails to henderson.boe@ncmail.net and ask Director of Elections Beverly W. Cunningham to forward them to Board of Elections members. The County BoE Phone (828) 697-4970 Fax (828) 697-4590
Hendersonville City Council
The Council meets on the first Thursday after the first Monday of each month at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Regular meetings begin with public comment time.
Mayor Greg Newman
Mayor Pro-Tem Barbara Volk
Councilman Jeff Collis
Councilman Bill O'Cain
Councilman Steve Caraker
Email addresses:
gnewman@cityofhendersonville.org; bvolk@cityofhendersonville.org; jcollis@cityofhendersonville.org; wocain@cityofhendersonville.org; scaraker@cityofhendersonville.org
City Hall, 145 Fifth Avenue East, PO Box 1670, Hendersonville, NC 28793. 828/697-3000
What is Instant Runoff? Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters can rank candidates in order of preference. It isn't instant to count - it can take days to figure out who won the election. All votes are not counted - only votes for the "top two" candidates are. It does not produce the same results as a runoff election, either.
On March the 10, 2009 an email from the NC State Board of Elections made us aware that the City of Hendersonville is considering the use of Instant Runoff Voting for the municipal eleections. The SBoE forwarded to us a letter of interest in IRV from Hendersonville's City Attorney dated March 6, 2009.
The Hendersonville City Council had met on March 5, 2009 and discussed participating in the "instant runoff voting" pilot. I cannot tell if the City Council voted to participate in IRV or not, because there are no notes or mention of a vote listed on the agenda for that meeting.
In a phone call with Henderson's city attorney Samuel Fritschner, he advised me that there wasn't been a public hearing about the matter. Ironically, public hearings are not required if city govt wants to participate in election experiments like Instant Runoff Voting, but are required to if the city wants to adopt another election method already codified in NC law (like non partisan plurality). The city doesn't post an advance agenda on its website so the public would not know this was to be discussed.
If the public did get to speak: In cities like Raleigh, Rocky Mount and Asheville, that invited public comment on the adoption of IRV, the answer was "no" to the Instant Runoff experiment. This year, the Cary City Council who held a public hearing on IRV, and decided not to participate a second time. (Cary tried it in 2007). Cary City Council member Don Frantz was elected in the only contest where the IRV ballots were counted, and he is strongly opposed to IRV. See Cary North Carolina turns down second bite of Instant Runoff Voting Pilot, process still too flawed .
A March 17th email from the Henderson County Elections Director, Beverly Cunningham indicates that the topic of IRV had not been discussed by the County Board of Elections.
"The only information I have is the copy of the letter you referenced dated March 6, 2009 from the Hendersonville City Attorney to the NC State Board of Elections.
I have no further knowledge of their request and my board has not met in regard to the IRV request to the state. I can tell you the seat for the Mayor of Hendersonville and two city council seats are up this fall. The council seats have traditionally been a vote for two."
There hasn't been a vote by the County Board of Elections on participating. This is critical because the County Board of Elections has to agree to participate in the Instant Runoff Election or it can't go forward. The new IRV pilot authorized in 2008 requires agreement between Municipality and County BoE. Language for the new IRV pilot is in this election law amendment bill SB 1263
The Henderson County Board of Elections should be interested in hearing from the public, given that its website states the following mission:
Unlike most NC counties, the Henderson County BoE website does not provide a schedule nor an agenda of meetings, making it less inviting for the public to participate.The Henderson County Board of Elections, under the direction of Beverly Cunningham, is committed to improving the electoral process by conducting fair and honest elections and to be effective in our efforts to insure that all qualified citizens residing in Henderson County have the opportunity to register and vote.
Citizens should email and phone their City Council members and County Board of Election Members and urge them to say NO to Instant Runoff Voting and do NOT experiment with Hendersonville elections! IRV forces us to compromise on election transparency and discriminates against certain classes of voters and often fails to provide a majority winner. This compromise leads to erosion of the Public Confidence in Elections Law and opens it up to more watering down.
The Public Has Not Been Asked!
No public hearing was held. Even the media didn't know about this. In a phone call with Henderson's city attorney Samuel Fritschner, he advised me that there hasn't been a public hearing about the matter. Ironically, public hearings are not required if city govt wants to participate in election experiments like Instant Runoff Voting, but are required to hold public hearings if the city wants to adopt another tried and true election method already codified in NC law (like non partisan plurality). The public was not notified about the City Council's discussion about participating in the Instant Runoff Voting experiment and the city doesn't post an advance agenda on its website.
In cities like Raleigh, Rocky Mount and Asheville, that invited public comment on the adoption of IRV, the answer was "no" to the Instant Runoff experiment. This year, the Cary City Council (who held a public hearing on IRV, and decided not to participate a second time. (Cary tried it in 2007). Cary City Council member Don Frantz was elected in the only contest where the IRV ballots were counted, and he is strongly opposed to IRV. See Cary North Carolina turns down second bite of Instant Runoff Voting Pilot, process still too flawed .
The Instant Runoff Voting Pilot as is bad for Verified Voting
The procedures to tabulate IRV in touch-screen jurisdictions cut corners on election transparency. Since there is no federally certified software to tabulate IRV votes, the State Board of Elections has devised a work around. This "workaround" employs a spreadsheet using a 5 page single spaced algorithm to tabulate the votes. Doing manual recounts or audits of complex IRV ballots on the long paper trail rolls would be difficult if not impossible, since these printouts do not have a ballot summary. Until the touchscreens print a simple voter verified ballot summary, IRV shouldn't even be considered, or Hendersonville should agree to use paper or optical scan ballots instead.
A threat to our election integrity standards. The NC Coalition for Verified Voting argues that this uncertified "workaround" is an encroachment on the hard fought for and nationally acclaimed standards of SL 323, The Public Confidence in Elections Law which requires federally certified software for tabulating the votes.
Recounts and audits of the "voter verified" paper trail would be laborious and confusing, since these printouts do not have a ballot summary. Until the touchscreens print a simple voter verified ballot summary, IRV shouldn't even be considered, or Hendersonville should agree to use paper or optical scan ballots instead.
Berkely University Statistics Professor Philip Stark, warns against using a spreadsheet to tabulate the instant runoff results. In a Dec 26, 2008 email, Professor Stark explained his concerns, here are a few:
1) The procedure proposed is very complicated, with many manual steps. Human error in such a complex task is almost inevitable. A slight slip can result in mis copying data, overwriting data, hitting the wrong function, etc.
2) Spreadsheets mix data and programming. It is not possible to tell at a glance whether a cell in a spreadsheet is data or the result of a calculation. As a result, it is quite easy--deliberately or inadvertently--to corrupt a calculation or the data on which it is based. In principle that can be detected, but it requires additional scrutiny--such as clicking each cell and looking at what is displayed. And even that is not foolproof. ...
Tom Dahlberg, of Dahlberg Business Logic Inc. (his busines IS spreadsheets) http://www.business-analysis-using-spreadsheets.com/ also warns against using the excel work around to tabulate the instant runoff results. Here's an excerpt:
"How can the state prove, to those who have standing (all voters) consistent with the compelling state interest, that the automation is working properly and not committing fraud? And who has the burden of proof if not the election officials responsible for the integrity of the process?"
Instant Runoff Voting discriminates against classes of voters
Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski, Supervisor for the Vermont Legislative Research Shop has analyzed the exit poll data of the recent Burlington, Vermont Mayoral Election. The Vermont Daily Briefing has an article up by Gierzynski, here's an excerpt:
March 12th, 2009 Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out A Case Against Instant Runoff Voting
Let’s get right into it: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is not good. It is not good because it suffers from three fundamental problems: it discriminates against classes of voters by adding complexity the ballot; it has a very real potential to produce perverse outcomes or voting paradoxes that are not majoritarian; and it fails to address the real problem that arises when multiple parties compete in a two-party system.....
The effect of adding such complexity to the ballot is not neutral or random; it is more likely to confuse those same groups of disadvantaged voters confused by the Florida ballots. This fact was demonstrated by exit polls of both Burlington voters and San Francisco voters who have also used IRV.
Even when used in a single contest, IRV caused greater confusion among those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. In other words, IRV discriminates. Proponents of IRV like to frame this argument by countering that what critics of IRV are saying is that voters are stupid. We are saying no such thing.
These analyses are not impugning the intelligence of the American voter, just recognizing the limits to what a political system can ask of its citizens and recognizing that adding complexity to the ballot will disproportionately harm some groups of people more than others ... (more at the link )
Instant Runoff Voting does not produce a majority winner most of the time:
Saturday, March 7, 2009 No Majority Winner in Instant Runoff Voting election in Burlington Vermont Mayoral Contest
December 7, 2008 2 out of 3 Pierce County RCV "winners" don't have a true majority
Consistent Majority Failure in San Francisco's Instant Runoff Voting Elections. A
review of the results for San Francisco Ranked Choice Voting elections shows that IRV elects a plurality winner: These results are remarkably consistent. Out of 20 RCV elections that have been held since the referendum establishing it passed, when IRV was used, it elected a plurality winner
Take Action Now:
Contact your County Board of Elections Members ASAP, and also your City Council Members.
Henderson County Board of Elections Members (Term Expires June 2009)
Tom Wilson, Chairman Betty Gash, Secretary Joe Abrell, Member
BoE Members phone numbers and at least one email address listed here under District One
Send emails to henderson.boe@ncmail.net and ask Director of Elections Beverly W. Cunningham to forward them to Board of Elections members. The County BoE Phone (828) 697-4970 Fax (828) 697-4590
Hendersonville City Council
The Council meets on the first Thursday after the first Monday of each month at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Regular meetings begin with public comment time.
Mayor Greg Newman
Mayor Pro-Tem Barbara Volk
Councilman Jeff Collis
Councilman Bill O'Cain
Councilman Steve Caraker
Email addresses:
gnewman@cityofhendersonville.org; bvolk@cityofhendersonville.org; jcollis@cityofhendersonville.org; wocain@cityofhendersonville.org; scaraker@cityofhendersonville.org
City Hall, 145 Fifth Avenue East, PO Box 1670, Hendersonville, NC 28793. 828/697-3000
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Cary North Carolina turns down second bite of Instant Runoff Voting Pilot, process still too flawed
North Carolina's Instant Runoff Voting Pilot is still as flawed as the one run in 2007. It looks like the Cary City Council has turned down a second stab at instant runoff voting based on concerns with flaws and complications in the process. The vote was 6-1. This instant runoff pilot still violates key election integrity laws. Efforts to make IRV fit are much like trying to put a square tire on a wheel. Apparently the Cary City Counsel realized that and plans to avoid another poorly developed election experiment.
Instant runoff voting cannot be administered within compliance of current election laws. Cary was one of two participants in NC's first instant runoff pilot, the other was Hendersonville. Raleigh, Rocky Mount and Asheville turned it down cold after public discussion.
Luckily, this time, jurisdictions cannot be forced by Boards of Elections to participate in Instant runoff pilots. Instead the governing bodies have to agree to participate. And that is what the Cary City Council discussed yesterday at their Town Council meeting.
Cary's city council conceded that proponents of IRV were focused on the front end of elections, while, opponents of instant runoff voting were focused on the "back end", which is election transparency and integrity.
No matter how you slice it, Instant Runoff Voting Pilots cannot be conducted within existing election law. Let me outline that for readers:
There are many types of "instant runoff voting", and North Carolina's pilots would use what is known as "Sri Lanken Contingency Voting". This is also known as "Top Two Batch Elimination" style, where after the first round of voting, all votes but except those for the top two candidates are eliminated from the counting.
So, if you did not rank either of the top two candidates as your choices, then you do not have a vote in the "runoff".
Since this is all done in one election, you have no way of knowing who the top two candidates would be, so you might not get to vote in the runoff.
Wake's BOE proposes new procedures to help sort the Instant Runoff ballots using the optical scanner to reduce manual sorting. This will require changes to the voting machines after the first round of votes are counted, and before each round. Questionable!
Problems are not eliminated by Wake BoE's suggested procedure to use optical scanners:
Regardless of how you feel about Instant Runoff Voting, it should not be used in our state until it can be done without damaging election transparency.
The NC Coalition for Verified Voting is dedicated to election transparency and protecting the individual vote.
Instant runoff voting cannot be administered within compliance of current election laws. Cary was one of two participants in NC's first instant runoff pilot, the other was Hendersonville. Raleigh, Rocky Mount and Asheville turned it down cold after public discussion.
Luckily, this time, jurisdictions cannot be forced by Boards of Elections to participate in Instant runoff pilots. Instead the governing bodies have to agree to participate. And that is what the Cary City Council discussed yesterday at their Town Council meeting.
Cary's city council conceded that proponents of IRV were focused on the front end of elections, while, opponents of instant runoff voting were focused on the "back end", which is election transparency and integrity.
No matter how you slice it, Instant Runoff Voting Pilots cannot be conducted within existing election law. Let me outline that for readers:
*The new guideliness do not address § 163-182.2(1) which requires the counting of votes where they are cast.
*The SBOE has stated that IRV is one election, not several, so by law these votes should be counted where they are cast. This is a basic tenant of election integrity.
*Moving votes before they are counted opens the election up to fraud.
*Current guidelines still mandate secret votes that are not ever counted or made public in any way.
*There is no overvote protection to alert voters if they make the mistake of ranking the same choice 2 or 3 times, (thereby negating their 2nd nd 3rd choices). The Help America Vote Act mandates either a) overvote protection/warnings from voting systems or b) voter education to alert to risk of overvoting.
There are many types of "instant runoff voting", and North Carolina's pilots would use what is known as "Sri Lanken Contingency Voting". This is also known as "Top Two Batch Elimination" style, where after the first round of voting, all votes but except those for the top two candidates are eliminated from the counting.
So, if you did not rank either of the top two candidates as your choices, then you do not have a vote in the "runoff".
Since this is all done in one election, you have no way of knowing who the top two candidates would be, so you might not get to vote in the runoff.
Wake's BOE proposes new procedures to help sort the Instant Runoff ballots using the optical scanner to reduce manual sorting. This will require changes to the voting machines after the first round of votes are counted, and before each round. Questionable!
Problems are not eliminated by Wake BoE's suggested procedure to use optical scanners:
*This does not eliminate the hand sorting and shuffling of ballots that can lead to miscounting of votes.Violating our election transparency laws puts the public in the position of having to "trust" our officials. While we do hold our election officials in high esteem, the confidence in our elections can have no other basis than the transparency and integrity of the process.
*This does not eliminate the problem that 2nd and 3rd choice votes will not be counted where cast, but will still have to be counted at a central location
*This does not solve the problem that the optical scanners cannot report election night results for 2nd or 3rd choices
*This does not solve the problem that some of the votes cast (2nd and 3rd choices not for the top two candidates) will never be counted and never be reported to the public.
Regardless of how you feel about Instant Runoff Voting, it should not be used in our state until it can be done without damaging election transparency.
The NC Coalition for Verified Voting is dedicated to election transparency and protecting the individual vote.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Instant Runoff Not the Answer. Plurality is only way to avoid second election says Durham BOE
Instant runoff voting advocates say IRV will save money and produce a true majority. But Instant Runoff Voting produced a plurality result in the Cary NC October 2007 election and created new costs and labor. It took 4 groups of 3-4 individuals to count the ballots. That election also resulted in a miscount, an audit and then a full blown recount before a winner could be declared. Special voter education and poll worker training was needed. Worse, not all votes are counted in Instant Runoff Voting elections!
It would be cheaper and simpler to just have a plurality election, if your main goal was to avoid a second election, right?
The Durham County Board of Elections is asking its City Council to adopt plurality elections to save money and avoid second elections this year. Their Chairman has written a letter to the City Council to adopt plurality elections. Here's that letter outlining potential savings. (hint you don't need special training or voter education and costs are fixed, i.e you can predict them):
Below is Mr. Gregory's full letter to the Durham Mayor and City Council:
Mayor Bell and Members of Council February 3 , 2009
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC, 27701
Dear Mayor Bell and Members of Council.
The Board of Elections requests that you change to the Non-Partisan Plurality method of election.
This would save city taxpayers $170,000-$185,000 this year.NC Law authorizes four types of municipal elections:
-Partisan primary and partisan election 9 cities currently use this method
-Non-Partisan plurality 487 cities currently use this method
-Non-Partisan primary and NP election 25 cities currently use this method
-Non-Partisan election and run off 28 cities currently use this method
City of Durham charter authorizes the council to change/select their method of election. Each of the four authorized election methods have produced both outstanding and poor leaders. This is not an issue of which type of election is better or worse.
It is an issue of saving taxpayer money.The Non-Partisan plurality method is the only method that ensures only one election/voting process. The cost of conducting elections continues to increase. The estimated cost of the 2009 City of Durham municipal primary and election will be approximately $350,000-$375,000.
Regardless of the number of races on the ballot, we have the same fixed costs for every election—precinct workers, ballots, machines, rents, supplies, advertising, one stop, training and testing.
Again, if you change to the Non-Partisan Plurality method of election, this will eliminate the primary and guarantee that we only have one election/voting process. This action will save the City $170,000-$185,000 this year.
Turn out for the municipal primaries has been: 1995-15.4%, 1997-13.0%, 1999-16.0%, 2001-12.03%, 2003-16.28%, 2005-11.06%, 2007-10.64%Filing will still be conducted during the period July 3 –July 17 and the Non Partisan Plurality Election will be conducted on November 3, 2009.
Respectfully,
Ronald A. GregoryChairman,
Board of Elections
#
This also protects election integrity AND all of the votes are counted, unlike with Instant Runoff Voting.
It would be cheaper and simpler to just have a plurality election, if your main goal was to avoid a second election, right?
The Durham County Board of Elections is asking its City Council to adopt plurality elections to save money and avoid second elections this year. Their Chairman has written a letter to the City Council to adopt plurality elections. Here's that letter outlining potential savings. (hint you don't need special training or voter education and costs are fixed, i.e you can predict them):
Below is Mr. Gregory's full letter to the Durham Mayor and City Council:
Mayor Bell and Members of Council February 3 , 2009
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC, 27701
Dear Mayor Bell and Members of Council.
The Board of Elections requests that you change to the Non-Partisan Plurality method of election.
This would save city taxpayers $170,000-$185,000 this year.NC Law authorizes four types of municipal elections:
-Partisan primary and partisan election 9 cities currently use this method
-Non-Partisan plurality 487 cities currently use this method
-Non-Partisan primary and NP election 25 cities currently use this method
-Non-Partisan election and run off 28 cities currently use this method
City of Durham charter authorizes the council to change/select their method of election. Each of the four authorized election methods have produced both outstanding and poor leaders. This is not an issue of which type of election is better or worse.
It is an issue of saving taxpayer money.The Non-Partisan plurality method is the only method that ensures only one election/voting process. The cost of conducting elections continues to increase. The estimated cost of the 2009 City of Durham municipal primary and election will be approximately $350,000-$375,000.
Regardless of the number of races on the ballot, we have the same fixed costs for every election—precinct workers, ballots, machines, rents, supplies, advertising, one stop, training and testing.
Again, if you change to the Non-Partisan Plurality method of election, this will eliminate the primary and guarantee that we only have one election/voting process. This action will save the City $170,000-$185,000 this year.
Turn out for the municipal primaries has been: 1995-15.4%, 1997-13.0%, 1999-16.0%, 2001-12.03%, 2003-16.28%, 2005-11.06%, 2007-10.64%Filing will still be conducted during the period July 3 –July 17 and the Non Partisan Plurality Election will be conducted on November 3, 2009.
Respectfully,
Ronald A. GregoryChairman,
Board of Elections
#
This also protects election integrity AND all of the votes are counted, unlike with Instant Runoff Voting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)