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:

*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.

*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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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

Morning boys and girls,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debra Goldberg • published August 27, 2008

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


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

Many problems

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

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

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

Integrity of the process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instant runoff nearly went down in flames

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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