Aspen IRV makes my head hurt!

Greetings! I have been communicating back and forth with various verified voting advocates about the Aspen IRV fiasco. People have read my comments and told me I should turn them into blogs, and they have been wondering why I haven't done so yet.

That's because so much stuff is coming out about the Aspen IRV election almost daily that makes the stuff I wrote yesterday out of date! And I also have to try and wrap my head about the confusing "novel" way that Aspen ran their election. Excuse me - that was a mistake - Aspen paid a small private company to administer the IRV election using an uncertified system.

So have no fear - I will get around to writing a devastating blog (or two or three) on Aspen IRV that will tickle your funny bone and make you cry wondering how anyone is buying into this voodoo voting method!

Chris Telesca

Public Hearings are a good thing - so why are IRV advocates afraid of them?

Back in 2007, the only two communities to participate in the IRV pilot program in North Carolina did not have full public hearings before taking the vote. Four NC communities that did hold public hearings voted not to participate in the IRV pilot.

There were no IRV pilots in 2008 because the NC State Board of Elections knew as early as March 2007 that IRV was too risky to use in the 20008 federal elections with expected heavy turnout.

IRV advocates pushed an extension of the 2007-2008 pilot after the 2008 primary runoff election in June 2008. The pilot was extended from 2009-2011 (inclusive), but IRV advocates didn't get the same blank check they had in 2007-2008. A voter and candidate education as well as guidelines consistent with general election laws were required.

Verified voting activists worked with the NC SBOE suggested ways to make IRV comply with general election laws, but the NC SBOE passed guidelines that were in conflict with those laws.

IRV advocates were really pushing to get both Hendersonville and Cary to participate in the IRV pilot this year. They were especially pushing for Cary to take part. Cary was their shining example of how they claim IRV worked. They made pushing IRV for Cary in 2009 a national priority.

But this time IRV advocates wouldn't have ex parte meetings with the town council members for 6 weeks before any council meetings. For one thing, there were two Cary Town Council members who were not big fans of IRV. Don Frantz (the only official elected in our state using the IRV method to tabulate votes) and Julie Robison (who originally supported IRV until she observed the 2007 counting procedure). Several other members of the Town Council didn't want Cary to be a lab rat for IRV again.

So instead of 6 weeks of ex parte access to the Town Council like in 2007, the Cary Town Council was going to consider whether or not to take part in the IRV pilot in 2009, stay with the old non-partisan election and possible runoff, or switch to a non-partisan plurality election. That is where things got really interesting.

At the first meeting on March 12, 2009, I found out that there is a legal requirement for public hearings to change between proven legal election methods - but not to take part in election pilots of unproven (and risky) election methods like IRV. I was flabbergasted!

I wrote the following e-mail to several NC legislators who I knew were interested in election integrity:

Dear Represenatives:

I am hoping that you will put your heads together to create and support making changes this year to the IRV pilot extension bill that got passed last summer. Specifically, I would ask that you require any municipal governing body considering IRV to require:

1. advance notification of a public hearing where the public may comment prior to taking any vote to participate in the IRV or any other election pilot

2. requirement to verify the accuracy of information presented by or through the County Board of Election or the municipal clerk or information officer so that pro-IRV propaganda from IRV advocacy groups is not presented as factual information.


I attended a meeting of the Cary Town Council on March 12, 2009, and found out that while public hearings are required by law for any community considering changing election methods (plurality or majority with or without primaries or runoff elections), there are no such requirements for public hearings prior to a municipal government considering taking part in the IRV pilot project.

I talked briefly to the Hendersonville City Manager and Attorney last week, and found out that there was no advance announcement of IRV on the agenda for the March 2009 Council meeting where they voted to ask to participate in the IRV pilot for the 2009 election. There certainly was no opportunity for the public to comment on IRV one way or the other. I also found out that neither the City Council nor the City Manager or Attorney were aware of the new requirements of the law to allow for the pilot extension:

* the municipality must take part in and pay for a voter education program and

* the municipality must pay for a professional exit poll to be conducted to gather information on the IRV pilot, and keep accurate accountings of money spent on IRV.

I think that in the interest of transparency and open government, if public hearings are required prior to changing other election methods, they should be required prior to taking any action to participate in any election pilot - including IRV.

There is also an issue of the type and accuracy of information that is being presented to the municipal governing agencies and the public to get them to participate in the IRV pilot. In some cases, unsubstantiated information coming directly from the non-governmental agencies that are pushing IRV is being presented as facts by the county Boards of Election. In the case of the Wake County Board of Election, they accepted the donation of a website for the Cary IRV project that was paid for by FairVote, and the information on this page was provided by FairVote and was not subject to review or approval from the Wake County BOE.

I can provide much more information to support this brief (at least for me) e-mail to you.

Would you please consider submitting legislation to change the IRV pilot bill to require such public hearings? Thank you.

Respectfully,

Chris Telesca

I heard back from NC House Representative Verla Inkso, who along with Senator Ellie Kinnaird are the two Godmothers of Election Integrity in the NC General Assembly. Rep. Insko agreed to introduce HB 932, which required public hearings and documentation of IRV pilot program claims. The bill did not make crossover in the North Carolina General Assembly by May 14th.

I talked to a few legislators and some other people who work down at the General Assembly, and I found out that IRV advocates were bad-mouthing this bill. They were claiming that it would have prevented Hendersonville from taking part in the IRV pilot for 2009, even though Hendersonville already voted to take part in the pilot before the bill would have taken effect.

As you may already know, Cary decided not to participate in the IRV pilot program - there wasn't even enough interest from council member Erv Portman to make a motion to consider it in the very last council meeting on April 30th before the May 6th cut-off date (after which it would have been too late for ANY community to decide to participate in the IRV pilot for 2009). So this bill would only apply to communities deciding to use IRV in the future.

So why are IRV advocates bad-mouthing this election transparency bill? IRV advocates tend to be all about transparency EXCEPT when it applies to IRV! What do IRV advocates have to hide about IRV?

Why don't IRV advocates want communities to announce interest in the IRV pilots, document information used to justify taking part in the pilot, and hold a hearing where the public may comment on IRV?

Is it because they realize that whenever IRV has been put to a public hearing process in NC where there has been transparency and full disclosure, IRV did not get used?

I have talked to several other legislators who wonder why requirements for public hearings and full disclosure of the source of documentation used to justify the pilots ought to apply to ALL election pilots - not just for IRV.

I wonder why IRV advocates are afraid of a little sunshine?

Only one IRV in NC for 2009!

On April 29, the Cary News published a guest column written by Don Hyatt and myself. They wanted it to be between 500 and 600 words. We submitted a little more than 600 words, and they whittled it down even more.

Here is a link to the published article - http://www.carynews.com/opinion/story/12323.html

In our opinion: IRV too risky

By Chris Telesca and Don Hyatt
The Cary Town Council is considering whether or not to be the subject of another election experiment with Instant Runoff Voting for the October 2009 election. It’s time for Cary and the rest of North Carolina to say “no” to IRV.

Cary has participated in dubious election experiments before. In 2002, hundreds of votes were lost in the nation’s first reported case of touch-screen voting machines failing to report election votes.

Even before Cary voted in May 2007 to pilot IRV, the State Board knew it was too risky to use in 2008 elections because state law and federal regulations require using only certified voting systems to tabulate IRV.

The 2007 Cary IRV pilot program was largely managed by IRV advocacy groups, with no advance guidelines. Some voter education volunteers admit deviating from Election Board instructions to create a more positive outcome on the exit poll surveys — also conducted by IRV advocates.

The Wake Board of Elections couldn’t follow simple IRV hand tabulation procedures. Ballots were mis-sorted, simple calculator mistakes were made and a non-public recount turned up missing votes. The winner did not receive the 50 percent plus one vote majority advocates claimed IRV would ensure in a single election.

There has been no analysis of the 2007 pilot. The proffered reason given for extending the pilot beyond 2008 was cost savings, even though fiscal studies done by other jurisdictions show IRV elections cost more than traditional election methods.

The original IRV pilot extension bill had the same flaws as the first pilot program. Election integrity groups requested an improvement which required “… the pilot program shall be conducted according to … standards consistent with general election law …” Unfortunately, this legislative requirement has not been met.

After passage, election integrity advocates pointed out how IRV conflicts with general election law not written with IRV in mind, and recommended ways to make IRV comply with general election law. The State Board ignored those recommendations and approved IRV guidelines that conflict with general election laws.

North Carolina and other states have laws requiring that votes be counted where cast until the count is completed to prevent ballot tampering. But State Board IRV guidelines call for partial ballot counting at polling places, then moving the ballots to a central location for further counting. The federal Help America Vote Act requires voters be notified of over-votes before a ballot is cast. Our voting system can’t notify voters of second and third column over-votes on IRV ballots.

From early 2007 through January 2009, State Board members and staff claimed we needed federally certified software to automate IRV tabulations. The State Board recently developed automated procedures they now claim need no federal certification. Those procedures were developed with no input from election equipment vendor ES&S. Do the new IRV procedures violate any contracts, warranties or other agreements with ES&S? Will Cary voters be required to foot the bill in the event of election problems?

The Cary Town Council needs to vote “no” on another IRV pilot and keep traditional runoff elections if needed. Our legislature’s Election Oversight Committee should study the 2007 IRV experiment and other IRV elections more fully before allowing any more communities to experiment with America’s right to vote.

Chris Telesca lives in Raleigh. Don Hyatt lives in Cary.

IRV was not on the agenda for the Cary Town Council meeting for April 30, 2009. One of the IRV guidelines required:

CI 1
The governing board of a jurisdiction choosing to participate in the IRV pilot must make that decision no later than two months before the beginning of the filing period for offices in that election.

And since May 6, 2009 was the 60-day cut-off period for the 2009 election filing period beginning July 1, 2009, IRV was essentially dead in Cary for 2009. Only one other NC municipality - Hendersonville - voted to take part in the 2009-2011 IRV pilot extension.

And since IRV is too risky to use in an even-year federal election, I doubt anyone will try and bring it forth for consideration in 2010. With two communities using it in 2007, and only one in 2009, that probably means no one will use it in 2011. I say "probably" because it honestly depends on what happens with the Hendersonville elections. If they don't need to tabulate the votes beyond the 1st column, the pro-IRV crowd will probably say they loved it in Hendersonville. IRV will tank for sure in Hendersonville if they do have to tabulate those other votes, because it will be so complex no one who understands it will like it.

Durham council rejects both plurality and IRV!

I attended the Durham City Council meeting last night where they were going to discuss changing their electoral system from nonpartisan primary and general election to a nonpartisan plurality.

Now I have written that if a community is going to change, I prefer plurality over IRV for sure. But I will admit that I like more elections rather than fewer - and my understanding of how Durham's system works is the primary and general election functions something like a general election and a runoff. And I favor traditional runoffs - like Roberts Rules of Order favor them - over Preferential Voting (aka IRV/RCV/STV).

Stella Adams - NCDP First Vice Chair - said she had no problems with Plurality elections, but said she didn't like IRV and would sue if Durham tried to impose IRV elections on her. She'll have good company - and lots of help on her lawsuit (guess who?)

Some people did suggest IRV, but those who did pretty much got it wrong. A student from the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy gave an entertaining presentation about the benefits of IRV - but he got some pretty important details wrong. He left the impression that Cary uses IRV when they do not. Cary participated in the pilot in 2007 and has not decided whether or not to participate in the 2009 pilot. It looks like they won't do it - even with Erv Portman dragging it back out every meeting.

I must confess that I secretly feel that Erv's actions are not that he really believes in IRV as an election method. I feel it's a form political narcissism - IRV is pronounced the same way that his first name (Erv) is pronounced. So for Erv, it's not like looking into a mirror and seeing his own reflection (which got Narcissus into trouble) but like listening to your own name being called over and over and OVER again (like Cary IRV supporters kept pronouncing IRV as one word, not spelling it out).

The Sanford Institute student also got it wrong when he used two other speakers (who signed up right behind him and ceded their time to him so he could speak for longer than 2 minutes - good trick which I must remember for future meetings - but isn't that like giving someone else your vote?) to demonstrate how easy IRV elections are. He claimed that in an election of three candidates where there were a total of 50,000 votes - one candidate got 20,000 votes, another got 18,000 and a third got 12,000. Since no one got 50% plus one vote, IRV would allow the 12,000 first column votes for the loser to to transfer to the top two candidates - 10,000 to the first candidate (giving him a total of 28,000) and 2,000 to the second (for 20,000)- allowing the candidate with 28,000 votes to win with a majority.

Problem with those simple examples is that there is never 100% participation in the subsequent rounds.

In real life IRV elections, not enough voters cast votes in the subsequent columns to give the candidate a real majority of the total first column votes. In Burlington VT - where they
love IRV - 16.5% of the voters didn't go beyond the first column and 37.8% didn't vote beyond the second column. As has happened in damn near ALL the IRV elections across the country. In Cary, Don Frantz won the election with only 1401 votes out of 3022 first-column votes cast - not 50% plus one vote.

Which is probably why some IRV supporters are not claiming IRV ensures majority wins - but better plurality wins. Geeze - talking out of both sides of your mouth!

What's the point of doing IRV if all you are doing is shooting for the better plurality if it always costs more up front and might not be needed?

So I am glad that Durham decided to stick with primaries and general elections. If they had to change things, I'd prefer a simpler plurality election over IRV anyday!

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1475406.html

Durham council lets elections be

Change to plurality system rejected

By Jim Wise, Staff Writer Comment on this story

DURHAM - After 45 minutes of public comment and discussion, Durham's City Council voted to leave its electoral system alone.

In a 7-0 vote that came during halftime of the NCAA championship game, the council rejected a proposal to switch its municipal elections from a nonpartisan primary and general election format to a nonpartisan plurality.

The Durham County Board of Elections had proposed the change as a cost-saving measure, estimating it would save city taxpayers between $170,000 and $185,000 each election year by eliminating one round of voting.

"Money isn't everything," said Mayor Pro Tem Cora Cole-McFadden, who moved to keep the city's elections just as they are.

Citizen comment before the vote was almost unanimously opposed to a change.

"Just vote it down. It's not going to help anybody," said Lavonia Allison, president of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People.

"It's sad to put a price tag on our future," said Carolyn Harris. "Let's think about our freedom."

Board of Elections Chairman Ronald Gregory defended plurality as "a method that is employed successfully" in many other communities. But Mayor Bill Bell said he had heard no wish for a change from citizens.

"I haven't seen any outcry, any groundswell," he said. "In the face of that overwhelming majority [of speaker opposition], I'm comfortable with the motion that's on the floor" to stay with the present method.

While speakers were overwhelmingly against plurality elections, some did suggest Durham consider the "instant-runoff" system, under which voters rank candidates in order of first, second and third preference.

If no candidate wins a majority, a winner is declared by a combination of preference.

Victoria Peterson, a frequent, if unsuccessful, candidate for public office in Durham, added her voice to those opposing plurality elections, but she took her opportunity at the microphone to support merging the city and county governments.

She also called for raising City Council salaries to at least $32,000 a year, which she said would be equivalent to pay for a full-time job.

"It's so unfair to work these individuals so hard, and we only pay them, what?" she said.

Told council members' pay is about $18,000 per year, Peterson said, "That is embarrassing."

jim.wise@newsobserver.com or 932-2004

Why don't they ask people if they would prefer IRV when it costs more than traditional elections and runoffs?

I am getting so sick of people claiming everyone prefers IRV to traditional elections and runoffs, citing surveys as proof IRV is the greatest thing since sliced white bread!

I just attended a meeting of the Cary Town Council and there were some pretty awful assumptions made about IRV - that it's always cheaper than holding traditional majority elections with runoffs if needed.

From the http://www.townofcary.org/depts/pio/biennialsurvey/html/2008BiennialSurveyReport.htm

The respondents were next asked their support for using the Instant Runoff Voting Method using a 9-point scale from not supportive at all (1) to very supportive (9). The respondents were also informed the use of the method would save Cary taxpayers approximately $28,000 by not having to hold a physical runoff election.

While supporters are claiming that Cary taxpayers saved $28,000 in the 2007 election by using IRV, they cannot honestly make that claim because they didn't keep track of all expenses. IRV was done under the table and off the books. Labor and services were donated by non-profit groups (including pro-bono services from so far un-named PR firm and free websites provided by the main group pimping IRV) and none of it was kept track of.

But even public information officers seem to buy into the very simplistic argument that one election is cheaper than two. Check out the fiscal impact statement at http://www.townofcary.org/agenda/tc09004.htm

Fiscal Impact:

(1) Below are the FY 2010 budget estimates based on each type of election, with and without IRV (all costs include one-stop early, contract costs, etc.). These estimates include the IRV estimates that the Town of Cary would absorb to cover voter education. These estimates assume the maximum number of elections possible with each method of election. Also, these figures include the cost of Cary contracting with Wake and Chatham Counties to conduct its municipal elections, since Cary is in both counties. These numbers reflect the highest possible amount of charges we would incur; actual expenses would more than likely be less as the county pays a portion of the cost of elections when other county issues are on the ballot.

Partisan Primary and Election without IRV (potential of three elections):	$291,920
Partisan Primary and Election with IRV (two elections and IRV education costs):	$208,290
Non-Partisan Plurality without IRV (one election):	$97,306
Non-Partisan Plurality with IRV (one election plus IRV education costs):	$112,409
Non-Partisan Election and Runoff without IRV (two elections):	$193,187
Non-Partisan Election and Runoff with IRV (one election plus IRV education costs):	$112,409
Non-Partisan Primary and Election without IRV (two elections):	$193,187
Non-Partisan Primary and Election with IRV (one election plus IRV education costs):	$112,409

(2) Fiscal impacts for future budget years might potentially be less if the Town were to continue using IRV, especially once IRV is well established and no longer requires public education.

That last statement is incredible, because there is ample evidence from the San Francisco Board of Elections that shows they have been spending $1.87 per registered voter on IRV elections since 2004, and in 2008 a civil grand jury informed them that they aren't doing a good job educating voters. Even after 4 years, voters not only require continuing education but they haven't been getting enough even after spending $1.87 per registered voter! See http://noirvnc.blogspot.com/2008/07/all-is-not-well-with-irv-elections-in.html for more information.

What about the people who continue to move into Cary - will they not need IRV education? What about people who become citizens or turn 18 - will they not need voter education? It's overly simplistic to

It has not been proven that IRV will save any jurisdiction any money. In fact, financial impact studies by other governing bodies such as in VT and MD and even Washington state have shown that IRV could easily cost more money and be much more complex to administer and be less transparent and open.

There are also no real goals here – one of which is whether or not IRV is easier or harder for voters to understand how to cast their votes? Is another goal of the IRV pilot program to compare how easy or difficult it is to count or otherwise administer IRV elections vs. traditional elections and runoffs?

Several jurisdictions have performed studies to see how much it will cost to implement IRV. The Vermont Secretary of State performed a study. VT is a small homogenous state with highly educated and active voters and no central elections commission or state-wide standards like we have in North Carolina. Even though VT claimed they could do IRV on the cheap with voter education costs around 25 cents per registered voter, their study did find that IRV would be more expensive.

Maryland is a state with a central elections board and of a similar size (slightly smaller) and makeup. The MD Legislature performed three fiscal studies on IRV – in 2001, 2006 and 2008 – and estimated as best they could the costs per registered voter for initial implementation ($3.54) and ongoing voter education ($0.48) on top of the current costs per registered voter for election administration. These costs were not complete because there is certified software or equipment that can tabulate IRV at this time. None of the IRV bills passed out of committee, presumably because it appeared that IRV would cost more than the cost of rarely-needed runoff elections..
What would the combination of the Maryland costs per registered voter for implementation and for voter education be if they were used here in NC?

Initial cost of $3.08 per registered voter multiplied times 6,283,277 registered voters. 48 cents per registered voter in ongoing costs every year thereafter.

Initial cost of $3.08 per registered voter multiplied times 6,283,277 registered voters. 48 cents per registered voter in ongoing voter education costs every even year thereafter, and 24 cents per registered voter in odd-year elections.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/fnotes/bil_0002/hb1502.pdf
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/fnotes/bil_0002/sb0292.pdf

The Maryland cost estimates factor in elections every two years, whereas in North Carolina we have local elections in odd years, and elections for county officers in both odd and even years. Therefore IRV voter education would need to be done each and every year. With 5.8 million voters over the summer and 6 million voters as of 11/04/08, annual voter education costs alone would equal the cost of the rarely needed state-wide runoff elections. Add to that nearly $20 million in implementation costs (not including certified software and hardware that does not exist) and IRV would never be cheaper than holding second elections even at the state level. So unless you blindly believe that one election (no matter how complicated) is cheaper than two, the push to IRV can’t really be about costs unless you chose to ignore this evidence.

So why is it that no one is asking questions about supporting IRV over traditional elections and runoffs even if IRV costs more than those elections?

Report on the 3/12/09 Cary Town Council Public Hearing on IRV

On 3/12/09, the Cary Town Council held the second meeting where the 2009 IRV pilot was addressed.

There was about a two to one ratio of pro-IRV speakers to anti-IRV speakers. Andy Silver, Perry Woods, Don Hyatt and myself spoke out against IRV. Don Hyatt, a Republican from Cary, used similar words used by John Hollingsworth (former president of the Wake County Progressive Democrats):

"The IRV math doesn't make sense!"

Here is Andy Silver's report:

Chris, Perry, I, and a couple other people spoke against having a second IRV pilot in Perry at the Town Council meeting tonight, and about twice the number spoke for. Then Erv Portman made a motion for IRV, and spoke for it, but Don Frantz gave a devastating account of the problems of counting the ballots in 2007, followed by comments against IRV by 3 or 4 other members. Finally, Erv withdrew his motion and another motion to use plurality to decide elections was passed, meaning only that allowing plurality elections will be discussed again, and I think there will be an open forum on it April 15. This does not rule out IRV, which can be discussed again at the same time (really complicated, in parliamentary terms). Several members wanted to get clearer information from the BOE (not sure whether Wake or state) on possibility of counting the second and third rounds of votes by optical scan - also whether the sorting before those counts could be done by machine.

Some remarks were made about disappointment with the BOEs for not providing analysis and conclusions about the 2007 pilot election - otherwise what is the point of having a pilot?

I thought that the discussion by council members was amazing - could provide an excellent civics lesson on IRV and its pitfalls. I look forward to their posting the video of the proceedings on the town website.

It was clear from talking to some town council members before the meeting that they were impressed by our side's information. The pro IRV people commented mostly on the reported ease of voting, and how Cary voters liked it according to the exit poll. They seemed to feel that our side had the most reasoned arguments.

So at the meeting I wasn't surprised at the pro-IRV arguments I heard. The same old stuff was trotted out - IRV ensures majority winners (it did not do so in Cary), it costs less (not if you keep track of all the costs and don't do it under the table and off the books), and people like it (but do they really understand it?), etc. The Cary Town info officer showed some information was cheaper, but I suspect that was not including other costs that other legislative groups have factored in.

In fact the whole issue that Cary is still claiming that IRV elections are cheaper disturbs me, given that there is overwhelming evidence from many sources (San Francisco, VT, MD, and now Pierce County WA) that IRV elections are more expensive than traditional general elections and runoffs once all the costs are considered. But Cary continues to claim that a single IRV election is always cheaper than a traditional runoff election.

From the http://www.townofcary.org/depts/pio/biennialsurvey/html/2008BiennialSurveyReport.htm

The respondents were next asked their support for using the Instant Runoff Voting Method using a 9-point scale from not supportive at all (1) to very supportive (9). The respondents were also informed the use of the method would save Cary taxpayers approximately $28,000 by not having to hold a physical runoff election.

No one really kept track of all the expenses in the 2007 pilot - including keeping track of the value of all the volunteer work done by FairVote and DemocracyNC that they actually have to keep track of in the 2009 pilot guidelines. So since the pilot was done so haphazardly in 2007, maybe they shouldn't claim that IRV saved money over traditional elections?

They should ask the question a couple of different ways:

• If using IRV in a single election cost more than holding a traditional general election plus runoff, would you favor using it in Cary?
• If using IRV meant we had to pay for the cost of voter education and an exit poll, and that cost more than holding a general election and runoff election, would you favor using it in Cary?

Another thing that was amazing about this survey was that the results showed there was a difference in how people answered the questions based on age, race, gender, income, education level, and where they lived (apartment, house, condo, etc.) - something that the original exit poll did not reveal. Could that be because Cary actually hired a professional polling organization that didn't have a dog in the hunt?

Respondents who were registered voters were subsequently asked their understanding of the Instant Runoff Voting Method (Table 63). A 9-point scale was used ranging from do not understand at all (1) to understand very well (9). The results indicate there was a level of misunderstanding among the respondents. The mean was 5.83 with 58.6% on the “understand” side (above 5) of the scale and 30.6% on the “not understand” side (Figure 19). This includes 22.0% who indicated they do not understand at all. Overall this indicates a degree of misunderstanding among the respondents.

And here is more interesting information:

There were several subgroups indicating considerably lower levels of understanding including apartment dwellers (3.65), 0-1 year Cary residents (4.10), and those with no internet access (4.62). Also exhibiting a degree of misunderstanding were $30,001-$50,000 income level (4.96), 18-25 age group (5.00), 2-5 year Cary residents (5.25), townhouse/condo dwellers (5.33), 6-10 year Cary residents (5.52), $70,001-$100,000 income level (5.52), and those without a college degree (5.55).

So clearly IRV is not the wonderful thing unaffected by socio-economic boundaries as claimed by FairVote!

But after all that - it was obvious that everything presented by the Town of Cary and IRV supporters dealt with the front-end of elections - the voting. Although a good chunk of people didn't understand IRV, and 25% of voters in the FairVote survey didn't know they were supposed to rank their choices, none of the info dealt with the back-side (or ass-end) of elections - the election administration and vote-counting.

And on this point, having two sitting council members (Frantz and Robison) who attended the 2007 IRV tabulation along with Perry Woods and myself was a major factor in why three other council members (Adcock, Robinson and Smith) had such problems with it.

First off, they didn't like the fact that Cary was once again being asked to be a guinea pig for IRV - why not let someone else do it? There was no information on what was proved in the 2007 pilot - which was something I had been asking to be done even before the election. So if they had no idea what the 2007 pilot proved, why then do another pilot in Cary? Good points for sure!

Then Frantz and Robison stated quite cleary something that I have been stating all along - the IRV tabulation procedures are lousy! As simple as some claimed they were, the Wake BOE couldn't follow them - and this was the council members saying it on the record, not just me. So if they couldn't follow them in 2007 - how could they be sure the same procedures would be used and followed in 2009? The big problems were with the hand-sorting by board memners and volunteers with no overhead projectors, along with the math and calculator errors - and of course the secret non-public recount that no one (not even the candidates) were invited to!

Add to that some last-minute plan to somehow use M-100s scanners to count the hand-sorted votes that had no details to it, and the council members were not very impressed. They wanted more details - and I suspect those details either don't exist yet, or if they do - using the M-100s in that way might not be legal. The Council members weren't impressed by any plan that still used problematic hand-sorting. So they decided to ask for more information from the Wake BOE and deal with it at another meeting in two weeks.

Other than some things that I heard from one particular council member that I couldn't believe he actually said and believed himself, that was the end of IRV at this particular meeting. Then the Council voted 6 to 1 to consider switching to the lower cost plurality election method - which will be cheaper still than using IRV with any method. Especially since IRV only delivers plurality victories based on the total number of votes cast in the 1st round - which if IRV supporters are going to be intellectually honest about it - is all that should count if they want to stick to their claims that IRV is one single election. You can't go changing the denominators of an election to manufacture a majority win if you want to still claim it's a single election.

But this did remind me of the 2007 Raleigh City Council meeting where I went up against Bartlett, Gilbert, Poucher and Hall on IRV. The Raleigh City Council decided to wait two weeks to gather more info, then came back and couldn't even gather support for a motion to use IRV - it died in chambers. When municipal leaders really have the time to study IRV, and they have access to all the information - it goes down in flames.

That is what happened in 2007. And last year when the City of Wilmington was considering a special law to allow them to use IRV (before there was a pilot extension bill), they backed out of it because they found out about the back-side problems as well as the majority failure issues and costliness. It was also because someone wrote the bill to require the use of IRV, not give them the option.

It's just like it says on my 2nd plate at the Flying Saucer: "VAX IS USSR" (anagram)

Chris Telesca

2nd IRV election in Burlington VT does not result in a majority winner!

Got a posting on another news group from Anthony Lorenzo, Florida IRV advocate who appears to post damn near everything issued by FairVote.

FairVote is the nation's leading pusher for IRV propaganda. Here is a link to the FairVote release in the Huffington Post:

Burlington’s Has Second Highly Successful Instant Runoff Voting Election

This year, with so many viable choices, no candidate won an outright majority of more than 50% of first choices – indeed, plurality winner Kurt Wright won only a third of the initial vote. The election went to an instant runoff tally. In the instant runoff, the candidates with the fewest votes were dropped, including independent Dan Smith and Democrat Andy Montroll, and the field was narrowed to two finalists. In the final instant runoff round, every ballot counted as a single vote for whichever of the two finalists, Progressive mayor Bob Kiss or Republican Kurt Wright, was ranked higher on each ballot. By 8:25 p.m. the IRV tally was completed and Kiss had been re-elected, defeating Wright in the final round by 51.5% to 48.5%.

Notice that the comments for that posting are closed - apparently Rob Richie doesn't want to have people post opposing viewpoints about IRV - or that his claims are false.

The press release claims that the second IRV election in Burlington VT was a success and that incumbent mayor Bob Kiss had a majority win over Republican Kurt Wright 51.5% to 48.5%.

Is that true? Notice that the total number of votes is not listed anywhere in the article. I had to go to the Burlington Free Press to get the numbers for the first round and the final round:

From http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=9941176&nav=menu183_2

Initial Round:

* Kurt Wright (R) 2952 - 32%
* Bob Kiss (P) 2585 - 28%
* Andy Montroll (D) 2065 - 23%
* Dan Smith (I) 1307 - 14%

So that is a total of 8909 votes

But in Burlington you need a majority to win and after two rounds of IRV, it was Kiss on top with 51.5 percent to Wright's 48.5.

Final Vote:

* Bob Kiss (P) 4313 - 51.5%
* Kurt Wright (R) 4061 - 48.5%

Wrong!

Bob Kiss had 4313 - or 48.41% of the original 8909, not 51.5%.
Kurt Wright had 4061 - or 45.58% of the original 8909, not 48.5%.

That is because the total number of votes for these two candidates in this round is 8374 - or 535 less than the original 8909 cast in the first round. That is why an IRV win is not a true majority win in all but one or two cases because you never really get a true majority of the first round votes cast.

Here is what happened - according to the Free Press:

According to an unofficial tally, Wright led after the first round of vote counting by 252 votes. After the second-choice votes of the fourth and fifth place finishers — independent Dan Smith and James Simpson of the Green Party — were redistributed, Wright still led by 213.

Wright lost when the 2,554 second-choice votes of third-place finisher Democrat Andy Montroll’s went to Kiss by a 2-1 margin.

How does Andy Montroll get 2,554 second-choice votes when he only got 2065 in the first round?

“I’ve heard so many people say this instant runoff system is flawed,” said John Pijanowski, a Wright supporter, after consoling Wright with a hug. “I hope he challenges this all the way to the highest court.”

Yes - I agree - it seems very flawed. And it does appear to advantage the incumbents because in rounds beyond the first, you might not know anything about the other challengers, so you might vote for the incumbent for no reason other than they already got the job. That is an advantage of incumbency.

On the other hand, had there been a separate runoff election and some campaigning between the top-two candidates, who knows who would have come out on top? While people who preferred Montrol as their first pick chose Kiss 2 to 1 over Wright in their 2nd or 3rd choices, we don't know the actual number of votes, or if they would have really picked Kiss over Wright if the race was only between them. That is precisely why RRO prefers traditional runoff elections OVER preferential balloting like RCV or IRV.

Even some colleges that vote on computers that don't count any of their votes the way we do in the real world admit that you have to take the total number of votes cast in the first round of an IRV race and use that as the threshold - you can't do what Burlington, Cary and so many others have done and have a gradually reducing threshold for your "preferential majority". Even the students at NCSU recognize that you might not have a true majority after all the ballots are exhausted - so you would need to have a second or runoff election. As we should have done in Cary and they should have done in Burlington.

Calling something a majority win when it is not a true majority is called many things - false advertising and fraud are two things that come to mind.