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.

Is Instant Runoff Voting Hurting Minorities in Fair Vote's Home Town?

Ground Zero for IRV is also "Ground Zero" for minority representation in government. Zero meaning zilch, nada nothing.

The latest canard is that IRV helps minorities. A July 24 news article shows that this is not true, at least not in the home town of the Fair Vote Director, Rob Richie. The "IRV helps minorities" claim was used on the North Carolina State Legislature last month, and I believe it worked, even though it was challenged by Representative Angela Bryant.

Yes, "the truth is out there", right there in Fair Votes' own back yard. It turns out that Fair Vote Director Rob Richie's home town of Takoma Park Maryland, the home base for IRV, has Zero (0) zilch NADA minority representation. And voter turnout flat out sucks. A July 24 news article compares minority representation in the governments of 3 Maryland towns. Takoma Park is the loser.

Greenbelt mulls changes to its voting system Thursday July 24, 2008

...Takoma Park and College Park both have district systems, but each still has majority white councils. College Park has two women, one of whom is African-American...

"Takoma Park is 34 percent African-American.." yet "....Takoma Park, in Montgomery County, has no minority representative. "

Turnout in Takoma Park?

"Of the 17,299 total city population, only 1,010 people voted in the last City Council election."

....Takoma Park is divided into six voting districts. There are six council members and one mayor. All of its elected officials are white.

Takoma Park City Manager Barbara Burns Matthews admitted the council was not representative of the community according to census data, especially since the city has a large immigrant population.

One of the problems, Matthews said, is lack of contention. In the last election, only one district had multiple delegates running. The others only had one name on the ballot.

Doesn't this sound like San Francisco in 2007? Low turnout, stale stagnant politics with no real competition for the mayors contest, one candidate for DA, and 2 candidates for Sheriff? Incumbent protection.

Is it worth it?

Update on Instant Runoff - Raleigh Could Be Sending an Election Disaster Your Way

Dear Verified Voting Activists:

Today we lost the battle, but not the war. The legislature approved the Instant Runoff Pilots in spite of our warnings. Your efforts did encourage the lawmakers to put limits on these pilots that weren't applied in the previous ones. Please stay with us as we continue the fight to protect our elections. There is more work to do. Thank you for your hard work!

Limitations for the new pilot include:

Rep Angela Bryant's amendment - 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."

and

Representative Verla Insko's amendment - "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."

I urge you to press your County Boards of Elections and local officials to avoid the IRV experiments.

Here is my press release sent to media across the state, if you have touch screens in your county you should be really scared:

#

Press Release

Is an election disaster headed to your neck of the woods?

North Carolina, July 18, 2008/ NCVVNewswire/NC Coalition for Verified Voting

Today Raleigh has authorized another Instant Runoff Voting pilot, this time for a 3 year period. At risk is the public confidence in elections regained after a Florida style election debacle in 2004. After passing the Public Confidence in Elections Law in 2005, North Carolina began to lead the nation in election reliability and transparency. Now our state is headed down a slippery slope, eating away at our model election system.

We urge cities and counties - don't be the next guinea pig.

You have a choice - between simplicity or complexity with our nations most vital instruments of democracy. Choose wisely, our votes should not be an experiment to be discounted, miscounted, or mis-appropriated. Remember, we warned about a paperless voting meltdown long before it happened in November 2004 and weren't listened to then.


Consider that officials couldn't handle counting IRV in Cary North Carolina on simple paper ballots. Jan 22, 2008 Raleigh News and Observer. Opinion mixed on Cary's instant-runoff trial.
Counties using touch screens are in for a real treat, or maybe a nightmare election meltdown.

See for yourself the State Board of Election's "work around" to count instant runoff votes on touch screens: Just glance at the full 5 pages single spaced details on how to perform this work around. You don't have to read each line to understand the risks with this. *Beneath this list, we explain what is wrong with using this work around to run an election.

Determine if there are any candidates that have received the 50% threshold to be declared winner(s).

To tabulate a runoff election follow these procedures:

1. Announce the two (2) candidates that are in the Instant Runoff.
2. Print document - Hendersonville IRV-Ballot Position Numbers.pdf to determine the voting positions for each candidate in the Instant Runoff.
3. Remove the “Compact Flash Cards” from the iVotronic voting devices in the City of Hendersonville precincts.
4. Capture the Election Data in ERM;
a. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
b. Import Compact Flash Audit Data
c. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
d. Select machines from Armory Precinct only.
e. Consolidate Audit Data.
f. Create Vote Image Log.
g. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
h. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_Armory.txt and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
i. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
j. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
k. Select machines from Southwest Precinct only.
l. Consolidate Audit Data.
m. Create Vote Image Log.
n. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
o. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_Southwest.txt and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
p. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
q. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
r. Select machines from all remaining Hendersonville precinct machines.
s. Consolidate Audit Data.
t. Create Vote Image Log.
u. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
v. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_All and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
5. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_Armory.txt to import – Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name IRV_Armory.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
6. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_Southwest.txt to import – Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name IRV_Southwest.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
7. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_All.txt to import –Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the nameIRV_All.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
8. Open file Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls.
9. Open the Excel file that you created in Step 5d.
a. Delete Column B
b. Sort data on Column A
c. Delete all rows without machine numbers.
d. Highlight all the data for Armory Precinct and copy.
e. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the RED Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
f. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B
g. Using the file created in Step 5d, highlight all the data for Southwest Precinct and copy.
h. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the BLUE Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
i. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B
j. Using the file created in Step 5d, highlight all the data for all the other precincts in the City of Hendersonville (excluding Armory and Southwest) and copy.
k. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the BLACK Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
l. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B.
10. Verify that the vote totals for the candidates match the ERM Report.
a. Click on Yellow Tab Grand Totals – Totals for each candidate should match the report on ERM.
b. Print copy of YELLOW Tab Grand Totals.
11. Click on BLACK Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 3 thru 7 – example: Caldwell=3, Caraker=4, etc.).c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 13 thru 17).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
12. Click on BLACK Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 9e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 13 thru 17 – example: Caldwell=13, Caraker=14, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
13. Click on BLACK Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 10e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 20 thru 24 – example: Caldwell=20, Caraker=21, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
14. Click on RED Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice in Armory Precinct.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 16 thru 20 – example: Caldwell=16,Caraker=17, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 26 thru 30).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
15. Click on RED Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 12e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 26 thru 30 – example: Caldwell=26, Caraker=27, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
16. Click on RED Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 13e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 33 thru 37 – example: Caldwell=33, Caraker=34, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
17. Click on BLUE Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice in Armory Precinct.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 11 thru 15 – example: Caldwell=11, Caraker=12, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 21 thru 25).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
18. Click on BLUE Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 15e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 21 thru 25 – example: Caldwell=21, Caraker=22, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
19. Click on BLUE Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 16e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 28 thru 32 – example: Caldwell=28,Caraker=29, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
20. Click on YELLOW Tab Grand Totals – The votes displayed in the grand totals for the Runoff Candidates should be the final results.

What is wrong with this?

1. This work around removes vote data from the ES&S Unity system to a system not tested with it - exporting data first to notepad/wordpad and then excell to tabulate the votes.

a. neither word pad, note pad or excell have been tested for their vote tabulation ability.

b. this process erases audit data as it progresses, excell doesn't have an audit trail, and some versions of excell have bugs.c. it is not known what happens to the data as it is moved from the ES&S vote tabulation system to a non ES&S vote tabulation system.

2. All parts of the vote tabulation system must be federally tested together, to ensure they work together. This set up has not been federally tested or approved.

3. There are over 100 steps in the process, with instructions like "click on the red tab, or click on the blue tab", and one single keystroke error would change the outcome of the election, and there is no audit trail for this process.

4. Audit data is deleted as steps are performed.
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Henderson_County_IRV%20Tabulation.pdf