Protect North Carolina Elections - Stop Instant Runoff Voting

Friday, October 1, 2010

What Carolina Journal wasn't told about Instant Runoff Voting for NC Court of Appeals

The article State : How the Instant Runoff for State Court of Appeals Will Work gives a misleading impression on the ease of continuing or expanding instant runoff voting. In fairness, the story IS based on an interview by Sara Burrows of the Carolina Journal with NC's top election official. Sara is only going by what she was told. When I read the article, I was stunned to see the claim that IRV could be automated for less than $5 million. That just isn't true. If you want to know the truth about IRV, you have to know which questions to ask, and you need to know when you aren't being told the whole story.

From the article, here's the misleading claim about cost to "automate" IRV, which I will debunk:

“It all comes down to whether the voters like it or they don’t like it,” Bartlett said. “If the voters like it and the candidates think it’s fair, then the General Assembly needs to look at expanding it and getting us automated software for it.”

Purchasing and installing the software, Bartlett added, would cost less than the $5 million it takes to run one statewide election.

IRV won't be automated so cheaply and it also won't be expanded without gutting several election transparency laws. IRV already clashes with more than a few transparency laws in place, from violations of standards for voting systems and vendors to the law that mandates votes be counted where cast, and that all votes be reported on election night. This has to be corrected. Those standards were put into place toprevent a repeat of headlines like this: "A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North Carolina in the days since Election Day, with thousands of votes missing and the outcome of two statewide races still up in the air."AP Newswire, Nov 13

With IRV, not all voters get to participate in the "runoff". Only voters who had the luck to rank the top 2 candidates will have a say in the "runoff".

The real cost to "automate" IRV would be around $65 million dollars, the cost for all new voting machines for all counties. This is because the current voting system, including the "IRV" software would have to be certified together, and to different federal standards than our machines were certified to when purchased in 2006. It is very unlikely our current voting machines will meet the current federal standards, even if our current systems do operate very well. And these machines will last at least 10 years, if not 15 or more.

In an email dated Sept 30, 2010, NC State Director of Elections Gary Bartlett admitted to me that it was highly unlikely for our voting systems to be recertified with IRV software. Gary answers my questions in blue/bold.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: request for documents, questions to SBE
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:58:29 -0400
From: Bartlett, Gary
To: Joyce McCloy
CC: Wright, Don , McLean, Johnnie

*Wouldn't North Carolina's entire voting system -M100s, M650's, iVotronics, Unity + the "automated software" have to be federally tested and certified together in order to meet North Carolina's standards for voting systems and software? Yes. Due to the age of the equipment, I would be shocked if ES&S upgraded these machines because of cost.

*Isn't there a chance that the system you propose would not pass federal certification standards? I have not proposed software; I provided to the reporter of the amount ES&S stated it would cost to develop IRV software.

*Would this system you propose be certified to the old 2002 standards? If not, would our current voting machines + the "automated software" meet the higher standards? No; must be the current federal standards, thus, upgrades would have to be made.

From: Joyce McCloy [mailto:jmc27106@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:52 AM
To: Bartlett, Gary
Cc: Wright, Don
Subject: request for documents, questions to SBE

"Automating" isn't automatic. To "upgrade" the system would mean physically changing out computer chips plus installing new software, but that would have to go through the federal testing and certification process which could take up to 2 years. Then, we could end up with voting systems that still coudn't tally IRV, as happened in Pierce County Washington when they bought special IRV software/systems. Their IRV precinct optical scanners couldn't tally IRV. See official recap of Pierce Co IRV election http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Pierce_Co_WA_2008_IRV_Recap.pdf

Here's a letter to drive home the importance of using federally certified software and systems in North Carolina. It is the law, and there are penalties to the voting vendor if they violate that law.

Hence, the letter from ES&S/PrintElect to Gary Bartlett, Director of the NC State Board of Elections

"IRV is not an approved function at the federal or state level of current ES&S software, firmware or hardware. Subsequently, we will work at the direction of the SBE and counties to assist but cannot be held responsible for issues as a result of IRV..".
~ letter from PrintElect to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, dated August 31, 2010.
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/PrintElectLetterAugust31_2010_not_legal

Does IRV solve a problem or create one? It is highly likely that the winner of the Court of Appeals seat elected by IRV will be by much less than 50%, and as far as confusion, we won't know because in North Carolina, the NC State Board of Elections doesn't report all IRV votes, pretending that those aren't really valid votes unless needed to determine the "runoff". IRV is more complex than other voting methods, because you can't simply add up the vote totals, but have to sort, allocate, eliminate and reallocate, examining each individual ballot.

We could easily argue that this contest violates the voting rights act, because the lack of voter education and the demands put on the voters will disenfranchise many who normally would not be disenfranchised. Our state will only spend $500K in voter education, and already political groups are getting it wrong, telling voters to single shot or bullet vote this contest. *See attached document on voter education issues.

North Carolina's high standards passed in 2005 have improved our elections:
Under-vote rate for President is cut from 3% in previous elections to average of 1% statewide in 2008 http://www.ncvoter.net/undervote.html
Post election audits of 2008 Presidential election show voting machine results are accurate.
See "An Assessment of the Recount and the Certification of the Election Result for the November 2008 Election"
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/GetDocument.aspx?id=1321

Regards;

Joyce McCloy
NC Coalition for Verified Voting
www.ncvoter.net
336-794-1240

To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US

Monday, September 20, 2010

Vendor letter on Legal Issues with NC Court of Appeals Instant Runoff Voting

We may have a voter guide, and we may have an Instant Runoff Voting task force, but sorry, no cigar! We still do not have IRV tallying procedures for touchscreen counties as of Sept 17, 2010. Additionally, in an August 31 letter, the voting vendor warns that our voting system cannot legally tally instant runoff voting, and the vendor will not accept responsibility for an IRV related election fiasco.

I contacted a member of the task force set up to devise procedures, he advised me on Sept 13 via email that:

"there are still several options on the table and I do not know at this point what method we will end up with. I think we need to spend some time testing and evaluating the options before a decision is made. Might as well do it right the first time."

Meanwhile, the voting vendor warns about the legality of using our voting machines for this process. Here's excerpt from Print Elect & ES&S letter to the NC State Board of Elections dated Aug 31 2010:

"IRV is not an approved function at the federal or state level of current ES&S software, firmware or hardware. Subsequently, we will work at the direction of the SBE and counties to assist but cannot be held responsible for issues as a result of IRV....
...
IRV Tabulation
*Printelect and ES&S will only take responsibility for and support tabulating the IRV contests individually. Methods for deciding a runoff winner by others will not be supported by Printelect or ES&S. This risk will be the sole responsibility of NCSBOE and the counties.

*IRV voting tabulation methods are not an EAC or state certified portion of our voting system and have not undergone the testing that would normally be required to receive these certifications."
read the full letter here
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/PrintElectLetterAugust31_2010_not_legal

But pro IRV advocate Bob Phillips of Common Cause NC expresses confidence:

"It's going to be a reliable, accurate count," ... "I'm very comfortable with what I'm hearing so far." ~ Study calls NC best among 10 at protecting voters" By GARY D. ROBERTSON.

Why does the voting vendor worry when Common Cause NC does not? Because the vote vendor is legally held to high standards set in 2005 to prevent repeats of headlines like this:

"A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North Carolina in the days since Election Day, with thousands of votes missing and the outcome of two statewide races still up in the air."AP Newswire, Nov 13

Here are North Carolina's standards for voting systems:

§ 163-165.7. Voting systems: powers and duties of State Board of Elections.

(a) Only voting systems that have been certified by the State Board of Elections in accordance with the procedures and subject to the standards set forth in this section and that have not been subsequently decertified shall be permitted for use in elections in this State.

...The State Board may certify additional voting systems only if they meet the requirements of the request for proposal process set forth in this section...

(1) That the vendor post a bond or letter of credit to cover damages resulting from defects in the voting system. Damages shall include, among other items, any costs of
conducting a new election attributable to those defects.

(2) That the voting system comply with all federal requirements for voting systems.

§ 163-165.9A. Voting systems: requirements for voting systems vendors; penalties.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

2 Simple Rules for Voters in Instant Runoff Voting for NC Court of Appeals

TWO SIMPLE RULES FOR IRV VOTING:

1. Voters must not rank the same candidate twice, and

2. Use strategy, make or follow endorsements, rank potential winners only, vote for at least 2!

Read further to learn how to avoid having your vote be a total shot in the dark.

1. MARKING YOUR BALLOT

Do not rank the same candidate more than once!

You can rank up to 3 DIFFERENT candidates out of the 13
Ranking a candidate more than once means your 2nd and 3rd choices will not count! The voting machine is not set up for IRV so it will not warn you if you make a mistake in ranking.

2. STRATEGY

Statewide endorsements and or sample ballots are a must.
This election will either be a crap shoot or it will be decided by the most effective endorsements. The endorsements should keep in mind that if there is a runoff, only the 2 candidates with the most votes will advance. Vote for 2 choices at least. If you fail to rank either of the 2 candidates, you wil not have a say in the "runoff".

Who should you rank 1st, 2nd or 3rd? With IRV, a candidate may win by getting the most 2nd choice votes. Keep that in mind as you head to the polls.

Stay with the pack to win. Basically there must be a statewide strategy where everyone stays in line behind one particular candidate and then rank an additional candidate who also is qualified or has a reasonable chance of getting votes.

EXPERTS ADVICE ON HOW TO RANK EFFECTIVELY:

a) Voters should vote for party favorite and or their own personal favorite.
Dale Sheldon-Hess, an expert on various election methods advises:
The voters, if they have a preferred party, should name their party's candidate first; or, if they're ABSOLUTELY certain there's no chance of them winning, name their personal-favorite candidate first, and the party favorite second.

b) Rank only candidates you think will get enough votes to make the runoff:

Professor Steven J Brams, a Professor of Politics and Election Method expert advises:
The only sensible strategy is not to rank high candidates one knows and prefers but only candidates one prefers who might make the runoff. If one votes for others, the probability that your vote will be transferred to your preferred of the two front runners is slim.

Steven J. Brams Phone: (212) 998-8510
Dept. of Politics FAX: (212) 995-4184
19 West 4th St., 2nd Floor E-mail: steven.brams@nyu.edu
New York University
New York, NY 10012

Voter education, endorsements, videos, and handing out palm cards at the polling places would be helpful.

To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US

Monday, September 6, 2010

NC Court of Appeals, Instant Runoff Voting and Legal Challenges

Thanks to instant runoff voting, the November 2010 election for North Carolina Appeals has all the potential for a Florida style meltdown. See 13 candidates file for open NC appeals court job AP News August 31, 2010. Instant runoff voting, aka IRV will be used statewide to fill NC Appeals Judge Wynn's seat and our voting machines can't tally it. Other contests will use regular election methods. That makes it extra confusing. The possible confusion may impact other contests as voters and poll workers deal with a mixture of voting methods all in one election.

North Carolina will be the beta test for this first statewide instant runoff voting election conducted in the United States. “Instant runoff” elections represent a dramatically different system of how votes are cast, counted and valued. To avoid legal challenges and protect the confidence in elections, the election process must be as transparent as possible. The good news is that the candidates will be lawyers and judges. Wouldn't it be ironic if this election was tallied by a jury-rigged system? No matter how you cut it, a statewide IRV election will clash with many existing election laws.

Instant runoff voting will be used statewide to fill the NC Court of Appeals seat vacated after Judge Wynn retired. Additionally, North Carolina voters in at least three counties (Buncombe, Cumberland and Rowan) also will use Instant Runoff Voting to decide the winners in three Superior Court races this fall. Under state law (NCGS 163-329), vacancies on the Superior Court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court which occur after the primary but more than 60 days before Election Day are filled through an election that allows voters to rank their choices. Here's the legal code.

The SBoE has a difficult task. It must conduct instant runoff elections for the statewide contest for NC Court of Appeals without compatible voting machines, without a thorough fiscal analysis, and without state funding for implementation and voter education. Voter education is essential, since with 13 candidates, voters 2nd or 3rd choices probably will decide the outcome of the election. Unfortunately, many voters will be unprepared to rank choices, as the state will be spending a paltry $500,000 on voter education for 6.1 million voters. Lack of tallying software means counting could take days or weeks. IRV is not additive so votes can not be tallied at the polling places on election night.

"There are no provisions on ES&S equipment to tabulate IRV." ~ Keith Long , Voting System Project Manager for the NorthCarolina State Board of Elections Jan 7, 2008
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Keith_Long_Machines_Not_IRV_Compatible.pdf

Statewide IRV is dangerous. North Carolina’s only experience in counting IRV votes is in Cary, NC in the October 2007 pilot, and officials were unable to tally just 3,000 IRV votes correctly. Cary has since rejected IRV. Hendersonville has "piloted" IRV in 2007 and 2009, but never has tallied the IRV votes. The NC SBoE admitted that IRV is too risky when mixed with statewide elections:

"Current state law says we must comply with federal regulations…
We can use November 2007 as a pilot and not use IRV in May 2008 because it poses too much of a risk.”
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/NCSBOE_3_6_07_IRV_Limitations_No_2008.doc

Violating existing election law and standards for voting systems to try to “automate” instant runoff voting with un-certified work-arounds will result in headlines such as we saw in 2004:

"A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North Carolina in the days since Election Day, with thousands of votes missing and the outcome of two statewide races still up in the air."

Legal challenges: No matter how this election is administered, election laws will be broken. It is unavoidable, because IRV clashes with many election laws and standards.
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/NC_Comments_on_IRV_and_2010_Judicial_Elections.pdf

NC Verified's full comments to the North Carolina State Board of Elections on procedures and risks for upcoming instant runoff voting elections

Outline of comments:

1. There is no software to tabulate IRV that meets the standards of our state law. In guidelines for IRV pilots set by the State Board of Elections in January 15, 2009, the State Board of Elections proposed to use an uncertified method of vote tabulation with DRE machines that allows for an “electronic sort” using uncertified software that requires five pages of over 100 single spaced instructions. Experts warn that this spreadsheet tallying method is error prone, lacks an audit trail, and is not good enough for elections. See Standards for IRV Pilots -Approved by the North Carolina State Board of Elections on January 15, 2009
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/NCSBoE_IRV_Approved_1-15-2009

To comply with existing state law, IRV must be counted manually until IRV software and its accompanying algorithm is federally approved. This is workable with optical scan ballots, but in order to count the touch-screen paper trails, the vendor should be made to modify the software to print a ballot summary. Touch-screens currently print all selections made by voters, but not a final summary. While a simple contest can be recounted on the touch-screen paper trail, an IRV contest would be more laborious. For a simpler process, touch-screen counties could borrow or purchase optical scan machines for IRV elections.

2. IRV ballots cast on election day must be counted where they are cast just as “regular” ballots are counted as per § 163-182.2. Initial counting of official ballots. In Cary, NC - the 2nd and 3rd choice votes cast for the "instant runoff" were not counted on election night. Instead, they were carried away from where they were cast and then counted at a later date. This differs from the treatment of absentee ballots and early voted ballots might be tabulated at the central office, these are “retrievable ballots”, not cast on election day. All votes cast at the polls on election day, including IRV ballots, are to be counted at the polls on election night once the polls close. The solution is to count all votes, 1st, 2nd and 3rd on site using the “Australian” method.

3. State law requires election night reporting for voters' second and third choices. See Law requires reporting of votes on election night. IRV ballots are not retrievable and cannot be reported at another date.

4. All votes must be counted. In free, fair and open elections, all votes are recorded and counted. This means counting all votes, whether 1st, 2nd or 3rd choices. To do otherwise violates a core principle of democracy and tells voters that their choices and votes do not matter. Candidates, voters and officials want to know the breakdown of the votes. Votes must be counted for transparency sake. In the 2007 Pilot program, only partial data was reported for the District B contest where voters’ second and third choices were ultimately counted. In Cary’s other IRV contests for City Council, only some, not all of 2nd or 3rd place data was recorded or reported. In Hendersonville, the IRV votes were never counted or reported.

5. Provisional ballots must be counted before advancing to the 2nd round. In the 2007 IRV pilot, Provisional ballots were not counted until after the 2nd and 3rd choices were counted, and supposedly "added" back in. Since IRV is not "additive", it is not clear how these votes could possibly be added back in without doing a complete recount.

6. Absentee ballots must be counted before advancing to the 2nd or 3rd round. In Cary, NC in 2007, it is not clear when the absentee ballots were counted, so the question is - were they counted with the first, second and third rounds? They must be counted with the first round of voting before going to the next.

7. Canvassing of all first round votes, absentee and provisional ballots must be done before counting a second round of ballots. This has to be done to get an accurate vote count.

8. Audit protocols will have to be developed in coordination with the state appointed statistician and according to current state laws. Each round of voting must be proven correct if the subsequent round is to trusted. Audits and recounts must be publicly announced and observed, and notice must be given in time for the public to attend.

9. Voter education is expensive, must be repeated, and is not necessarily effective. The results of Cary NC’s 2008 bi-annual citizen survey indicate that 22.0% did not understand IRV at all.

10. Overvote protection lacking. North Carolina state law and the Federal Law, Help America Vote Act requires that voters be notified of over votes. NC’s voting machines are unable to notify the voters if they have “overvoted” in the IRV contests - if voters rank the same candidate more than once. The Help America Vote act defines overvotes: “In every election, some voters make more choices than are permitted in a contest, which creates what are called overvotes.”
http://www.eac.gov/program-areas/research-resources-and-reports/copy_of_docs/eds-2006/overvotes-and-undervotes.pdf/attachment_download/file

With IRV, voters are not permitted to vote for the same candidate more than once in a given contest. To do so, renders their 2nd and 3rd choices invalid.

11 “Instant runoff voting” should be renamed “Ranked Choice Voting”. Instant runoff incorrectly infers that the method provides the same results as a runoff election and does so instantly. It can take days or weeks to get the results of an IRV election.

12. IRV does not guarantee a majority winner. The “instant runoff” contest in Cary, District B City Council in October 2007 was decided with less than a majority of votes.

13. IRV is a difficult way to provide the same results as plurality elections. The fact is that most often, “Instant runoff voting” historically provides the same result as a plurality election, only with more effort.

14. Instant runoff voting is non-monotonic. In other words, you can hurt your preferred candidate by voting for him or her.

15. Exit polls, should be conducted by election officials or impartial groups -not advocates, in order to preserve the appearance of objectivity in the results. Exit polls should be carefully crafted to avoid being push polls. Pierce Co Washington mailed surveys to 91,000 voters, to be completed in the privacy of their homes.
This letter, along with my comments and recommendations set forth in the documents referenced above, and expanded upon in following pages, is my testimony.

The full report at this link:
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/NC_Comments_on_IRV_and_2010_Judicial_Elections.pdf

IRV is not as "easy as 1-2-3" as other jurisdictions have learned.

Forget majority outcomes: if a candidate does not win a majority in the first round, with IRV it is a near impossibility that a candidate can obtain a majority with 2nd and 3rd round votes. This happened in Burlington Vermont in their 2009 mayoral contest. With chance to rank only 3, and since ranking isn't mandatory, and since there are 13 candidates, the math is against getting a majority win.

Regards;

Joyce McCloy, Director
NC Coalition for Verified Voting
212 Evergreen Drive, Winston Salem, NC 27106

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 website www.ncvoter.net

Related:

Potential mess looms in judicial election

September 9, 2010 ...And state legislators should consider whether this form of voting solves the problem it was meant to fix.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/09/09/1679301/potential-mess-looms-in-judicial.html

Order in the court election!
September 5, 2010. BY ROBERT ORR. Raleigh News & Observer
RALEIGH -- Thirteen is associated with bad luck, and for North Carolina voters, 13 candidates' filing for the state Court of Appeals vacancy recently created by Judge Jim Wynn's move to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is not merely bad luck - it's downright ridiculous.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/05/662859/order-in-the-court-election.html

Editorial: Judicial election will allow state to test instant runoff
September 4, 2010. Star News Online

...One election, instant results.
www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100904/ARTICLES/100909801

Editorial: On the wrong track
September 3, 2010. Greensboro News-Record
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/09/03/article/editorial_on_the_wrong_track

Test vote
September 3, 2010. Raleigh News & Observer
Democracy, said the ever-quotable, often-cynical H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." North Carolina voters are about to embark on a journey to democracy's farther reaches. Here's hoping the excursion - the first use of statewide instant runoff voting - turns out well.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/03/661319/test-vote.html

13 Candidates for Wynn Seat

September 1, 2010. North Carolina Appellate Blog. Bob Numbers.

...If no candidate receives the necessary number of first place votes, the two candidates with the greatest number of first place votes advance to the "instant runoff." In the instant runoff round, each ballot counts as a vote for whichever of the two final candidates is ranked highest by the voter. The candidate with the most votes in the second round wins the election...
http://womblencappellate.blogspot.com/2010/09/13-candidates-for-wynn-seat.html

Lucky 13
August 31, 2010. Greensboro News and Record. Doug Clark, Editor
http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/97944

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at
http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Friday, September 3, 2010

Lucky 13, NC Court of Appeals and instant runoff voting

Triskaidekaphobia, North Carolina and a statewide instant runoff voting election. Funny how things work out when a few special interests get their way. Come November we'll all be acutely aware that elections have consequences and so does using IRV..

Greensboro News and Record Editor Doug Clark writes about the impact of instant runoff voting on contest for Court of Appeals and the consequences. Emphasis in bold is mine:

Lucky 13
That's the number of candidates in the running for the N.C. Court of Appeals seatthat will be filled in a special election in November.

Only one will turn out to be the lucky winner.

And most likely it will come down to a matter of luck. Voters won't be able to chooseintelligently among so many candidates, especially when this race will be overshadowed by political contests.

Even more so because the state will employ a goofy instant runoff system for this one election. I'll be writing more about that. Just believe it's going to be convoluted and confusing.

I think it's fair to say there's a wide variance in experience and qualifications among these candidates. Will most voters see that? I hope so, but I'm not optimistic.

It's interesting to note that far fewer candidates chose to run in the regular elections for appellate court seats. In fact, one sitting judge is unopposed.

Why so many in this one? Because getting elected will be like rolling a winning number in a dice game. You don't have to be good, only lucky, to land an eight-year term in a big job.

Here's the field:

BLOSS, JOHN F, GREENSBORO

CASTEEN, JOHN WESLEY JR, WILMINGTON

DILLON, ROBERT CHRISTOPHER, RALEIGH

FARLOW, JEWEL ANN, GREENSBORO

GARNER, DANIEL E., WAKE FOREST

HAMMER, STANLEY F., GREENSBORO

KLASS, MARK E., LEXINGTON

MCCULLOUGH, JOHN DOUGLAS, ATLANTIC BEACH

MIDDLETON, ANNE, RALEIGH

PAYNE, HARRY E JR., RALEIGH

SULLIVAN, JOHN C., RALEIGH

THIGPEN, CRESSIE, RALEIGH

VESPER, PAMELA M., RALEIGH

http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/97944

IRV Mechanics v law update: So far, we hear that the NC State Board of Elections will NOT allow the use of the infamous "excel spreadsheet workaround'. It is now deemed an illegal work around, so maybe we can get Hendersonville to stop using it. Also it appears SBOE will follow our recommendations to canvas all votes before tallying second round. There are still laws that will be broken, esp about what a paper ballot is for DRE counties, but even if this goes to court, I believe everyone will throw up their hands and say "there's no way to do this that doesn't conflict somehow....". At least the worst, the "workaround" is off the table.

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 website www.ncvoter.net

To receive updates by email visit this link

http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US

Monday, August 16, 2010

North Carolina's Next Election Fiasco- Statewide Instant Runoff Voting for Judge Wynn's seat

NC's next election fiasco - filling NC Appeals Judge Wynn's seat. The bad news - IRV will be used statewide for this contest and our voting machines can't tally it. Other contests will use regular election methods. That makes it extra confusing. The Good news, the candidates/potential plaintiffs will be attorneys.

North Carolina voting machines can't tally IRV. Wouldn't it be ironic if this election was tallied by a jury-rigged system? "There are no provisions on ES&S equipment to tabulate IRV." ~ Keith Long , Voting System Project Manager for the North Carolina State Board of Elections Jan 7, 2008.

Gary Robertson at AP is reporting that for Wynn vacancy that the IRV counting would only add a few extra days to tallying election. That is certainly optimistic! Consider the SBoE's own warning that IRV was too dangerous to use IRV in the May 2008 primaries. "We can use November 2007 as a pilot and not use IRV in May 2008 because it poses too much of a risk. " ~ NC State Board of Elections March 6, 2007

NC judge's departure means one more election
By GARY D. ROBERTSON, Associated Press Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. — As state Court of Appeals Judge Jim Wynn moves to the federal appellate bench this week, it means North Carolina voters could choose his replacement in November using a form of voting rarely seen in the United States.

Wynn's swearing-in to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals creates a vacancy on North Carolina's 15-member intermediate appeals court. Wynn was confirmed by the U.S. Senate late last week.

Gov. Beverly Perdue can name Wynn's replacement to serve until the end of the year. State law requires voters to choose a successor in November to begin a new eight-year term. Four other Court of Appeals seats also are up for re-election this fall.

If at least three candidates file for Wynn's old seat, the election winner would be counted using instant runoff voting. Voters would rank the candidates in order of preference.

If no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, election officials turn to the ballots of voters whose first-choice candidate was eliminated and count the votes for the two top votegetters.

Those choices are added to the original counts of the two leaders. The candidate with the most combined votes is the winner.

Several cities nationwide — including Cary and Hendersonville — have experimented with instant runoff voting in recent years to avoid costly traditional runoff elections in which a small fraction of voters turn out. While the ranking concept was used by a few states about 100 years ago, its use ended in the 1930s, according to FairVote, a nonprofit election reform group. No state has used it since then for a statewide race, FairVote Executive Director Rob Richie said.

"The full-fledged ranking of candidates had not been done in a long time," Richie said in a phone interview.

The General Assembly created the process for judicial elections following a vacancy after eight people ran for the seat opened when Justice Bob Orr left the state Supreme Court in summer 2004. Paul Newby won the seat after receiving only 23 percent of the ballots. Wynn finished second.

This method, according to supporters, would ensure the winner had the support of a
majority of voters. Instant runoff opponents say the process is confusing to voters, requires intense voter education and opens the count to potential mischief.

State elections director Gary Bartlett said staff members are preparing for the race as if instant runoff voting will occur. A one-week candidate filing period for the seat is expected to begin later this month. At least one candidate, Raleigh attorney Chris Dillon, has already announced his intent to run.

If no candidates wins a majority outright and instant runoff voting is used, it likely will mean voters won't know the winner until a few days after Election Day, Bartlett said. That's because most ballots will have to be counted again, whether by hand or through an optical scan machine, to identify the rankings for the race. The state's touch-screen machines — used by about 40 percent of the voters — can be reprogrammed to count ranked ballots, but Bartlett said he's unsure whether that will be recommended to the board.

"This will be a massive undertaking," he said. "We will have to have an intense education effort, not only for the election officials but also for the voters."

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8128299/

The AP article doesn't tell you that Hendersonville NC never tallied the IRV votes and had no legal way to do so. Cary tallied it once, with great difficulty and with errors, and a recount. Cary said no more. See Cary NC tries IRV, then says ‘no more’

For you lawyers and judges running for Wynn's seat, you may wish to brush up on SL 2005-323 The Public Confidence in Elections Act, which requires the use of certified software, post election audits, and standards for voting vendors. Your election probably won't be conducted according to law.

You may also want to read law on using IRV to fill this seat:

In North Carolina Election Laws, around pages 698 and 699 (big pdf file)

§ 163–329. Elections to fill vacancy in office created after
primary filing period opens
(a) General. — If a vacancy is created in the office of justice of
the Supreme Court, judge of the Court of Appeals, or judge of
superior court after the filing period for the primary opens but
more than 60 days before the general election, and under the
Constitution of North Carolina an election is to be held for that
position, such that the office shall be filled in the general election
as provided in G.S. 163–9, the election to fill the office for the
remainder of the term shall be conducted without a primary using
the method provided in subsection (b1) of this section. If a
vacancy is created in the office of justice of the Supreme Court,
judge of the Court of Appeals, or judge of superior court before the
filing period for the primary opens, and under the Constitution of
North Carolina an election is to be held for that position, such that
the office shall be filled in the general election as provided in G.S.
163–9, the election to fill the office for the remainder of the term
shall be conducted in accordance with G.S. 163–322.
(b) Repealed by S.L. 2006–192, § 8(a), eff. Aug. 3, 2006.
(b1) Method for Vacancy Election. — If a vacancy for the office
of justice of the Supreme Court, judge of the Court of Appeals, or
judge of the superior court occurs more than 60 days before the
general election and after the opening of the filing period for the
primary, then the State Board of Elections shall designate a
special filing period of one week for candidates for the office. If
more than two candidates file and qualify for the office in accor

698

§ 163–329 ELECTIONS & ELECTION LAWS
dance with G.S. 163–323, then the Board shall conduct the election
for the office as follows:
(1) When the vacancy described in this section occurs more
than 63 days before the date of the second primary for
members of the General Assembly, a special primary shall
be held on the same day as the second primary. The two
candidates with the most votes in the special primary shall
have their names placed on the ballot for the general
election held on the same day as the general election for
members of the General Assembly.
(2) When the vacancy described in this section occurs less
than 64 days before the date of the second primary, a
general election for all the candidates shall be held on the
same day as the general election for members of the
General Assembly and the ``instant runoff voting'' method
shall be used to determine the winner. Under ``instant
runoff voting,'' voters rank up to three of the candidates by
order of preference, first, second, or third. If the candidate
with the greatest number of first-choice votes receives
more than fifty percent (50%) of the first-choice votes, that
candidate wins. If no candidate receives that minimum
number, the two candidates with the greatest number of
first-choice votes advance to a second round of counting.
In this round, each ballot counts as a vote for whichever of
the two final candidates is ranked highest by the voter.
The candidate with the most votes in the second round
wins the election. If more than one seat is to be filled in
the same race, the voter votes the same way as if one seat
were to be filled. The counting is the same as when one
seat is to be filled, with one or two rounds as needed,
except that counting is done separately for each seat to be
filled. The first count results in the first winner. Then the
second count proceeds without the name of the first winner.
This process results in the second winner. For each
additional seat to be filled, an additional count is done
without the names of the candidates who have already
won. In multi-seat contests, the State Board of Elections
may give the voter more than three choices.
(3) If two or more candidates receiving the highest number of
votes each receive the same number of votes, the board of
elections shall resolve the tie in accordance with G.S.
163–182.8.
(c) Applicable Provisions. — Except as provided in this section,
the provisions of this Article apply to elections conducted under
this section.
(d) Rules. — The State Board of Elections shall adopt rules for
the implementation of this section. The rules are not subject to

ELECTION OF JUDGES § 163–329
Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. The rules
shall include the following:
(1) If after the first-choice candidate is eliminated, a ballot
does not indicate one of the uneliminated candidates as an
alternative choice, the ballot is exhausted and shall not be
counted after the initial round.
(2) The fact that the voter does not designate a second or third
choice does not invalidate the voter's higher choice or
choices.
(3) The fact that the voter gives more than one ranking to the
same candidate shall not invalidate the vote. The highest
ranking given a particular candidate shall count as long as
the candidate is not eliminated.
(4) In case of a tie between candidates such that two or more
candidates have an equal number of first choices and
more than two candidates qualify for the second round,
instant runoff voting shall be used to determine which two
candidates shall advance to the second round.
Added by Laws 1996 (2nd Ex. Sess.), c. 9, § 7. Amended by S.L.
2001–403, §§ 1, 12.1, eff. Jan. 1, 2002; S.L. 2002–158, § 7, eff. Jan. 1,
2004; S.L. 2006–192, § 8(a), eff. Aug. 3, 2006.

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/GetDocument.aspx?id=2136

How IRV violated NC Election Law in Cary North Carolina's 2007 IRV Pilot:

1. Counting ballots away from where they were cast. In Cary, NC - the 2nd and 3rd choice votes for the "instant runoff" were not counted on election night. Instead, they were carried away from where they were cast and then counted at a later date.

§ 163-182.2. Initial counting of official ballots . (a) The initial counting of official ballots shall be conducted according to the following principles:(1) Vote counting at the precinct shall occur immediately after the polls close and shall be continuous until completed.

This puts those choices at risk of tampering after being hauled away from the polling places and put into storage.

2. There was no Election night reporting for voters' second and third choices. There are no election night reports/poll tapes for these results because the machines cannot count the 2nd and 3rd choices, and officials did not themselves count the 2nd and 3rd choices on election night. North Carolina's voting machines are incapable of doing such reporting, The only way to account for the voters choices and secure them against fraud would be to count all second and third choices on election night at the polling places and create a manual report of that data.

3. Incomplete vote data. Only partial data was reported for the District B contest where voters second and third choices were utlimately counted. No raw vote data was reported for the other IRV contests that had a winner in the first round. Without all raw vote data, i.e the tallies for all choices, whether they were needed to ascertain a winner - we cannot ascertain if this election was "non monotonic",i.e voters hurt their first choice by voting for them. Campaigns cannot see where their efforts succeeded or failed in campaigning and even cross endorsing as IRV advocates promote.

4. Provisional ballots were not counted until after the 2nd and 3rd choices were counted, and supposedly "added" back in. Since IRV is not "additive", it is not clear how these votes could possibly be added back in without doing a complete recount.

5. Absentee ballots. It is not clear when the absentee ballots were counted, so the question is - were they counted with the first, second and third rounds?

6. Audits and recounts must be publicly announced and observed, and notice must be given in time for the public to attend. Wake County miscounted just 3,000 ballots in the Cary IRV experiment, (Oct 30, 2007Critics Take Runoff Concerns To Elections Board NBC 17) and ended up doing an audit without citizens having an opportunity to observe.

7. Canvassing was done after counting the 2nd and 3rd rounds of ballots for District B. Provisional ballots weren't included in the count of the 2nd and 3rd rounds of voting. Officials say they "added" these votes in later. All votes should be counted in the 2nd and 3rd round, provisional votes and absentee votes included.

8. Uncertified software to count the votes on touchscreen machines. There is no federally approved software to count instant runoff voting so the NC State BoE set up an uncertified "workaround" to help out Henderson County, NC, a touchscreen jurisdiction. Luckily there was no "runoff" so the work around was not used. This work around violates North Carolina election law that requires all vote counting systems and software to be federally certified.

This work around violates at least 2 sections of NC Election Law

§ 163-165.7. Voting systems: powers and duties of State Board of Elections. (a) Only voting systems that have been certified by the State Board of Elections in accordance with the procedures and subject to the standards set forth in this section and that have not been subsequently decertified shall be permitted for use in elections in this State.
...The State Board may certify additional voting systems only if they meet the requirements of the request for proposal process set forth in this section...
(1) That the vendor post a bond or letter of credit to cover damages resulting from defects in the voting system. Damages shall include, among other items, any costs of conducting a new election attributable to those defects.
(2) That the voting system comply with all federal requirements for voting systems. (There is no federally certified IRV tabulating software).
§ 163-165.9A. Voting systems: requirements for voting systems vendors; penalties.

This touch screen 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.

All parts of the vote tabulation system must be federally tested together, to ensure they work together.

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. Audit data is deleted as steps are performed.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Instant Runoff Voting, NC Court of Appeals, the Bad News and the Good News

The bad news is that it looks like IRV will be used for a statewide contest combined with regular voting. IRV can't be tallied at polling places and machines can't count it so I have no idea how it will/can be counted. The good news is that the would be victims of this potential fiasco are attorneys/jurists and we may see some lively court action if things go wrong.

Editorial: One in, two still to go
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2010 Greensboro News-Record
James Wynn is in; Albert Diaz and Catherine Eagles may as well go to thebeach. They have to wait for the Senate to return from its long summervacation for their judicial confirmations.

Wynn, a judge on the N.C. Court of Appeals, was one of a handful of nominees for the federal bench approved by unanimous consent in the last hours of Senate activity before it adjourned last week. The Senate won't resume work until Sept. 13.

The rest of the story is that Wynn's promotion will create a vacancy on the N.C. Court of Appeals in time for the state to hold a special election to determine his successor. It will occur at the same time as the general election in November, but under new rules.

For elections to fill a judicial vacancy when there's no time to hold a primary, a 2006 state law creates "instant runoff voting" in case there are more than two candidates and none receives a majority of the vote. Under this scheme, voters are asked to rank their top three choices in order of preference, and a second round of counting determines the winner.

This will prove to be impossibly confusing to voters, many of whom have trouble deciding even one candidate they think is most qualified. Ranking three is likely to require guesswork. It would be better if the law allowed the governor to appoint a replacement to serve until the next election, when candidates then could run on a normal schedule. That's what would happen if this vacancy occurred after Sept. 3.

Popular election is not the best way of selecting judges anyway, and instant runoff voting won't make an improvement. But the federal system has its flaws as well — especially when partisan politics subjects qualified nominees to long delays.
....
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/08/09/article/editorial_one_in_two_still_to_go