63% of Pierce County WA voters don't like Ranked Choice Voting that cost $4.14 per registered voter

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/government/story/559306.html

Results are in: 63 percent disliked Ranked Choice Voting
Auditor defends ranked choice
JOSEPH TURNER; joe.turner@thenewstribune.com
Published: December 6th, 2008 12:05 AM | Updated: December 6th, 2008 01:45 AM

90,738 Pierce County voters answered a questionnaire included with their ballots that asked, “Did you like this new Ranked Choice Voting method?”
The results:
Yes: 29,206 (32%)
No: 56,751 (63%)
Undecided: 4,781 (5%)

Pierce County spent a lot of money on a new voting method for a few county offices in November’s election, and most voters didn’t like it a bit.

Auditor Pat McCarthy said ranked-choice voting will cost county taxpayers about $1.7 million, which is half of the overall $3.4 million it cost to put on the 2008 general election.

Although Pierce County voters changed the county charter last year to allow the new voting method, it appears they’ve changed their collective mind. Two of three voters who responded to a survey were opposed to the concept.

“It was overwhelming,” McCarthy told members of the state Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee on Friday. “The majority did not like it.”

That was based on nearly 91,000 voters who filled out a questionnaire that accompanied mail-in ballots.

Ranked-choice voting, sometimes called instant runoff voting, allowed voters to indicate their first, second and third choice in a race. If no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the total number of votes in the first round of counting, the second choice on ballots of the last-place candidate are then counted. That continues until one candidate finally gets a majority.

McCarthy, who won a close election in a four-way race for county executive, joined election officials from Yakima and Chelan counties to give state lawmakers a report on the election. The state used online voter registration, and 37 of the 39 counties – all but King and Pierce – conducted their elections entirely by mail.

Pierce was the only county to use ranked-choice voting, and for only a few county races. Pierce voters got a second, conventional ballot to vote for president, governor, Congress and local races.

McCarthy said she considered the election “an amazing success,” even though she didn’t care much for the new method. She said the computer system and algorithms worked and that most voters understood how to fill out the ballots.

State Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, a committee member, took issue with that assessment.

“How can you say it was a success when voters didn’t know who the executive was for two weeks?” Roach asked. “That absolutely was a disaster.”

Processing ranked-choice ballots did slow down the tally, McCarthy said, but the method had nothing to do with how close the races were. Her own race for executive wasn’t decided until three weeks. But McCarthy pointed out that a couple of legislative races were so close that even using conventional voting methods, they required a recount and weren’t decided until earlier this week.

The decision to adopt the new voting method was approved by 53 percent of voters. McCarthy said she thinks voters were eager to switch to something else because they were still angry about the previous election when they were forced to pick a Democratic, Republican or other political party’s slate of candidates.

She said she hopes the County Council will give voters a chance to reconsider the charter amendment that created ranked-choice voting.

Susan Eidenschink, treasurer of the Tacoma-Pierce County League of Women Voters, blamed the long lines at the polls on Election Day on McCarthy’s decision to have fewer polling places.

“We’re interested in seeing it expanded,” she said of ranked choice. “We feel it definitely deserves more of a trial than this one election.”

Krist Novoselic, chairman of FairVote, echoed that sentiment. The former Nirvana bassist is now a local government official in rural Wahkiakum County and said he’s worked to get Memphis, Tenn., and Telluride, Colo., to try ranked-choice voting.

Committee chairwoman Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park, said she’s been listening for years to people and groups who are supporters of the new voting method, but she has no interest in seeing it extend beyond the borders of Pierce County.

“I’m with those folks who said they were confused,” Fairley said.

“This sounds just insane,” said Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, a committee member.

Joseph Turner: 253-597-8436

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/Elections/Archives/feb08/results.htm

Let's see - Pierce County had 411,103 registered voters for the November elections. Divide $3.4 million by 411,103 gives you $8.27 per registered voter. RCV cost them $1.7 million or $4.14 per registered voter.


Using the number of registered voters in NC obtained from the SBOE at
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/, multiply 6,286,207 registered voters times $4.14 and that gives you almost $26 million to do IRV in North Carolina in statewide races - not free or even as cheap at IRV supporters have claimed.

This is even more expensive than the cost estimates from three MD legislature fiscal studies ranging from $3.08 to over $3.50 per registered voter - not including costs for software and hardware that Peirce County supposedly used for their RCV race.

So how is doing a separate statewide runoff at $3.5 to $5 million across the state more expensive than doing IRV/RCV?

Chris Telesca

NC Voters - please sign this new petition!

Make sure to check out and sign my Petition to Support Election Integrity by waiting until we have legal procedures to pilot IRV in NC! at http://www.gopetition.com/online/20902.html

Actual Petition Language:

We the undersigned oppose any attempts by the North Carolina State Board of Elections, County Boards of Election, and any IRV advocacy groups to promote IRV and/or select communities to pilot IRV until goals, standards and criteria consistent with general election law are developed for implementation and evaluation of the IRV pilot program.

All is not well with the IRV elections in San Franscisco

IRV advocates are pushing IRV in North Carolina and pointing to successes in places like San Francisco. However, IRV is not doing as well as they would like you to believe.

A new report on the conditions of San Francisco’s elections dept was just released on July 3, 2008. That report also noted several problems with their IRV program after 4 years of doing IRV:

-their new Sequoia machines for RCV still haven’t been certified by the state (not federally certified either)
-they need a contingency plan for counting the RCV ballots if the new machines aren’t certified in time for the election,
-and they need more “public outreach” (voter ed) on ranked choice voting.

This is partly because there is no federally certified software yet. San Francisco is following California law that voting systems have to be federally certified.

...Another problem, according to the report, is the lack of certification by the California Secretary of State of San Francisco’s new Sequoia voting machines for ranked-choice voting, instituted in 2002 for elections to some city offices in order to avoid runoff elections. State certification was still pending at the time of the report.

With a high voter turnout expected for November’s presidential election, the Elections Department needs a contingency plan, an alternative method of counting ranked-choice ballots, in place in case the Sequoia machines are not certified by the election, the report concluded.

The report also said additional public outreach efforts are needed on voter registration requirements, ranked-choice voting and absentee voting.

The full report can be viewed at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/courts/divisions/Civil_Grand_Jur...
http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=SF-ELECTIONS-REPORT-ba...

former Wake BOE member Debra Goldberg says IRV threatens election integrity!

Following up on the Op-ed piece submitted to several NC newspapers by his daughter-in-law Elena Everett, Wake BOE chair John Gilbert wrote a letter to the editor of the Raleigh News and Observer about IRV that was published in yesterday's paper.

Former Wake BOE member Debra Goldberg contacted our legislators and asked them to say "NO" to the IRV pilot in S 1263. Since she is taking care of some personal family business, I asked for and received permission to share her comments on the lists::

This is part of her own action alert message to her friends:

From: dgoldbergvote2008@earthlink.net
To: dgoldbergvote2008@earthlink.net
Subject: ACTION ALERT!! IRV pilot threatens the viability of NC's Verified Voting law
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:33:28 -0400

I was on the Wake County Board of Elections when the first pilot for IRV was held in Wake County – Cary, last fall. I am convinced that IRV, even if it saves money, which is highly questionable, is not practical, to implement while still protecting the integrity of our votes.

Protecting our democracy by keeping our verified voting standards is not a special or partisan issue. North Carolina voters of every background (republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, disabled groups, minority groups, mainstream groups) agree that we do not want any changes to our voting which may, in any way, compromise the integrity of our votes. Please join in our effort to halt IRV in NC. Ask your friend to do so too.

Here is what she e-mailed to the legislators:

Subject: S 1263-say no to IRV pilot

---

Please say no to adding an IRV pilot to S 1263 or any other bill. We want no more Instant Runoff Experiments. Our votes are too precious.

I was on the Wake County Board of Elections when the first pilot for IRV was held in Wake County – Cary, last fall. I am one of only a few people in NC who has direct experience implementing IRV. I can tell you that IRV has few, if any, benefits and many serious problems.

Our Wake County Board of Elections counted the IRV votes by hand during the pilot. It was a small municipal election and only one race went to instant runoff. Based on my experience with even that one small experiment, I am convinced that IRV, even if it saves money, which is highly questionable, is not practical to implement while still protecting the integrity of our votes. Hand counting is too difficult, staff intensive, cost intensive, facilities intensive, monitoring intensive, time intensive, and too subject to error and question to be practical. And as an additional significant concern, if we were to accept IRV, in order to count IRV votes we would surely be pressured (in fairly short order due to the complexities, huge staffing time requirements etc. associated with hand counting) to accept questionable software on undesirable electronic touch screen voting machines. Because there is no certified software, anywhere in the US, to count IRV, IRV will, by necessity, lead to a push to strip standards from our verified voting law in order to automate the counting of IRV votes, using untested software, thus compromising our exemplary NC verified voting laws.

The rationale for IRV, that we can save money on expensive low turnout runoffs, is just not true. What the proponents of IRV don’t tell people is that IRV is very expensive when all cost factors are considered as well as cumbersome and difficult to administer. To accurately and impartially assess the true costs of IRV, one must consider all cost factors: staff, facilities, storage, security, education, the high costs associated with hand counting, etc. And if we were to accept new software and electronic touch screen voting as standard in order to accommodate IRV, we need to figure in the costs of the machines, of replacing them every couple of years, of maintaining them, of buying the software, of keeping the software running, of staffing the problems associated with them on election days etc..

Protecting our democracy by keeping our verified voting standards is not a special or partisan issue. North Carolina voters of every background (republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, and many others) agree that we do not want any changes to our voting which may, in any way, compromise the integrity of our votes. IRV has already, and will if expanded or continued, cost NC dearly in voter integrity while producing few if any other benefits and creating many complications to our voting system.

The previous IRV pilot authorized by the NC Legislature allowed for 10 cities in 2007 and 10 counties in 2008 to participate. Two cities, Cary and Hendersonville agreed to participate. Every other city saw too many complications and declined participation. The pilot expired.

That some interests are still pursuing IRV leads me to question their motives. IRV is cumbersome, expensive, difficult, prone to compromises in our security and trust in our elections, so why would the IRV advocates be pushing it so strongly?

Most other states in the US do not hold statewide runoff elections. If NC wants to cut costs, I would urge lawmakers to consider joining these other states rather than adopting IRV and compromising the integrity of our votes.

I would be glad to discuss with you my experiences on the Board of Elections and with IRV should you feel I may be of additional help to you.

Again, I urge you to squash the efforts to expand or continue Instant Runoff Voting in North Carolina. IRV is unproven and likely expensive and difficult. We must protect our democracy by protecting the integrity of our votes. I am counting on you to help protect NC voters.

Sincerely,
Debra D. Goldberg
Email: dgoldbergvote2008@earthlink.net

Action Alert - protect election integrity in NC by opposing IRV!

Here is a very important action item for election integrity in NC from Joyce McCloy with NC Verified Voting:

This is a CRITICAL action alert. Please share this message with anyone who cares about verified voting and wants to keep our Public Confidence in Elections Law intact.

We have voters from every background (liberal, conservative, disabled groups, minority groups) who agree they don't want their votes experimented with, they don't want more confusing ballots, and they don't want the paper ballot law compromised.

Take action now or be sorry later!

Rep Luebke has asked to have the IRV Pilot Program "extended" by adding it as an amendment to an existing election bill, S 1263. The excuse is that we need IRV so we won't have to spend money on expensive low turnout runoffs. But IRV is expensive! They don't tell lawmakers that.

The House Election Law Committee will be discussing Luebke's amendment on Wednesday, July 2 at 1:00 PM.

Please send an email to the House Election Law Committee and also cc your own lawmakers - its their job to protect their constituents. My email to lawmakers is lower down:

Melanieg@ncleg.net;Joek@ncleg.net;paull@ncleg.net;Deborahr@ncleg.net;Angelab@ncleg.net;Waltc@ncleg.net;Billcu@ncleg.net;Susanf@ncleg.net;Priceyh@ncleg.net;Georgeho@ncleg.net;Carolynju@ncleg.net;Davidl@ncleg.net;Grierm@ncleg.net;Mickeym@ncleg.net;Pauls@ncleg.net;Edgars@ncleg.net

verlai@ncleg.net; elliek@ncleg.net;

Chairman Rep. Goodwin
Vice Chairman Rep. Kiser
Vice Chairman Rep. Luebke
Vice Chairman Rep. Ross
Members Rep. Bryant, Rep. Church, Rep. Current,
Rep. Fisher, Rep. Harrison, Rep. Holmes,
Rep. Justice, Rep. Lewis, Rep. Martin,
Rep. Michaux, Rep. Stam, Rep. Starnes

Subject: S 1263-say no to IRV pilot

Please say no to adding an IRV pilot to S 1263 or any other bill.

No more Instant Runoff Experiments. Our votes are too precious.

We are told that Rep Luebke will ask to amend SB 1263 to extend the Pilot Program for Instant Runoffs.
The title of the bill is "Election Law Amendments" and is here:
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007++&BillID=sb+1263

If you recall, the previous pilot allowed for 10 cities in 2007 and 10 counties in 2008 to participate. Two cities, Cary and Hendersonville
participated, and no counties volunteered. The pilot expired. The people have spoken!

Cary was a disaster: besides the miscounting of the ballots, the provisional votes were not counted until after the "instant runoff"
was run. I don't know how you can "add back in" the provisional ballots after counting all three rounds of votes, do you?
In a inner office memo, the State Board of Elections admitted that IRV was too dangerous to try during the May 2008 primary.

In addition to the obvious problems with Instant Runoff (IRV) including that our machines can't handle it, many of our standards for voting systems
and vendors would be have to be lowered to allow this experimental voting system. Recounts and auditing elections are exponentially more complex
with IRV as well.

If the state is anxious to end statewide runoffs, then they could easily abolish them and join about 42 other states who do not have statewide runoffs.

The fact is that IRV is a well intentioned idea that produces unintended consequences, and fails to deliver as promised. It does not save money, is confusing and violates the KISS principle of elections (Keep it Simple). If we had a parlimentary system where you just voted for the party, and not mulitiple individuals for office, it might make sense.

Let some other state work out the many problems with IRV implimentation and voter education.

Why does North Carolina have primary runoffs? Most states don't
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/runoffelections.html

Kentucky repealed its provision to hold gubernatorial primary runoff elections in April 2008.
http://migration.kentucky.gov/Newsroom/sos/article162.htm

IRV disenfranchises everyone. Remember the long time voter in Hendersonville:

Oct 19, 2007 Voter finds new system frustrating By Harrison Metzger Times-News.

Hendersonville: Bill Modlin wasn't happy with his first experience with the new "instant runoff" voting when he cast his

ballot for Hendersonville City Council on Thursday. ..."It doesn't make any sense to me, and I can guarantee you because

of the way they have it set up there are people in this town that are going to lose their vote," he said. ...

"I call it instant confusion," he said. (Cached) Blue Ridge Now Oct 19.

http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/IRV_Oct_19_Voter_finds_new_system_frustrating.pdf

North Carolina, Instant Runoff Voting and the Flying Car
http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/2008/06/north-carolina-and-instant-runoff.html

Instant Runoff was a disaster in Cary North Carolina
http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/2008/06/instant-runoff-was-disaster-in-cary.html

On May 6, 15,000 ballots in Wake County and 2,500 in Mecklenburg County were double counted,[1] and 4,000 were omitted in Onslow County.[2]

[1]May 8, 2008 Mecklenburg, Wake find vote flaws News 14 Carolina, NC

http://news14.com/content/top_stories/595595/mecklenburg--wake-find-vote-flaws/Default.aspx

[2] May 9, 2008 Thousands of votes missed in Tuesday tallies Jacksonville Daily News, NC

http://www.jdnews.com/news/votes_56535___article.html/board_onslow.html

Intellectually dishonest claims for IRV

Recent pro-IRV op-ed pieces, letters to the editor and blog entries have claimed the statewide runoff election for Labor Commissioner cost about $4 million to operate almost 3,000 polling places across the state for about 75,000 voters - about more than $50 a voter. And some supporters are pushing to extend the IRV pilot for another 3 years starting in 2009 - with little or any real discussion of the issues.

It's not intellectually honest to calculate election costs that way. And we really need to have a open discussion and debate about IRV someplace other than a committee meeting dominated by pro-IRV lobbyists.

If you really want to calculate election costs, you do it based on the on the number of registered voters - not on the number of voters who turn out. And so if a runoff cost about $4 million, that works out to be 69 cents per registered voter this year, and 17 cents each year spread out over 4 years (which is how often you have needed a runoff). If you use $3.5 million, it's even cheaper - 60 cents per registered voter this year and 15 cents per year spread out over 4 years.

Our own General Assembly doesn't know how much it would cost to implement IRV. That is because so far they have let the State Board of Elections staff and non-profit IRV advocates run the show. Other states don't let advocates call all the shots. The Maryland General Assembly considered IRV three times - in 2001, 2006 and 2008 - and each time it failed. But at least they did fiscal studies to determine costs for implementing IRV - and those costs are high. If you use the $3.08 to $3.52 costs per registered voter from the Maryland General Assembly fiscal studies for the first year implementation and 48 cents voter education each year after that you are looking at taking the costs per year for the first 4 years of IRV between $1.01 and $1.13 - a whole lot more expensive than 15 to 17 cents for traditional runoff elections that don't get used often. And you gotta spend that money even if you get a winner without the IRV tabulation.

But it would cost $18 million to implement IRV statewide even if all candidates crossed the threshold with the first column votes. By the presidential election year of 2040, you are looking at spending between $37 million and $67 million more with IRV than with traditional elections and a separate runoff election. Does it make sense to always have to pay a lot of money for something you may not even need to use, or pay a little money for something whenever you need it? And what is the cost of lowered election integrity and public confidence in elections if the average citizen saw how badly the Wake BOE did the Cary IRV tabulation? Do you think that the public wants a non-profit to manage a pilot program that the General Assembly charged the SBOE with running? Do you think they wanted FairVote and The Election Reform Society to pay for Johnnie McLean to travel to Scotland to observe their elections and write a glowing report on their election - but not even show up for the Cary IRV tabulation?

We would do better to spend money on voter education and increasing voter turnout at all our elections rather than spending it on a complex, confusing and costly method that won't do a thing to increase voter turnout for the first election.

Rep. Paul Luebke from Durham is already pushing for an extension of his 2006 IRV pilot program bill. He has already amended a Senate Election Law bill (SB1263) to extend the pilot program. And even though some members of the committee that is considering that bill are aware of the risks IRV posed to the May primary election - they are still going to vote in favor of the bill.

Why - because they care getting a distorted report on the results of the pilot - consisting almost exclusively of information from IRV advocacy groups. Do you think they know that the Hendersonville didn't need to tabulate IRV for their elections, and that Wake County BOE didn't follow the SBOE procedures and screwed up the IRV tabulation?

Rep. Luebke claims that he wants to have a discussion about IRV if and when he returns to the General Assembly in 2009. Maybe we should have that discussion NOW, before we talk about extending the pilot? Especially when the SBOE knew there was a risk in using it for the May 2008 primary election.

Chris Telesca