Wrong vote
To The Editor: On April 7, City Council voted to continue instant runoff voting (IRV). Here is why that vote was wrong:
IRV, unlike “one man, one vote” majority, is confusing, disenfranchises voter groups and lacks transparency because second- and third-round votes are not required to be counted.
IRV has unintended consequences. In the N.C. Court of Appeals race, the winner lost. Judge Thigpen received 100,000 more votes than his opponent. Second-round votes elected the loser.
The 2010 election discredited IRV. The majority of N.C. legislators, including the governor, do not support IRV.
State Board of Elections Chairman Larry Leake is against using an uncertified software tallying program. “I’m a lot leery about it,” Leake said. “The computer experts acknowledge there are potential problems with the system” (Triangle.news14.com).
IRV devalues first-round votes. If the ballot goes to the second round, minority votes count more than your first-round vote.
Elected officials don’t necessarily honor the will of IRV voters. In the most recent city election, the clear third choice of the voters was overlooked in the appointment made by council members.
The only benefit being touted by the small number of proponents left is money saved.
What’s the integrity of your vote worth?
Eva L. Ritchey
Hendersonville
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20110417/ARTICLES/104171005/1017/OPINION02?p=2&tc=pg
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Dopp - N.Carolina's Instant Runoff Voting Election 'eviscerates election transparency'
Editor's note. With instant runoff voting, the loser had 100,000 more votes than the winner. We just recently obtained the 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice vote -totals- for all candidates in NC's statewide IRV contest for NC Court of Appeals. IRV is unpredictable and basic rules of elections, like the person with the most votes wins - do not apply. The saving grace here is that the "winner" is qualified to serve and the "loser" received another appointment to the bench.
From Kathy Dopp, President of US Counts Votes and Election Mathematics:
Thigpen lost even though he still had the most votes by nearly 100,000:
718,042 for Thigpen
618,431 for McCullough
In North Carolina, Doug McCullough won the IRV judicial election contest even though:
1. McCullough had *fewer* first place votes than Cressie Thigpen;
2. McCullough had *fewer* first + second place votes than Cressie Thigpen; and
3. McCullough had *fewer* first + second + third place votes than
Cressie Thigpen.
OR
MCCullough (the "winner")
1st choice 295,619
2nd choice 157,310
3rd choice 165,802
Thigpen (the "loser")
1st choice 395,220
2nd choice 162,795
3rd choice 160,027
Here is the data obtained by a journalist directly from NC State Board of Elections.
1. Total number of 1st place votes for McCullough 295,619
Total # 1st place votes for Thigpen 395.220
2. Total # 1st + 2nd place votes for McCullough 452,929
Total # 1st + 2nd place votes for Thigpen 558,015
3. Total # 1st + 2nd + 3rd place votes for McCullough 618,731
Total # 1st + 2nd + 3rd place votes for Thigpen 718,042
If this a FAIR election outcome? It would be extremely difficult to make a case that this result if fair, but it is typical, given IRV unfair method of counting the 2nd and 3rd rank choices of some, but not all, voters.
Did NC election officials count the IRV contest incorrectly in NC or is this simply one of the typically unfair outcomes that IRV counting methods produce?
The good news is that North Carolina may be safe from the scourge of IRV counting methods for a few generations. NC at least will not be trying IRV again, according to state election officials.
We will never know the answers to these questions because we are unlikely to ever be able to obtain the detailed list of all voters' choices in NC for this contest. I doubt that even the NC State Board of Elections will be able to obtain that in a usable format.
This NC election not only demonstrates how IRV eviscerates election transparency, but how fundamentally unfair the outcomes of an IRV election often are.
If anyone would like a copy of the original data I obtained that comes from the NC Board of Elections listing the sums of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice votes for each candidate by county and by precinct, please let me know.
The email below was forwarded to me and prompted me to investigate for myself and determine the number of total 1st and 2nd choice votes for each candidates.
The odd IRV numbers
Posted by Doug Clark on Thursday, January 6, 2011 Greensboro News and Record.
"I think we've seen the last of IRV voting in North Carolina," State
Board of Elections Executive Director Gary Bartlett told me this week.
I hope so. And I'm going to beat the dying horse a little more just
for good measure.
IRV — Instant Runoff Voting — was used in a special election for a
Court of Appeals seat in November. You might remember there was a
field of 13 candidates and you voted for your first, second and third
choices.
Bartlett drew his opinion not because elections officials mishandled
this special election and its complex, confusing procedures but
because it was unpopular. Leading legislators and the governor didn't
like it, and there's a good chance they'll drop the flirtation with
this odd brand of voting.
The outcome sure was strange.
The result on election night was that Cressie Thigpen led with 395.220
first-choice votes, or 20 percent of the total.
Doug McCullough was second with 295,619 votes, or 15 percent.
Because Thigpen didn't win a majority, he and McCullough advanced to
the "instant runoff." This was neither instant nor a runoff. Rather,
it meant that second- and third-choice votes would be added to their
totals to decide the ultimate winner.
About seven weeks later, that was determined to be McCullough with
543,980 votes, edging Thigpen, who had 537,325.
McCullough had turned a deficit of nearly 100,000 votes into a winning
margin of 6,655 votes.
But here's a funny thing. Bartlett sent me raw vote totals last week:
the numbers of 1, 2 and 3 votes for all 13 candidates in all 100
counties. When I got around to adding them up, I found that Thigpen
still had the most votes by nearly 100,000:
718,042 for Thigpen
618,431 for McCullough.
How was that?
The raw vote totals include about a quarter-million votes that were
tossed out in the second round of counting.
Some of those were multiple votes for one candidate. For example, if
anyone used his first, second and third votes for Thigpen, all three
votes are included in the raw total but only one would count in the
official tally.
Also, voters whose first choice was Thigpen or McCullough had their
ballots discarded at that point. For example, if someone voted for
Thigpen as first choice and McCullough as second choice, the vote for
McCullough was not counted in the second round of counting. The idea
was that this voter should not have his second-choice vote cancel his
first-choice vote.
So, for one reason or the other, Thigpen lost 180,717 votes;
McCullough lost only 74,451 votes — a huge difference that
statisticians might suggest was improbable.
Thigpen must have had more people who voted for him multiple times
than did McCullough. And more of McCullough's first-choice voters must
have given their second- or third-choice votes to Thigpen than the
other way around. Either way, the math worked out very badly for
Thigpen.
Analyzing exactly what happened — an exercise the legislature's
program evaluation division should undertake — would require examining
all ballots and finding out exactly how people voted.
My conclusion is it was convoluted, delivering a result that is hard
to understand. It will be better to put this horse out to pasture.
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/108551
--
NC IRV Court of Appeals Vote totals in excel file here
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/11_02_10_NC_IRV_raw_data
Kathy Dopp
http://electionmathematics.org
Town of Colonie, NY 12304
"One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the
discussion with true facts."
Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections
http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174
Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf
View some of my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=1451051
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
From Kathy Dopp, President of US Counts Votes and Election Mathematics:
Thigpen lost even though he still had the most votes by nearly 100,000:
718,042 for Thigpen
618,431 for McCullough
In North Carolina, Doug McCullough won the IRV judicial election contest even though:
1. McCullough had *fewer* first place votes than Cressie Thigpen;
2. McCullough had *fewer* first + second place votes than Cressie Thigpen; and
3. McCullough had *fewer* first + second + third place votes than
Cressie Thigpen.
OR
MCCullough (the "winner")
1st choice 295,619
2nd choice 157,310
3rd choice 165,802
Thigpen (the "loser")
1st choice 395,220
2nd choice 162,795
3rd choice 160,027
Here is the data obtained by a journalist directly from NC State Board of Elections.
1. Total number of 1st place votes for McCullough 295,619
Total # 1st place votes for Thigpen 395.220
2. Total # 1st + 2nd place votes for McCullough 452,929
Total # 1st + 2nd place votes for Thigpen 558,015
3. Total # 1st + 2nd + 3rd place votes for McCullough 618,731
Total # 1st + 2nd + 3rd place votes for Thigpen 718,042
If this a FAIR election outcome? It would be extremely difficult to make a case that this result if fair, but it is typical, given IRV unfair method of counting the 2nd and 3rd rank choices of some, but not all, voters.
Did NC election officials count the IRV contest incorrectly in NC or is this simply one of the typically unfair outcomes that IRV counting methods produce?
The good news is that North Carolina may be safe from the scourge of IRV counting methods for a few generations. NC at least will not be trying IRV again, according to state election officials.
We will never know the answers to these questions because we are unlikely to ever be able to obtain the detailed list of all voters' choices in NC for this contest. I doubt that even the NC State Board of Elections will be able to obtain that in a usable format.
This NC election not only demonstrates how IRV eviscerates election transparency, but how fundamentally unfair the outcomes of an IRV election often are.
If anyone would like a copy of the original data I obtained that comes from the NC Board of Elections listing the sums of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice votes for each candidate by county and by precinct, please let me know.
The email below was forwarded to me and prompted me to investigate for myself and determine the number of total 1st and 2nd choice votes for each candidates.
The odd IRV numbers
Posted by Doug Clark on Thursday, January 6, 2011 Greensboro News and Record.
"I think we've seen the last of IRV voting in North Carolina," State
Board of Elections Executive Director Gary Bartlett told me this week.
I hope so. And I'm going to beat the dying horse a little more just
for good measure.
IRV — Instant Runoff Voting — was used in a special election for a
Court of Appeals seat in November. You might remember there was a
field of 13 candidates and you voted for your first, second and third
choices.
Bartlett drew his opinion not because elections officials mishandled
this special election and its complex, confusing procedures but
because it was unpopular. Leading legislators and the governor didn't
like it, and there's a good chance they'll drop the flirtation with
this odd brand of voting.
The outcome sure was strange.
The result on election night was that Cressie Thigpen led with 395.220
first-choice votes, or 20 percent of the total.
Doug McCullough was second with 295,619 votes, or 15 percent.
Because Thigpen didn't win a majority, he and McCullough advanced to
the "instant runoff." This was neither instant nor a runoff. Rather,
it meant that second- and third-choice votes would be added to their
totals to decide the ultimate winner.
About seven weeks later, that was determined to be McCullough with
543,980 votes, edging Thigpen, who had 537,325.
McCullough had turned a deficit of nearly 100,000 votes into a winning
margin of 6,655 votes.
But here's a funny thing. Bartlett sent me raw vote totals last week:
the numbers of 1, 2 and 3 votes for all 13 candidates in all 100
counties. When I got around to adding them up, I found that Thigpen
still had the most votes by nearly 100,000:
718,042 for Thigpen
618,431 for McCullough.
How was that?
The raw vote totals include about a quarter-million votes that were
tossed out in the second round of counting.
Some of those were multiple votes for one candidate. For example, if
anyone used his first, second and third votes for Thigpen, all three
votes are included in the raw total but only one would count in the
official tally.
Also, voters whose first choice was Thigpen or McCullough had their
ballots discarded at that point. For example, if someone voted for
Thigpen as first choice and McCullough as second choice, the vote for
McCullough was not counted in the second round of counting. The idea
was that this voter should not have his second-choice vote cancel his
first-choice vote.
So, for one reason or the other, Thigpen lost 180,717 votes;
McCullough lost only 74,451 votes — a huge difference that
statisticians might suggest was improbable.
Thigpen must have had more people who voted for him multiple times
than did McCullough. And more of McCullough's first-choice voters must
have given their second- or third-choice votes to Thigpen than the
other way around. Either way, the math worked out very badly for
Thigpen.
Analyzing exactly what happened — an exercise the legislature's
program evaluation division should undertake — would require examining
all ballots and finding out exactly how people voted.
My conclusion is it was convoluted, delivering a result that is hard
to understand. It will be better to put this horse out to pasture.
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/108551
--
NC IRV Court of Appeals Vote totals in excel file here
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/11_02_10_NC_IRV_raw_data
Kathy Dopp
http://electionmathematics.org
Town of Colonie, NY 12304
"One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the
discussion with true facts."
Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections
http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174
Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf
View some of my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=1451051
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
Saturday, January 8, 2011
"I think we've seen the last of IRV voting in North Carolina," #instant runoff voting
Thanks to instant runoff voting, the loser, Cressie Thigpen, was ranked by more voters than the winner, Doug McCullough. This shows just how arbitrary IRV is. The buyers remorse is sinking in to those who pushed IRV, and those who warned against IRV are validated. How did this even get into law? I know some lawmakers who don't remember voting for this particular statute. But they sure ought to remember voting on the IRV pilots, and those need to go too. Her'es Op/Ed by Greensboro News and Record Editor, Doug Clark:
The odd IRV numbers
"I think we've seen the last of IRV voting in North Carolina," State Board of Elections Executive Director Gary Bartlett told me this week.
I hope so. And I'm going to beat the dying horse a little more just for good measure.
IRV — Instant Runoff Voting — was used in a special election for a Court of Appeals seat in November. You might remember there was a field of 13 candidates and you voted for your first, second and third choices.
Bartlett drew his opinion not because elections officials mishandled this special election and its complex, confusing procedures but because it was unpopular. Leading legislators and the governor didn't like it, and there's a good chance they'll drop the flirtation with this odd brand of voting.
The outcome sure was strange.
The result on election night was that Cressie Thigpen led with 395.220 first-choice votes, or 20 percent of the total.
Doug McCullough was second with 295,619 votes, or 15 percent.
Because Thigpen didn't win a majority, he and McCullough advanced to the "instant runoff." This was neither instant nor a runoff. Rather, it meant that second- and third-choice votes would be added to their totals to decide the ultimate winner.
About seven weeks later, that was determined to be McCullough with 543,980 votes, edging Thigpen, who had 537,325.
McCullough had turned a deficit of nearly 100,000 votes into a winning margin of 6,655 votes.
But here's a funny thing. Bartlett sent me raw vote totals last week: the numbers of 1, 2 and 3 votes for all 13 candidates in all 100 counties. When I got around to adding them up, I found that Thigpen still had the most votes by nearly 100,000:
718,042 for Thigpen
618,431 for McCullough.
How was that?
The raw vote totals include about a quarter-million votes that were tossed out in the second round of counting.
Some of those were multiple votes for one candidate. For example, if anyone used his first, second and third votes for Thigpen, all three votes are included in the raw total but only one would count in the official tally.
Also, voters whose first choice was Thigpen or McCullough had their ballots discarded at that point. For example, if someone voted for Thigpen as first choice and McCullough as second choice, the vote for McCullough was not counted in the second round of counting. The idea was that this voter should not have his second-choice vote cancel his first-choice vote.
So, for one reason or the other, Thigpen lost 180,717 votes; McCullough lost only 74,451 votes — a huge difference that statisticians might suggest was improbable.
Thigpen must have had more people who voted for him multiple times than did McCullough. And more of McCullough's first-choice voters must have given their second- or third-choice votes to Thigpen than the other way around. Either way, the math worked out very badly for Thigpen.
Analyzing exactly what happened — an exercise the legislature's program evaluation division should undertake — would require examining all ballots and finding out exactly how people voted.
My conclusion is it was convoluted, delivering a result that is hard to understand. It will be better to put this horse out to pasture.
Posted by Doug Clark on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 10:30 am
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/108551
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
The odd IRV numbers
"I think we've seen the last of IRV voting in North Carolina," State Board of Elections Executive Director Gary Bartlett told me this week.
I hope so. And I'm going to beat the dying horse a little more just for good measure.
IRV — Instant Runoff Voting — was used in a special election for a Court of Appeals seat in November. You might remember there was a field of 13 candidates and you voted for your first, second and third choices.
Bartlett drew his opinion not because elections officials mishandled this special election and its complex, confusing procedures but because it was unpopular. Leading legislators and the governor didn't like it, and there's a good chance they'll drop the flirtation with this odd brand of voting.
The outcome sure was strange.
The result on election night was that Cressie Thigpen led with 395.220 first-choice votes, or 20 percent of the total.
Doug McCullough was second with 295,619 votes, or 15 percent.
Because Thigpen didn't win a majority, he and McCullough advanced to the "instant runoff." This was neither instant nor a runoff. Rather, it meant that second- and third-choice votes would be added to their totals to decide the ultimate winner.
About seven weeks later, that was determined to be McCullough with 543,980 votes, edging Thigpen, who had 537,325.
McCullough had turned a deficit of nearly 100,000 votes into a winning margin of 6,655 votes.
But here's a funny thing. Bartlett sent me raw vote totals last week: the numbers of 1, 2 and 3 votes for all 13 candidates in all 100 counties. When I got around to adding them up, I found that Thigpen still had the most votes by nearly 100,000:
718,042 for Thigpen
618,431 for McCullough.
How was that?
The raw vote totals include about a quarter-million votes that were tossed out in the second round of counting.
Some of those were multiple votes for one candidate. For example, if anyone used his first, second and third votes for Thigpen, all three votes are included in the raw total but only one would count in the official tally.
Also, voters whose first choice was Thigpen or McCullough had their ballots discarded at that point. For example, if someone voted for Thigpen as first choice and McCullough as second choice, the vote for McCullough was not counted in the second round of counting. The idea was that this voter should not have his second-choice vote cancel his first-choice vote.
So, for one reason or the other, Thigpen lost 180,717 votes; McCullough lost only 74,451 votes — a huge difference that statisticians might suggest was improbable.
Thigpen must have had more people who voted for him multiple times than did McCullough. And more of McCullough's first-choice voters must have given their second- or third-choice votes to Thigpen than the other way around. Either way, the math worked out very badly for Thigpen.
Analyzing exactly what happened — an exercise the legislature's program evaluation division should undertake — would require examining all ballots and finding out exactly how people voted.
My conclusion is it was convoluted, delivering a result that is hard to understand. It will be better to put this horse out to pasture.
Posted by Doug Clark on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 10:30 am
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/108551
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
Sunday, December 26, 2010
N.Carolina's Statewide Instant Runoff Voting Contest - the facts, the regrets
48 days after the election, instant runoff voting produced a "winner" for the NC Court of Appeals, for the "Wynn"seat. Thanks to IRV, an experimental tallying method was used, the election was almost a tie, a recount was called for, and we had a plurality result, not a majority win.
After counting the IRV votes, the highest vote getter lost his 100,000 vote lead, and the contest became so close that a recount was requested. The declared winner won with 28% of votes from all ballots cast on election day. We do not know how many 2nd and 3rd choice votes each candidate got, as this data was not released to the public.
(Click on the above picture to enlarge.)
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/22580/41687/en/summary.html (page 20)
[2] State BoE IRV results Dec 13 2010
http://awesomescreenshot.com/0244s72d1 (screen shot)
[3] State BoE IRV results after recount
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/22803/41461/en/summary.html
The reason for using IRV in this election:
"NC Court of Appeals Judge Wynn was elevated to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court o Appeals. Under the NC Constitution, the vacant office must be filled by an election this November. Thirteen candidates are running for the office. Too late to hold a primary, under NC law, this election will use an Instant Runoff Voting method. Voters indicate who they prefer among the candidates at the "instant" they vote, by ranking as many as three choices 1, 2, and 3. If your 1st choice loses, your 2nd or 3rd choice could determine who wins. Bobby Coggins.(blog)
There were 13 candidates in this non partisan contest and there was no primary. Candidates had access to public funding for their campaigns, but the limited funds had to be shared amongst a large field.
In the first round, Cressie Thigpen (D) was leading Doug McCullough (R) by 100,000 votes.
The top 2 candidates advanced to a runoff. The ballots were counted based on whether they ranked Thigpen or McCullough higher. 45% of those who voted in the Court of Appeals races voted for neither. 2nd and 3rd choice votes for Thigpen & McCullough were added, erasing Thigpen's 100,000 vote lead and putting McCullough about 6,500 votes ahead.
With IRV votes tallied, McCullough won with 28% of all voters' ballots cast on election day.The election was so close that Thigpen called for a recount. This was done by machine so it was no surprise that the results changed only slightly. Thigpen went down 120 votes, from 537,445 to 537,325. McCullough went down 43 votes, from 544,023 to 543,980. McCullough won by 6,655 votes.
McCullough got 19.7% of transfers, Thigpen 11.2%, and nobody 69.2%
The Democrat-registered incumbent appointed by a Democratic governor got a large share of the vote. But there were so many other Democratic candidates, that they weren't likely to result in many successful transfers, especially since the ballot instructions said simply to vote for the candidates in order of your preference - and not vote strategically so your ballot would not be stuck in the trash dumpster. 2.7 million voters went to the polls in November. Only 1.1 million had their vote count in December.
There were fewer Republican candidates, so there was a much greater chance of the vote counting, if you could just get voters to fill out the ballot. And there were more Republican voters in the first place.
News and Opinion:
Raleigh News & Observer, December 24, 2010. Instant analysis
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/24/879736/instant-analysis.html
Gary Robertson.AP. December 20, 2010. Concession after N.C. Court of Appeals recount widens lead http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/concession-after-nc-court-appeals-recount-widens-lead?cid=ltst
Doug Clark. Greensboro News & Record. December 16, 2010. Weak defense of IRV
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/107176
Reid Overcash. News&Press.December 16,2010 “Instant Runoff Vote” loses its appeal when put to test http://wevegotideas.com/2010/12/16/instant-runoff-vote-loses-its-appeal-when-put-to-test/
Gary Pearce.Talking About Politics. December 16, 2010 Instant Runoff, Eternal Confusion
http://talkingaboutpolitics.com/Home/tabid/36/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2441/Instant-Runoff-Eternal-Confusion.aspx
Rocky Mount Telegram December 13, 2010 Instant runoff voting runs into issues, too.
That was one ugly way to elect a judge.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/opinion/our-views/instant-runoff-voting-runs-issues-too-214919
Charlotte Observer Dec. 13, 2010 Not best way to boost confidence in elections
Instant Runoff Voting was alot faster than the counting.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/12/13/1906884/not-best-way-to-boost-confidence.html
AP. Raleigh News & Observer December 9, 2010 Judge Thigpen wants Appeals race recount
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/09/851980/judge-thigpen-wants-appeals-race.html
Doug Clark. Greensboro News & Record. December 9, 2010 Editorial: Instant runoff failure
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/12/08/article/editorial_instant_runoff_failure
Gary Robertson. AP News. December 6, 2010 McCullough overtakes Thigpen in NC court race
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/12/06/article/mccullough_overtakes_thigpen_in_nc_court_race
Tom Sullivan. Scrutiny Hooligans. November 9, 2010. Short Cuts. http://scrutinyhooligans.us/2010/11/09/short-cuts/
Andrea Pacetti. News 14. October 28, 2010. Board of Elections decides how to count instant runoff votes http://triangle.news14.com/content/top_stories/632050/board-of-elections-decides-how-to-count-instant-runoff-votes (changes tallying method)
Bobby Coggins. October 19, 2010. 2010 Election and this IRV ballot for NC Appeals Court. http://thunderpigblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/2010-election-and-this-irv-ballot-for.html
Sara Burrows. Carolina Journal. September 29, 2010 How the Instant Runoff for State Court of Appeals Will Work http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6900
North Carolina State Board of Elections. September 29, 2010 Meeting on Tallying IRV
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/09_29_2010_NCSBoE_IRV_Tally_Minutes
Bobby Coggins. September 20, 2010. Instant Runoff Voting Strategy for NC Court of Appeals. http://thunderpigblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/strategy-for-instant-runoff-voting-for.html
Joyce McCloy. IRVbad4NC blog. September 19, 2010. 2 Simple Rules for Voters in Instant Runoff Voting for NC Court of Appeals http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/2010/09/2-simple-rules-for-voters-in-instant.html
Charlotte Observer September 9, 2010. Potential mess looms in judicial election
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/09/1679301/potential-mess-looms-in-judicial.html
BY ROBERT ORR. Raleigh News & Observer September 5, 2010. Order in the court election!
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/05/662859/order-in-the-court-election.html
Doug Clark. Greensboro News-Record September 3, 2010. Editorial: On the wrong track
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/09/03/article/editorial_on_the_wrong_track
Raleigh News & Observer. September 3, 2010. Test vote
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/03/661319/test-vote.html
Doug Clark. Greensboro News and Record. August 31, 2010. Lucky 13
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/97944
GARY D. ROBERTSON AP. August 31, 2010. 13 candidates file for open NC appeals court job
http://www.reflector.com/node/122154
ES&S and PrintElect voting machine co. August 31, 2010. Vendor letter on legal issues with NC Court of Appeals Instant Runoff Voting
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/PrintElectLetterAugust31_2010_not_legal
§ 163-329. Elections to fill vacancy in office created after primary filing period opens.
http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-329.html
Sri Lanka Contingent Vote (method used in North Carolina)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_vote
Wikipedia Article on this contest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_judicial_elections,_2010#Court_of_Appeals_.28Wynn_seat.29
If you have other analysis on this contest, we'd love to hear from you. Comments on this blog are blocked but you can email me at joyce (at) ncvoter (dot) net
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
After counting the IRV votes, the highest vote getter lost his 100,000 vote lead, and the contest became so close that a recount was requested. The declared winner won with 28% of votes from all ballots cast on election day. We do not know how many 2nd and 3rd choice votes each candidate got, as this data was not released to the public.
(Click on the above picture to enlarge.)
Footnotes to spreadsheet/chart:
[1] State BoE First Round results Nov 2, 2010 http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/22580/41687/en/summary.html (page 20)
[2] State BoE IRV results Dec 13 2010
http://awesomescreenshot.com/0244s72d1 (screen shot)
[3] State BoE IRV results after recount
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/22803/41461/en/summary.html
The reason for using IRV in this election:
"NC Court of Appeals Judge Wynn was elevated to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court o Appeals. Under the NC Constitution, the vacant office must be filled by an election this November. Thirteen candidates are running for the office. Too late to hold a primary, under NC law, this election will use an Instant Runoff Voting method. Voters indicate who they prefer among the candidates at the "instant" they vote, by ranking as many as three choices 1, 2, and 3. If your 1st choice loses, your 2nd or 3rd choice could determine who wins. Bobby Coggins.(blog)
There were 13 candidates in this non partisan contest and there was no primary. Candidates had access to public funding for their campaigns, but the limited funds had to be shared amongst a large field.
In the first round, Cressie Thigpen (D) was leading Doug McCullough (R) by 100,000 votes.
The top 2 candidates advanced to a runoff. The ballots were counted based on whether they ranked Thigpen or McCullough higher. 45% of those who voted in the Court of Appeals races voted for neither. 2nd and 3rd choice votes for Thigpen & McCullough were added, erasing Thigpen's 100,000 vote lead and putting McCullough about 6,500 votes ahead.
With IRV votes tallied, McCullough won with 28% of all voters' ballots cast on election day.The election was so close that Thigpen called for a recount. This was done by machine so it was no surprise that the results changed only slightly. Thigpen went down 120 votes, from 537,445 to 537,325. McCullough went down 43 votes, from 544,023 to 543,980. McCullough won by 6,655 votes.
McCullough got 19.7% of transfers, Thigpen 11.2%, and nobody 69.2%
The Democrat-registered incumbent appointed by a Democratic governor got a large share of the vote. But there were so many other Democratic candidates, that they weren't likely to result in many successful transfers, especially since the ballot instructions said simply to vote for the candidates in order of your preference - and not vote strategically so your ballot would not be stuck in the trash dumpster. 2.7 million voters went to the polls in November. Only 1.1 million had their vote count in December.
There were fewer Republican candidates, so there was a much greater chance of the vote counting, if you could just get voters to fill out the ballot. And there were more Republican voters in the first place.
Raleigh News & Observer, December 24, 2010. Instant analysis
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/24/879736/instant-analysis.html
Gary Robertson.AP. December 20, 2010. Concession after N.C. Court of Appeals recount widens lead http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/concession-after-nc-court-appeals-recount-widens-lead?cid=ltst
Doug Clark. Greensboro News & Record. December 16, 2010. Weak defense of IRV
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/107176
Reid Overcash. News&Press.December 16,2010 “Instant Runoff Vote” loses its appeal when put to test http://wevegotideas.com/2010/12/16/instant-runoff-vote-loses-its-appeal-when-put-to-test/
Gary Pearce.Talking About Politics. December 16, 2010 Instant Runoff, Eternal Confusion
http://talkingaboutpolitics.com/Home/tabid/36/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2441/Instant-Runoff-Eternal-Confusion.aspx
Rocky Mount Telegram December 13, 2010 Instant runoff voting runs into issues, too.
That was one ugly way to elect a judge.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/opinion/our-views/instant-runoff-voting-runs-issues-too-214919
Charlotte Observer Dec. 13, 2010 Not best way to boost confidence in elections
Instant Runoff Voting was alot faster than the counting.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/12/13/1906884/not-best-way-to-boost-confidence.html
AP. Raleigh News & Observer December 9, 2010 Judge Thigpen wants Appeals race recount
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/09/851980/judge-thigpen-wants-appeals-race.html
Doug Clark. Greensboro News & Record. December 9, 2010 Editorial: Instant runoff failure
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/12/08/article/editorial_instant_runoff_failure
Gary Robertson. AP News. December 6, 2010 McCullough overtakes Thigpen in NC court race
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/12/06/article/mccullough_overtakes_thigpen_in_nc_court_race
Tom Sullivan. Scrutiny Hooligans. November 9, 2010. Short Cuts. http://scrutinyhooligans.us/2010/11/09/short-cuts/
Andrea Pacetti. News 14. October 28, 2010. Board of Elections decides how to count instant runoff votes http://triangle.news14.com/content/top_stories/632050/board-of-elections-decides-how-to-count-instant-runoff-votes (changes tallying method)
Bobby Coggins. October 19, 2010. 2010 Election and this IRV ballot for NC Appeals Court. http://thunderpigblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/2010-election-and-this-irv-ballot-for.html
Sara Burrows. Carolina Journal. September 29, 2010 How the Instant Runoff for State Court of Appeals Will Work http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6900
North Carolina State Board of Elections. September 29, 2010 Meeting on Tallying IRV
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/09_29_2010_NCSBoE_IRV_Tally_Minutes
Bobby Coggins. September 20, 2010. Instant Runoff Voting Strategy for NC Court of Appeals. http://thunderpigblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/strategy-for-instant-runoff-voting-for.html
Joyce McCloy. IRVbad4NC blog. September 19, 2010. 2 Simple Rules for Voters in Instant Runoff Voting for NC Court of Appeals http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/2010/09/2-simple-rules-for-voters-in-instant.html
Charlotte Observer September 9, 2010. Potential mess looms in judicial election
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/09/1679301/potential-mess-looms-in-judicial.html
BY ROBERT ORR. Raleigh News & Observer September 5, 2010. Order in the court election!
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/05/662859/order-in-the-court-election.html
Doug Clark. Greensboro News-Record September 3, 2010. Editorial: On the wrong track
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/09/03/article/editorial_on_the_wrong_track
Raleigh News & Observer. September 3, 2010. Test vote
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/03/661319/test-vote.html
Doug Clark. Greensboro News and Record. August 31, 2010. Lucky 13
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/97944
GARY D. ROBERTSON AP. August 31, 2010. 13 candidates file for open NC appeals court job
http://www.reflector.com/node/122154
ES&S and PrintElect voting machine co. August 31, 2010. Vendor letter on legal issues with NC Court of Appeals Instant Runoff Voting
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/PrintElectLetterAugust31_2010_not_legal
§ 163-329. Elections to fill vacancy in office created after primary filing period opens.
http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-329.html
Sri Lanka Contingent Vote (method used in North Carolina)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_vote
Wikipedia Article on this contest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_judicial_elections,_2010#Court_of_Appeals_.28Wynn_seat.29
If you have other analysis on this contest, we'd love to hear from you. Comments on this blog are blocked but you can email me at joyce (at) ncvoter (dot) net
Monday, December 20, 2010
After 48 days the instant runoff voting contest for NC Court of Appeals is over
Just in time for Christmas. 48 days after the election, instant runoff voting produces a "winner" for the NC Court of Appeals contest for Wynn's seat. Initially, Cressie Thigpen was leading by 100,000 votes but he only had 20% of the votes cast amongst the 13 candidates. Next, 2nd and 3rd choice votes for Thigpen & McCullough were added, erasing Thigpen's lead and putting McCullough about 6,500 votes ahead. With IRV votes, Doug McCullough had the lead. Even after all the adding of IRV votes, McCullough won with 28% of all voters' ballots cast on election day.The election was so close that Thigpen called for a recount. This was done by machine. The results changed slightly. Thigpen went down 120 votes, from 537,445 to 537,325. McCullough went down 43 votes, from 544,023 to 543,980. McCullough won by 6,655 votes (including IRV). I'm basing this on numbers from data at NCSBE site on Dec 13 - see screen shot and results now up at the State Board of Elections website on Dec 20
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
Concession after N.C. Court of Appeals recount widens lead
The Associated Press © December 20, 2010 By Gary D. Robertson
RALEIGH, N.C.
Doug McCullough is returning to North Carolina's Court of Appeals after a completed statewide recount Monday showed McCullough still in the lead and incumbent Judge Cressie Thigpen conceded the election.
Thigpen conceded defeat after the complete recount in all 100 counties had McCullough, a former member of the state's intermediate appeals court, leading by 6,655 votes. Nearly 1.1 million votes were recorded between the two candidates in the instant runoff race.
Thigpen sought the recount when unofficial results showed him trailing by about 6,000 votes, saying he wanted to make sure election officials counted properly ballots cast through the unusual voting method. The margin widened to more than 6,500 votes before the recount began.
The recount began as early as Dec. 10 in some counties and wrapped up early Monday. Election reform advocates have been keeping an eye on the race because the ranking concept hadn't been used in a statewide race anywhere in at least 70 years.
"I would like to thank the voters who showed faith in me during this process and to the N.C. State Board of Elections for their diligence to insure votes were properly counted," Thipgen said in a prepared statement. "The voters have spoken and I congratulate Judge McCullough for his victory and will do all I can to make any transition seamless."
McCullough is a former federal prosecutor from Atlantic Beach who served on the Court of Appeals from 2000 through 2008. He didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
State elections director Gary Bartlett said the next step for the board is to certify the outcome. It was the board's final unresolved race in North Carolina from the 2010 elections. No date had been set Monday afternoon.
Gov. Beverly Perdue had appointed Thigpen in August to serve through the rest of the year on the court and fill the seat vacated when Jim Wynn was confirmed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A 2006 state law required the instant runoff method to fill the seat because Thigpen and 12 other candidates ran for an eight-year term. Voters were asked to rank three candidates from the 13 on the Election Day ballot.
Thigpen and McCullough advanced to the second round of voting because they received the most first place votes. Election officials then separated the ballots of voters whose first-choice candidate was eliminated and counted how many of them made Thigpen and McCullough their next highest choice. Those choices were added to the original counts of the two. The candidate with the most combined votes was the winner.
McCullough trailed Thigpen by 100,000 votes in the first round.
Rob Richie, executive director the election reform group FairVote, said the statewide use of instant runoff voting was successful although it took 48 days after Election Day to finalize the winner. He said the method saved millions of dollars it would have cost to organize a separate runoff election. The state elections board and other groups provided voters information on how the ranking worked.
"It's a pretty fair reflection of a fairly close race," Richie said in a phone interview. "It seems like the voter education that was done was effective."
But critics said the process was still hard to understand for many voters, and the permutations of voting outcomes among 13 candidates hard for election officials to ensure the outcomes were accurate. Counties that used electronic voting machines also counted second-round totals with untested tabulating software, according to Joyce McCloy with the N.C. Coalition for Verified Voting.
"Instant runoff voting was not instant, nor was it like a runoff election," she wrote in an e-mail.
Bartlett said there were no major problems with the count and voters got to participate in picking the winner.
"Whether you like it or not, it worked," he said.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/concession-after-nc-court-appeals-recount-widens-lead?cid=ltst
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Weak defense of IRV - Instant Runoff Voting in NC Court of Appeals oddities
Some say instant runoff voting did what it was supposed to do in the NC Court of Appeals Contest. For sure the IRV algorithm that sorts, allocates and eliminates votes is capricious in nature. IRV election is like a crap shoot. The top 2 candidates had 20% and 15% of first round votes. Thigpen led McCullough by 100,000 votes. After sorting, allocating, eliminating and reshuffling the IRV votes, McCullough and Thigpen had a near tie. The top two, Thigpen had 27.62% of the vote from all ballots cast, and McCullough had 27.96% of all votes. But with IRV, majority is redefined to 50% of "remaining" votes, and excludes about 800K voters. Thigpen lost his lead and now trails McCullough by around 6,700 votes. Close enough that Thigpen called for a recount. This was conducted by machine, not hand - last week. Results aren't in yet.
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
Weak defense of IRV
Greensboro News and Record. Doug Clark. December 16, 2010.
It's disappointing that Duke professor Mike Munger calls our opposition to Instant Runoff Voting "absurd," and counters with arguments that are just plain wrong.
The IRV, which decides a winner in a multicandidate race by adding second- and third-choice votes when no one receives a majority, achieves a result "precisely the same as if we conducted two separate elections," says Munger.
Talk about an absurd statement. That would be true only if voter turnout wasprecisely the same in a second primary and no voter changed his or her mind about the candidates in the interim. But it's worse than that, because IRV effectively excludes a high proportion of voters from this runoff.
IRV was used in the special election for an appeals court seat, which drew 13 candidates. On Nov. 2, Cressie Thigpen led with 395,220 votes, or 20 percent. Doug McCullough was next with 295,619 votes, or 15 percent. As the top two, under the IRV rules their second- and third-place votes were added. Last week, five weeks after the election, the State Board of Elections announced that McCullough was now the winner with 544,023 votes to 537,445 for Thigpen.
This was, of course, not precisely like a separate runoff for another important reason: 1,943,771 people voted in this race on Nov. 2. But the votes for McCullough and Thigpen after the "instant" runoff totaled 1,081,468. What happened to the other 862,303? These were voters who did not mark McCullough or Thigpen as their first-, second- or third-choice candidates. So the "instant" runoff was like holding a second separate election in which 862,303 people who voted in the first election — 44 percent of the total — were excluded from participating. How does Munger think that yields precisely the same result?
Next, responding to our view that second- and third-choice votes should not count as much as first-choice votes, Munger says "the idea that the votes are second-place or third-place votes is balloon juice." I don't know what balloon juice is — hot air, maybe? — but I do know that the ballot instructed voters to mark their second and third choices as well as their first choice. So they indisputably are second- and third-choice votes. For many voters, they may have been an afterthought.
If these second and third votes are considered to count as much as first-choice votes, then they should have been counted for all 13 candidates. If they were, it's possible that a candidate other than McCullough or Thigpen could have received the most votes. We don't know because the State Board of Elections has not released how many 1, 2 and 3 votes each of the 13 candidates polled.
Finally, Munger employs some "balloon juice" of his own: "The editor seems to prefer plurality rule, but sophomore political science students learn that plurality rule rarely chooses the best candidate in simulations."
Simulations? Why don't we look at real elections? In Guilford County's Senate District 28 race, Gladys Robinson won a plurality election over Trudy Wade and Bruce Davis. There was no "instant runoff." On what basis would Munger contend that Robinson, a community leader for many years and a member of the UNC Board of Governors, was not "the best candidate"?
For that matter, how does Munger conclude that Thigpen was not the best candidate in the appeals court race and McCullough was? Thigpen led McCullough by 100,000 first-choice votes — meaning a lot more voters thought Thigpen was the best candidate. After adding 2 and 3 votes, McCullough led Thigpen by 7,000 votes (pending a recount). On that basis Munger says McCullough was the best candidate? That strikes me as more than a little absurd.
On top of its other faults, IRV is arbitrary. Why not just count first- and second-choice votes? If that had been done, Thigpen's initial lead over McCullough probably would have held up. Why add third-choice votes? That's sliding further from the voters' real preference. Or if the idea is just to count more votes, how about giving voters fourth and fifth choices? Or let them rank all candidates in order of preference? That would be worse, in my view, but it's no less logical than the IRV format applied in this race.
My question to IRV supporters is this:
Compared to a plurality election, does IRV produce an outcome that is faster, less expensive or more credible?
The first two answers are no, plain and simple. Those are facts. The third question requires an opinion. My opinion is no — and professor Munger sure didn't change it.
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/107176
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
North Carolina instant runoff voting: "That was one ugly way to elect a judge"
The Rocky Mount Telegram has withdrawn support for instant runoff voting. The RMT editorial dept promoted IRV over and over in spite of our warnings that Instant Runoff Voting isn't instant, and isn't the same thing as a runoff. We also warned that IRV is akin to a crap shoot. Well, we told you so.
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
Instant runoff voting runs into issues, too
Monday, December 13, 20100 Rocky Mount Telegram
That was one ugly way to elect a judge.
More than a month after the Nov. 2 election, North Carolina finally has decided that Doug McCullough is its newest member of the N.C. Court of Appeals, thanks to a new procedure called “instant runoff voting.”
In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that we used this space several times before Nov. 2 to applaud the innovation. We had high hopes that instant runoff voting would make low-turnout, costly runoff elections a thing of the past. It might still do that, but it’s not without issues.
McCullough won his seat on the court as a result of counting second and third choices cast by voters in November. That’s the way the process is supposed to work, but consider the fact that Cressie Thigpen actually had about 100,000 more votes than McCullough in the count taken on Election Day. His total wasn’t a majority, however, in a field of 13 candidates.
Eighty percent of the voters cast first-choice ballots for someone other than Thigpen. Eighty-five percent of the voters cast first-choice ballots for someone other than McCullough.
It isn’t reasonable to argue that McCullough is the candidate that North Carolina voters prefer, based on those numbers. But let’s not forget that a runoff election — even one that’s statewide — traditionally draws a miserable turnout, as well. In the Democratic primary runoff for U.S. Senate last summer, for example, winner Elaine Marshall received fewer votes than her opponent, Cal Cunningham, received in the first primary.
There’s no clear answer to the runoff dilemma. Hold a runoff on a separate date and watch turnout plummet. Try something like instant runoff voting, and the results are awkward, to say the least.
We appreciate the innovative thinking behind instant runoff voting, but officials need to keep looking.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/opinion/our-views/instant-runoff-voting-runs-issues-too-214919
To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)