| |
Instant Runoff Elections
Fact Versus Fiction
Discussing the talking points from Democracy for NC's website, posted in blue here
|
| “Fulfilling the Promise of One Person One Vote |
|
Voters are asked to rank up to three candidates per contest. If you don't make a 2nd or 3rd choice, your ballot carries less weight than other voters' ballots. IRV is multiple elections rolled into one. |
|
Instant Runoff Voting Pilot in N.C. - Easy as 1, 2, 3
A Pilot Program to Address Expensive, Low Turnout Runoff Elections |
|
What it is: A 2006 law (H-1024) allows up to 10 cities in 2007 and 10 counties in 2008 to use a rank-voting method, with county and State Board of Elections approval, to avoid the expense and problems of runoff elections. Cary and Hendersonville are the only volunteers this year. The cities of Asheville, Atlantic Beach, Raleigh, and Rocky Mount turned IRV down. Kinston apparently volunteered, but the home county of Lenoir has had a series of election problems in 2006 and might not be eligible.
Access for Disabled Voters: According to a poll collected by Disability Scotland, an organization advocating for the rights of the disabled, 36% stated that STV (their name for Instant Runoff Voting) made it more difficult to vote, in comparison to 16% who stated that it made it easier to vote. Full report |
The benefits:
Instant runoff voting would do everything the current runoff system does to ensure that the winner has popular support – but it does it in one election rather than two. |
|
IRV merely creates the illusion of a majority (and a false mandate). Once 2nd & 3rd choices are tallied (if nobody got a majority of first choices) the winner has only an artificially fabricated majority.
In the Cary, NC instant runoff experiment in Oct 2007, the winner of the District B contest took office receiving less than 40 percent of the first-choice votes cast, and less than 50 percent of the votes of people who showed up on Election Day. (See "Instant Runoff Needs Scrutiny" ) |
|
It saves counties, taxpayers and candidates money now used to hold two elections. |
|
IRV creates new costs and complicates elections even while eliminating the traditional runoff.
Operational costs: IRV increases costs to taxpayers in voter education, ballot printing and counting, computer software or even new voting machines.
New Machines: North Carolina's voting machines are not IRV compatible and there is no certified software available to automate it.
Manual labor sorting: Current options for optical scan counties are the laborious sorting, stacking and re-tallying schemes.
Tricky uncertified workaround for touch screen counties: the NC SBoE has developed an un-certified work around that circumvents the Public Confidence in Elections Law so as to avoid the manual method. This solution is complex that one slip on the keyboard by an administrator could skew or flip the election results.
Costs to candidates: campaigning will be more complicated as savvy political consultants learn how to game the system in their advantage. As campaigning becomes more complex, a political consultant even would be needed even more, to address issues of strategy. Candidates also have to work harder to educate their supporters.
Costs double this year for largest IRV jurisdiction in the US: San Francisco's Elections Department forecasts doubling their budget in 2007-2008 from the $9,126,318 FY 2006-2007 budget to a proposed $19,809,917 for FY 2007-2008, an increase of $10,683,599 or 117.1 percent.
A study of San Francisco's costs since 2000 show no decrease in election expenditures. |
|
It ensures higher voter turnout than when voters are asked to return for a runoff …elects candidates with higher voter turnout |
|
IRV would have prevented the increase in turnout seen in the Nov 07, 2007 runoff election in Rocky Mount, NC. See Councilwoman wins by big margin By Eric Klamut Rocky Mount Telegram on Nov. 07, 2007. More voters turned out in the runoff election than did in the first election. Lois Watkins, trailed Tom Looney by 12 votes in the October election, but nearly doubled her vote count in the runoff, winning with 60% of the ballots cast. This couldn't have happened with an "instant runoff election".
Voter turnout has decreased in San Francisco since the implementation of IRV. San Francisco had 100,000 fewer voters in the 2007 IRV mayoral election than in the traditional mayoral runoff in 2003
Decreased turnout in NY with IRV. New York City used preferential ranked choice voting for electing its school boards until 1999, and had exceptionally low turnout. Since 2003, the school boards were abolished and NY has direct control of the school system by the mayor. One of the reasons for abolishing school board elections was extraordinarily low turnout of about 3% of the electorate in the last several elections.
Turnout is determined by the public's interest in the election:
“To put it plainly, timing is almost everything when it comes to turnout in municipal elections. We found that numerous factors account for these differing levels of voter participation. For example, cities that provide more public services with their own staffs (as …In general, cities that hold local elections concurrently with statewide and/or national elections draw far bigger shares of the electorate to the polls.“Instant Runoffs,” Election Timing,and Voter Turnout By Paul Lewis Nov. 1, 2002 SPUR member Paul Lewis is Program Director for Governance and Public Finance at the Public Policy Institute of California |
| It makes government more representative – more choices of more citizens matter |
|
IRV puts a greater burden on the voter. Exit polls of Cary show that 25% weren’t prepared to participate in ranking choices, and in Hendersonville, Over 35% weren’t prepared. Those numbers are likely to worsen if they follow the trend shown in San Francisco. In 2005, only 54% of voters came to the polls expecting to rank choices, down from 67% in 2004.See An Assessment of Ranked-Choice Voting in the San Francisco 2005 Election
It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents. AustralianPolitics.com |
| It eases the burden on election officials who run one election, not two |
|
The convenience of election officials should not trump the best interest of the voters. “To me this is something that would certainly serve the convenience of the board of elections… but it's certainly not in the best interest of the voting public.” April 3, 2007 Raleigh City Council member Tommy Craven
Some of the Wake BOE Election Offices’ burden was shifted to a volunteer work force. Fair Vote NC and the League of Women Voters were recruiting volunteers to assist voters at the polls. The exit poll study was devised and analyzed pro bono by Professor Mike Cobb, of NC State University. Bob Hall of Democracy For NC, a group advocating for IRV “managed” the exit poll. |
|
It maintains state supervision by the State Board of Elections over the whole process. |
|
If the State Board of Elections was supervising the IRV Pilot Program, then why was it so hard to get information about it from the SBOE?
The Pilot Program was managed by NC SBOE Deputy Director Johnnie McLean, Voting Project Manager Keith Long and Bob Hall of Democracy for NC, a group advocating for IRV. Hall obtained pro bono help from a Raleigh PR firm to help with the public service bits, managed the exit poll of the Cary election, (according to a joint press release with Professor Mike Cobb).
The website domain name that the Wake County Board of Elections used is registered to national IRV proponent Rob Richie , Director of FairVote .
Advocates for IRV are promoting this as a “done deal”. Fair Vote NC employee, Elena Everett described IRV as an “adopted” method of voting at Craig’s list: “This year, Cary adopted a new method for voting for the Town Council elections, called instant runoff voting. By combining a regular election and a runoff into a single election, Cary elects majority winners without the expense of a separate, and often poorly attended, runoff election” 9/19/2007 |
It improves campaign tone; candidates want their opponents’ voters to rank them #2. and reduces negative campaigning because candidates seek a #2 ranking from their opponents’ supporters |
|
IRV did not improve campaign tone in Cary North Carolina, nor has it improved campaign tone in San Francisco, the largest IRV jurisdiction in the country.
See this example of negative campaigning in Cary North Carolina during their IRV election. The candidates also post their reactions in this forum.
And in San Francisco: “Negative campaigning. It was a vote winning argument for Proposition A but it's a myth. In fairness, hit pieces often perform a service to the electoral process. They hold individuals...to account. They also are a major deterrent to all kinds of bad habits...
But there is no evidence IRV is stemming the flow of hit pieces. In the 2004 supervisor contests Districts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 all witnessed negative campaigning.” John Dunbar. Beyond Chron . A San Francisco online paper.
Smearing for IRV By Samson Wong, Jul 18, 2003 ...IRV supporters are conducting a nasty campaign to smear the Chinese American Voters Education Committee, a group concerned about IRV’s potential to confuse and disenfranchise more than 15,000 voters who use Chinese-language ballots. |
Where it is used: [update: see www.CaryVotes123.com for Cary’s pilot]
• Utah: Since 2002, the Republican Party has used IRV at state conventions to choose congressional and statewide nominees. “It sounded complicated, but we discovered that voters had no difficulty with the rank-order ballots,” Mark Shurtleff (R-Atty Gen). |
| True. This statement is actually correct and documented here . |
|
• Louisiana: More than 10,000 overseas and out-of-state military voters received IRV ballots. Arkansas and South Carolina now have similar laws. |
|
These states have their primaries extremely close to the runoff dates, and used IRV as a way out instead of correcting the actual problem. I could not find a source to advise how many overseas ballots were actually completed, nor how many voters had ranked the candidates.
Instant Runoff Balloting: Tuesday marks the first time the state will offer instant run-off voting, albeit to a limited population of military and overseas voters.
The decision to adopt the practice, which is currently used in a handful of municipalities for local votes and statewide for military and overseas voters in Arkansas and Louisiana, was a response to threats from the federal government over South Carolina’s short gap between the primary and run-off votes. ...Lawmakers responded, and pushed through a bill, signed into law in March, allowing for instant-runoff voting for overseas and military voters. (Electionline 2006 Primary ) |
|
• Vermont & Maryland: Burlington, VT began using IRV in mayoral elections in 2006, with 99.9% of voters casting a valid ballot. Takoma Park, MD, now uses it, too. |
|
True, Takoma Park Maryland did have an election in 2006 (after approving IRV) - on 204 ballots. There was no "runoff" of the second choice of those 204 voters. It was counted by hand; it would be ridiculous to do otherwise.
“In November 2006, a member of the city council from Ward 5 was elected to the county council. When his seat became vacant, a special election was called. The election took place on January 30, 2007, using IRV for the first time...When first choices were counted, the results were as follows, with Reuben Snipper winning on the first count...”-Exit poll survey by Fair Vote
Takoma Parks’ second election (2007) since approving IRV is being described as Government of the People, by the People . . . Without the People by Marc Fisher of the Washington Post in an Oct 30, 2007 article. “When the deadline for filing to run for mayor or City Council passed, only one person in the entire town of 17,000 souls stepped forward to mount a challenge. The mayor and five of the six ward council members will be elected in uncontested votes.” |
|
• California: San Francisco began using IRV in 2004. The city expects to save at least $15 million over 10 years… |
|
San Francisco had 418,285 registered voters in Nov 2006.Their current budget is almost 10 times that of Wake County's budget. San Francisco forecasts doubling their budget
San Francisco’s new expenses include special voting software, special poll worker training, more laborious and costly recounts, and IRV related voter education costing about $1.87 per registered voter .
The Department of Election’s proposed $19,809,917 budget for FY 2007-2008 is $10,683,599 or 117.1 percent more than the original FY 2006-2007 budget of $9,126,318.
Compare that to Wake County North Carolina, which has been in at under $2 million a year subtracting income from expenditures) from 1999 to 2004 with 460,821 reg voters in 2004. |
| and 99.5% of voters cast a valid ballot. (San Francisco) |
|
Frances Matthew, Pollworker & FED Training Supervisor Dept of Elections San Francisco comments on the “valid ballot” claim in an email dated 10/03/2007:
‘To get some idea of the "valid" (not a term I've heard used in-house) number of ballots for RCV, have a look at the result from November 2006 at http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=61497 and click on the RCV races for District 4 & 6 which show (and define) eligible, exhausted and total ballots. . (All even-number districts were up for election; Districts 2,8, 10 had a majority winner in the first round, so there was no "instant run off" to compute.) |
|
• Other cities: Minneapolis and cities in MI and WA are set to begin using IRV in 2008. |
|
The Minnesota Voters Alliance is seeking legal remedy to the IRV mandate, based on constitutional arguments.
Pierce County Washington adopted IRV and soon was forced into an all Vote By Mail program to address the complexity and burdens placed by IRV.
Pierce County elections chief wants to switch to mail-only voting SEAN COCKERHAM; The News Tribune June 21st, 2007
McCarthy said the county’s new instant runoff voting system, also known as ranked-choice voting, will require at least one additional ballot for each voter in the 2008 election. That could overwhelm poll workers in what will be a high-turnout election....
Here is a blog opposing the forced Vote By Mail in Pierce Co. |
|
Universities: Many colleges and universities use IRV for student government elections, including: Wake Forest, William and Mary, Clemson, Princeton, Rice, Univ. of Virginia. |
| This claim has not been independently verified. Fair Vote does list links to the schools websites, but not to any site or source that states that the schools have adopted or use IRV. |
|
• Organizations: Many firms and groups use it to elect their board of directors, including the American Political Science Assn. |
| This is true but misleading. The reality as of 2006 is that there is no visible consensus among either political scientists, economists, or mathematicians about the best single-winner voting system. See this table at The Center for Range Voting. |
| It’s recommended by Roberts Rules of Order. |
| False. Robert's rules do not recommend "Instant Runoff Voting." which was a political name made up to promote single-user STV in the United States. Roberts Rules does mention voting methods similar to IRV, but that is not the same as an endorsement. |
| • Heisman trophy: Even the winners of this prize are picked by rank-choice voting. |
| IRV is not used to select the Heisman trophy winner. Proof at the Heisman website here .
The key sentences from the Heisman.com page are: The actual ballots include a space for electors to designate three individuals for the Heisman Trophy. The first choice on an elector's ballot receives three points in the overall voting tabulation, the second choice receives two points and the third choice receives one point...Ballots are void unless signed by the elector. A first, second and third choice must be indicated on each ballot. The Heisman Committee created the point system in an effort to eliminate any sectional favoritism.
So: this is a point system, NOT an elimination system like IRV.
--the Heisman system is simpler than IRV. It can be handled by ordinary "dumb totalizing" voting machines. It can be counted in "precincts" using "subtotals" (IRV cannot, see http://rangevoting.org/IrvNonAdd.html ). The Heisman system is "monotonic" i.e. increasing your vote for somebody can help and cannot hurt their chances. |
|
Prepared by Democracy North Carolina (919-286-6000, www.democracy-nc.org). Also see www.fairvote.org |
|
"IRV is simply a voting system. It gives the electorate a new set of tools, but it asks an enormous amount of voters, news organizations and endorsement groups. The jury on this San Francisco experiment is still out, but IRV to date falls short of its backers expectations." – John Dunbar, in IRV Not Meeting Expectations for “Beyond Chron”. | |
|
|
|
|
|
