Will San Francisco put Instant Runoff Voting out of its misery? A possible repeal of Instant runoff voting was discussed by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce at a meeting last Thursday, June 18th. Time Redmond of the San Francisco Bay Guardian reports on this in
Will downtown go after IRV? and Rob Richie of Fair Vote blogs at HuffPo, complaining that business groups want to ditch IRV, and that a poll shows that voters are agreeable:
Lessons from downtown business attacks on instant runoff voting in San Francisco
San Francisco has given instant runoff voting a 5 year long chance to prove its worth. The City has spent a fortune for specialized voting machines that have yet to meet state standards for voting systems, machines that haven't been federally certified, spent a fortune training poll workers and educating voters only to be told by a Grand Jury that it isn't enough and more is needed. SF even adjusted campaign finance laws. After letting IRV play out to the max - IRV has not worked as advertised.
After 5 years of Instant Runoff Voting, are San Francisco voters attached to IRV?
In 2007, many SF Voters did not utilize the option to rank choices. 94% of absentee voters did not list 3 choices on their ballots in the November municipal election, even though the field of candidates for mayor was large. There was confusion over ranking. According to a Nov 8, 2007 Electionline report , "Voters also questioned the value of ranked-choice voting." "There are a lot of people who only mark one [candidate] or the same person three times," ..."I don't want to vote for a second one, I want this one."
Since implementing IRV, San Francisco's election costs have escalated
2000-2001 Actual 9,024,000
2001-2002 Actual 13,872,000 includes the cost of $1,322,849 for a runoff election & $150,000 due to litigation costs
2002-2003 Actual 8,610,553
2003-2004 Actual 15,204,781
2004-2005 Actual 10,400,868
2005-2006 Actual 11,930,228
2006-2007 Actual 10,062,052
2007-2008 Actual 14,839,686
Sometimes mistakes have to be owned up to. This is that time. It is time for San Francisco to cut its losses, ditch instant runoff voting.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Fact Checking FairVote NC blog about Instant Runoff in North Carolina
FairVote NC's blog misreports the status of instant runoff voting in North Carolina. In their June 17th blog they boast of how Hendersonville North Carolina volunteered for the IRV pilot again (that bit is true) but FairVote wrongly claims that the Town of Cary is considering IRV for 2009 and that 8 other cities are considering doing so. FairVote NC gets several facts wrong. From FairVote NC's blog dated June 17, 2009:
The fact is, the Cary Town Council made their decision on April 30th, 2009, about a month and a half ago to ditch IRV. Further, Doesn't Fair Vote know the law? If Cary, or the "8 other cities" wanted to make a last ditch try for IRV, by law they had to do it by May 6th. This is explained in a May 4th email from the NC State Board of Elections:
Also in their blog, FairVote NC boasts that voters preferred IRV:
Yes, many said they liked IRV, but this survey was conducted by advocates for IRV who could not be considered objective pollsters. FairVote NC fails to make any mention of the results of Cary NC's 2008 bi-annual citizen survey, where it turns out a significant percent of voters do not understand IRV:
In Summary:
30.6% did not understand IRV
22.0% did not understand IRV at all
68.8% said they supported IRV after being told it would save money.
What does this say about IRV as an election method that 22% did not understand IRV at all? Consider that Cary has the most Ph.D.s per capita in the U.S. for towns larger than 75,000 people. Clearly folks had a gut reaction to the claim that IRV would save money. The problem is that this claim was not supported by any fiscal analysis, nor were voters told of other ways to save money on elections such as changing to the plurality method for example. Nor were voters given any reason to consider that perhaps saving money on elections should not be the reason to drastically change election methods. The survey was planted the idea cutting costs on elections as being beneficial, and then attempted to tie IRV in as the way to accomplish that. In the end, the real costs of IRV showed themselves -the survey proved that this election method was not understood by a significant portion of the voters. Enough to make a difference in the outcome of an election.
Just chalk up FairVote NC's blog today as typical FairVote talking points that like IRV, do not live up to their claims. Today's misinfo is one more reason to think twice about what FairVote is promoting. More claims that do not hold water.
"Hendersonville has already decided to retain IRV for their 2009 elections, and Cary is also considering doing so. Following in suit, 8 other cities in North Carolina are considering implementing IRV."
The fact is, the Cary Town Council made their decision on April 30th, 2009, about a month and a half ago to ditch IRV. Further, Doesn't Fair Vote know the law? If Cary, or the "8 other cities" wanted to make a last ditch try for IRV, by law they had to do it by May 6th. This is explained in a May 4th email from the NC State Board of Elections:
"Because the statutory start of filing (first Friday in July at noon) falls on a legal holiday, filing (this year) starts Monday morning July 6 when county offices open. That would make May 6th the deadline for a municipality to make a decision to use IRV." - email from Don Wright, General Counsel for the NC State Board of Elections, dated 5/04/2009.
Also in their blog, FairVote NC boasts that voters preferred IRV:
In both cities, a vast majority of voters preferred IRV to the traditional runoff system (according to a scientific survey conducted by Dr. Michael Cobb at NC State).
Yes, many said they liked IRV, but this survey was conducted by advocates for IRV who could not be considered objective pollsters. FairVote NC fails to make any mention of the results of Cary NC's 2008 bi-annual citizen survey, where it turns out a significant percent of voters do not understand IRV:
The results indicate there was a level of misunderstanding among the respondents. The mean was 5.83 with 58.6% on the “understand” side (above 5) of the scale and 30.6% on the “not understand” side (Figure 19). This includes 22.0% who indicated they do not understand at all. Overall this indicates a degree of misunderstanding among the respondents. The respondents were next asked their support for using the Instant Runoff Voting Method using a 9-point scale from not supportive at all (1) to very supportive(9). The respondents were also informed the use of the method would save Cary taxpayers approximately $28,000 by not having to hold a physical runoff election. Table 63 shows there is a relatively high level of support for using the method. The mean was 7.21 with 68.8 on the “support” side of the scale versus only 7.2% on the “no support” side
In Summary:
30.6% did not understand IRV
22.0% did not understand IRV at all
68.8% said they supported IRV after being told it would save money.
What does this say about IRV as an election method that 22% did not understand IRV at all? Consider that Cary has the most Ph.D.s per capita in the U.S. for towns larger than 75,000 people. Clearly folks had a gut reaction to the claim that IRV would save money. The problem is that this claim was not supported by any fiscal analysis, nor were voters told of other ways to save money on elections such as changing to the plurality method for example. Nor were voters given any reason to consider that perhaps saving money on elections should not be the reason to drastically change election methods. The survey was planted the idea cutting costs on elections as being beneficial, and then attempted to tie IRV in as the way to accomplish that. In the end, the real costs of IRV showed themselves -the survey proved that this election method was not understood by a significant portion of the voters. Enough to make a difference in the outcome of an election.
Just chalk up FairVote NC's blog today as typical FairVote talking points that like IRV, do not live up to their claims. Today's misinfo is one more reason to think twice about what FairVote is promoting. More claims that do not hold water.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Star Trek Captain Explains Instant Runoff Voting in Video
Here's a great video explaining instant runoff voting. IRV is alot like a card game invented by Star Trek Captain James T Kirk. If you understand Kirk's Fizzbin, you will understand instant runoff voting. It gets a little rough near the end of the video..... but is a riot to watch.
Educating and entertaining video helps explain IRV rules
There is a wiki article that provides background on Fizzbin:
Educating and entertaining video helps explain IRV rules
There is a wiki article that provides background on Fizzbin:
Fizzbin is a fictional card game created by Kirk in the Original Series episode "A Piece of the Action". While being held hostage on Sigma Iotia II with Spock and McCoy, he spontaneously invented a confusing card game to distract the henchmen guarding them.
The rules were intentionally very complex....
more at the link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)