Commissioner Leah S. Vines Pinetops Was Elected Secretary During The Edgecombe County Democratic Party Meeting/James Knight Jr. Spoke On Modern Technology

The Edgecombe County Democratic Party met on Thursday, September 16, 2010 to discuss the November Election. The party also voted Commissioner Leah S. Vines as the county secretary to replace Clara Knight who recently resigned her post. Genoetry Penny-Boone served as the acting secretary for the meeting however she serves on the District level.

Chairman Allen Mitchell chaired the meeting as the Democrats discussed party issues. The party voted on trying to open a headquarters by the end of the month in downtown Tarboro.

Elected officials present were the Honorables NC House Rep. Joe Pat Tolson and Jean Farmer-Butterfield, Clerk of Court Carol Allen White, Register of Deeds Robin Carpenter. Sheriff James Knight was unable to attend however his wife Margaret Knight secretary of her precinct and son James Knight Jr. were present to represent him.

IRV – Instant Runoff Voting was brought up because the seat that was vacated by Judge James (Jim) Wynn on the NC Court of Appeals will be decided in that fashion while all other races will be done in the traditional voting style.

Yours truly spoke about how I am not encouraged by our local party and that we need to get to work. I said it is fine that we talk about our concerns on the National and State levels but what are we doing in Edgecombe County? I said we need to come together as Democrats and have some rallys, forums and etc. I don’t know of a rally since I was the interim chair back in the late 90’s.

Martha Johnson a longtime Democrat and party worker spoke about her concerns that the party from the National to the State to the County need to do more especially as it relates to modern technology.

Pinetops Commissioner Florence Pender spoke about how the party needs to be talking about how we are fired up and ready to go. She agreed with Johnson.

James Knight Jr. the youngest Democrat present who introduced himself as an educator spoke about using modern technology such as FACEBOOK and TWITTER to get the young folks involved. He spoke about how the OBAMA campaign motivated young folks to get involved with the election process during the last Presidential Election. He spoke about how he set up his dad’s FACEBOOK page the Honorable Sheriff James Knight Sr.

Several campaign signs were available for Democrats to take home.

Learn more about IRV – Instant Runoff Voting.

Note: Click on everything in blue for links to more information.

See related:

IRV – Instant Runoff Voting and the NC Court of Appeals (Judges) Election 2010

IRV – Instant Runoff Voting

IRV – Instant Runoff Voting and the NC Court of Appeals (Judges) Election 2010

Judge Cressie Thigpen was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Judge James (Jim) Wynn. There are 13 candidates who will be running to replace Wynn during the November election however the race will not be the norm but will be decided by IRV – Instant Runoff Voting.

I posted the following link recently.The upcoming election for the Court of Appeals seat being vacated by Judge Wynn will be decided by IRV

Check out how complicated IRV is in the following link. Kiss Wins in Instant Runoff Voting.

Read more here about IRV.

I have had Joyce McCloy on my the local cable station in Rocky Mount over the years talking about IRV and the voting process. You can visit her website to see all the research about IRV.

Thank you my friend Joyce McCloy NC Coalition for Verified Voting for all that you do especially the research on IRV.

See this link as to what would have happened in Rocky Mount during a recent election if they had chose to use IRV.

Note: We discussed this briefly at our Democratic Party Meeting on last night. I didn’t really try to explain it because it is too complicated and a person need to read it for themselves. Click on everything in blue to read more about IRV. I hope this will give you and idea of what we will be facing as it relates to IRV.

There is a lot of work to be done in individual counties to educate the voters. This is why there is a need for each county party to use modern day free technology like Blogging, FACEBOOK, TWITTER and etc. When the county parties are not in session the county officers must be busy. Time is winding down so it is time to get your technology on.

http://www.dcntv.org/
http://www.thepoliticalagitator.com
http://www.facebook.com/Curmilus.Dancy
http://twitter.com/Curmilus

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. (Source: NC Coalition For Verified Voting)

North Carolina runoff elections? Instant Runoff Voting is no answer

SUNDAY, JUNE 20, 2010

North Carolina runoff elections? Instant Runoff Voting is no answer

North Carolina has a statewide runoff election on June 22, 2010. Some groups are suggesting that North Carolina should resort to "instant runoffs" in order to avoid costly low turnout elections. Don’t be fooled, implementing IRV in North Carolina is not feasible and would have unintended consequences. IRV has never been used for a statewide election. North Carolina should not be the guinea pig for such a drastic experiment. IRV is as well intentioned but flawed election method.

A better solution is to not have runoff elections at all. 42 states do not hold statewide runoff elections. [ Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City Aug 8, 2006]

Instant runoff voting is no solution: IRV is not not instant, is not fair to voters, does not provide the same results as a one to one runoff election, often fails to provide a majority win, is complex to count, costly to administer and can create chaos.

Instant runoff voting is not feasible for statewide elections. Cary North Carolina had trouble just counting 3,000 IRV votes correctly in 2007. Keith Long, Voting Systems Project Manager for the NC State Board of Elections said that implementing IRV was "like trying to put a square tire on a car."

IRV is difficult and complex to count:
"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

IRV increases reliance on more complex technology, making audits and recounts more prohibitive, further eroding election transparency. Because IRV is not additive, no matter what voting system is used, the ballots, (electronic or optical scan) have to be hauled away from where they are cast to a central location to be counted. This increases the chance of fraud or lost votes. IRV tallying software utilizes a complex algorithm that makes the process even more opaque.http://tinyurl.com/tally-irv

IRV was too dangerous to use in local jurisdictions in 2008:

"We can use November 2007 as a pilot and not use IRV in May 2008 because it poses too much of a risk. May request change in legislation for retesting IRV with certified upgrades in 2009." ~ NC State Board of Elections March 6, 2007 (There were no certified upgrades).

If you thought the Minnesota US Senate recount was lengthy, laborious and contentious, how much more so would an IRV recount be? Why endanger public confidence in elections? Once you obligate to IRV, your backs will be against the wall – ready or not, IRV will take priority over reliability, accuracy, affordability, and transparency.
The realities of counting IRV: Cary & Hendersonville are the only cities in the entire state of North Carolina to participate in instant runoff voting pilots. The IRV votes came into play in Cary District B in 2007- the winner had 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. The election officials couldn’t even count just 3000 IRV votes correctly.

Instant runoff voting – counting by hand a nightmare? tallying IRV in Cary NC in 2007. (Optical Scan Ballots)

It was difficult to count just 3,000 ballots correctly. Officials had to manually tally the IRV results for the Cary, NC “instant runoff”. There was confusion during the counting and ballots were miscounted and not properly allocated to the candidates. Friday, the day after the "runoff" or count of the 2nd round, the election director performed an audit, according to the media. Errors were discovered and the audit extended into a full blown recount…

….According to Chris Telesca who observed the IRV counting in Wake County, NC, to hand-process a little over 3000 paper ballots (after the first choice votes were counted on the op-scan machines) when there were only 3 candidates plus a few write-ins for the Cary district B, single member town council seat, and the counting went only two rounds

it took 6 sorting stacks for each of 12 ballot groupings or precincts (8 precincts plus absentee by mail in Cary, board of elections one-stop site, the Cary one-stop site, provisional ballots- Cary, and possibly some transfer votes from another county which were eligible to vote in the Cary IRV contest) or 12 times 6 stacks = 72 stacks.

Wake County officials decided to put each stack in a separate plastic bag to keep track. This would not be possible if there were more than one IRV contest because each contest requires independent sorting and stacking to count.

The procedure was very complicated, but it was there in print. Even so, the Wake Board of Elections (BOE) didn’t follow it. There was no overhead projector so that observers could follow the process. Non Board members were sorting the ballots into stacks which was hard to follow. Nonetheless, observers and the Board came up with different totals at the end of the day. The next day, the different totals were determined to be caused by a calculator error that was discovered in an “audit” – that also discovered a few missing votes…Just 3,000 ballots!

Hendersonville used IRV in 2007 & 2009 & never counted or reported any of the IRV votes. There is no federally approved software to count instant runoff voting so the NC State BoE set up a complex "workaround" to help out Henderson County, NC, a touchscreen jurisdiction. See Instant Runoff – If I Were Crazy, I’d Count Votes THIS Way…There are over 100 steps in the process. Luckily there was no "runoff" in either election so the work around was not used.
Do voters understand Instant Runoff Voting? IRV leaves some voters behind:

Cary, North Carolina tried Instant Runoff Voting in 2007 and said No More. The results of Cary NC’s2008 bi-annual citizen survey indicate that a significant percent of voters do not understand IRV. 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. Keep in mind that Cary is the city with the most Ph.D.s per capita in the U.S. for towns larger than 75,000 people

Hendersonville NC voters poll: 19.4% of Hendersonville NC voters polled came to the polls in 2009 unprepared to rank their choices according to a survey by Professor Michael Cobb. of NCSU .

Cary Town Council member Don Frantz, who was elected by IRV said

"When our town agreed to IRV in 2007, it was kind of rush job..There was a lot of pushback, the public wasn’t involved … I do not like instant runoff voting and have given my reasons as to why many times. I’ll take in elections over funny math and 30% voter confusion any day."

Chuck Herrin, a certified white hat hacker and IT certification specialist advised North Carolina lawmakers that:

"IRV introduces a more confusing system in terms of audit ability and security, since the ballots are more complex and normal indicators such as exit polls will not be able to easily reflect IRV results. Tracing back the will of the voter in the event of problems or fraud would be more difficult with IRV until a reliable procedure and design is in place, and any abuses are much less likely to be detected since the whole point of the IRV system is avoiding recounts."

Does IRV save money? We can’t measure if IRV has truly saved money in North Carolina because pro IRV groups donated much of the voter education and exit polling labor.
Jurisdictions that have professional fiscal analysis or actual cost information have shown that IRV increases costs. See reports from Maine, Maryland, Minneapolis MN, Pierce County Washington, Vermont and San Francisco here .Minneapolis, Minnesota learned that IRV increases costs of elections, the hard way last month:

Monday, May 24, 2010 The continuing cost of Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis $244,000 Minneapolis Council Members are dismayed that Instant Runoff Voting did not work as touted. So far, instead of saving money and increasing turnout – IRV has added an additional $244,000 in costs each year, and in the city’s first IRV election, turnout was the lowest in over 100 year

The latest claim about instant runoff voting is that it magically "empowers communities of color" . The truth is that Instant Runoff Voting does not empower communities of color and may harm them::

If instant runoff voting "empowers communities of color" then WHY does Takoma Park MD continue to elect an all white city council?

IRV is bad for voters. A 2008 Civil Grand Jury advised SF that voters and poll workers did not understand IRV. Grand Jury Report

IRV eliminates opportunity. In a radio interview, former SF Mayor Willie Brown said that IRV is really, really bad, "it eliminates opportunity". Listen here via youtube

North Carolina NAACP leader on IRV: "I am absolutely to the core opposed to instant runoff voting. And I believe that the issue of Instant runoff voting has clouded the discussions. And I want to make it very clear that that will cost the city money, not save the city money. Because I promise you that I will be protecting my right to vote, with legal action should you choose to do that. . Stella Adams – Vice Chair of NC Democratic Party and Housing Chair and Economic Empowerment Coordinator at NC NAACP speaking at Durham North Carolina City Council meeting April 7, 2009

Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People: This whole idea is that voting is a landmark of the people… even if its expensive. We spend a whole a lot of money on…..Just vote it down (non partisan plurality elections).I’m not going to be for instant runoff voting either….." Dr. Lavonia Allison – President of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People atDurham City Council meeting April 7, 2009 .

7 Ways Instant Runoff Voting Undermines North Carolina Verified Voting law

Instant runoff voting undermines key principles of North Carolina’s nationally respected verified voting law, known as The Public Confidence in Election Act. This law was passed in August 2005 after hard work by activists and citizens from around the state. This law has done much to restore the integrity in our elections caused by faulty paperless voting machines and lack of standards for voting systems and vendors. IRV threatens key tenets of that law….

There is no certified software to tally IRV with, so uncertified "work-arounds" have been instituted. In touchscreen counties the NC SBoE says for purposes of IRV, the manual hand to eye count of the voter verified paper trail no longer rules, instead officials will substitute a single spreadsheet in for "manual counting". Because IRV is not additive, votes have to be centrally tallied, i.e hauled away from where cast to be counted at another location. IRV votes are not counted or reported on election night either. Worse, some IRV votes are never counted or reported.

Several jurisdictions have tried IRV and abandoned it. There’s a reason why. See Instant Runoff Voting rejected by Sunnyvale, Burlington, Pierce Co, Cary. Aspen in Nov? and also Aspen Instant Runoff Voting–Up for Repeal in November 2010 .
There can be unintended consequences of IRV such as increased cost, labor, changes in procedures and policies, and in some cases a decreased confidence in the outcome of election results.

Learn more, watch these videos

Is Instant Runoff Voting Democratic? A analysis of the Burlington, VT election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=img9y2AYTQA

Fact Checking Instant Runoff Voting talking points – proof that IRV harms vulnerable voters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W26x3JG0sMs

Best regards, Joyce McCloy
NC Coalition for Verified Voting and Instant Runoff Voting Facts V Fiction"

We study the impact of instant runoff voting on voters rights, election administration and election outcome. Our goal is to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. We welcome inquiries from the media, public officials, voter advocacy groups and concerned citizens." See www.instantrunoffvoting.us, our blog http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/ and www.ncvoter.netContact Joyce McCloy by email: info (at) instantrunoffvoting.us or by phone at (336) 794-1240

See related:

Instant Run Off Voting

NC State Board of Elections helps military vote

Military bases to help troops register and vote, thanks to Sen Coryn & Schumer, DEMOS, OVF and NC State Board of Elections

Finally, the Dept of Defense will act as a Voter Registration Agency. Thanks go to US Senators Schumer and Coryn who pushed hard, also thanks to DEMOS and Overseas Vote Foundation who worked in the background. Thanks also to Gary Bartlett and the North Carolina State Board of Elections for writing a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. 3 other states also sent similar letters to the DOD: Ohio, Kansas, and Missouri.

Schumer, Cornyn secure voter registration at military bases
Dec 18, 2009. The designation means that military bases will offer the same kind of voter registration services provided at motor vehicle departments and state agencies all around the country under the so-called “motor voter” law of 1993.

On Oct 8, 2009 the NC State Board of Elections sent a letter to Robert Gates, Secretary of DOD enlisting their cooperation. See Letter to DOD, help us help troops vote says North Carolina State Board of Elections Gary Bartlett also explained that costs would be minimal and the NCSBE would assist in training and materials.
An excerpt of the letter sent by Gary Bartlett, Director of the NC State Board of Elections:

"I request that the Department of Defense, in its operation of military pay/personnel offices in North Carolina, agree to be designated as a voter registration agency. This designation would allow military citizens helped by your agency to be offered the same voter registration services given by state and county public services agencies to the persons they serve. "

"Designating the Department of Defense as a Voter Registration Agency will alleviate many of the problems military voters have in voting. Troops have to be registered to vote before they can vote. Problems of troops not getting the right ballot or the ballot being sent to the wrong place will be reduced as personnel will have help keeping their voter registration updated and get help in obtaining a ballot and getting that ballot returned. Thanks to the MOVE act, troops will be able to download blank ballots and then return the ballots via free expedited mail service. We applaud the North Carolina State Board of Elections for their part in bringing the franchise to our troops. " ~ Joyce McCloy, Director, NC Coalition for Verified Voting.

"Make Every Vote Count, Count Every Vote."
Contact Joyce McCloy, ncverifiablevoting @ yahoo.com
Coordinator, NC Coalition for Verified Voting
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
336-794-1240 website: ncvoter.net

Raleigh NC – NC Verified Voting Meetup Aug 26 Celebrates 4 Year Anniversary of paper ballot law

For immediate release

Joyce McCloy, North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting 336-794-1240

Please join the NC Coalition for Verified Voting for our Annual Voting Integrity Meetup

In celebration of the fourth anniversary of SL-323the Public Confidence in Elections Law

Wednesday August 26, 2009

6:00 – 7:30 PM

at the Busy Bee Cafe in Raleigh
in the upstairs room
225 South Wilmington Street

(plenty of FREE Parking nearby)

The NC Coalition for Verified Voting invites you to join other election integrity supporters in celebrating the fourth anniversary of the Public Confidence in Elections Law, SL 323.

Agenda

• Introduction – North Carolina passed one of the strongest verified voting laws in the country four years ago.
• "Legislator of the Year" award.
• Guest Speaker: David Allen, member of the Joint Select Committee on Electronic Voting
• Discussion of goals for 2009/2010 in protecting the voter franchise.
• Input from attendees on their concerns about elections and voting in 2010.

There is no charge other than buy-your-own-food and or drink.
This will be a great opportunity for election integrity people to hang out face-to-face, and to meet some of new and old faces of North Carolina activists.

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 – email Join the NC Coalition for Verified Voting

Raleigh NC – The Creation of an NCDP Electoral Reform Committe by Chris Telesca

Thank you Chris for all that you do keeping our Elections Fair. Because of you and the folks over at NCVOTE North Carolina can be proud of your many accomplishments. I am so honored to know ya’ll and to have had Joyce McCloy Greensboro NC on my former TV Talk Show via telephone from that I once had.

Chris I hope you will become a columnist on The DCN so that you can share one of the most powerful conversations in America the Election Process with my readers.

C. Dancy II – DCN Publisher

Good news from Goodwin House today!

The Resolutions and Platform Committee substituted my resolution to create an NCDP Electoral Reform Committee for one that I wrote earlier that did essentially the same thing.  The main difference is that if the NCDP Chair doesn’t create the new committee in 60 days after the 8/29 SEC meeting, the 13 District Chairs are empowered to appoint 2 people from each district and form their own committee.  This avoids a repeat of the thing that has happened over the years where the Chair is directed to appoint a committee to study or do something and the Chair doesn’t do it.

And the district chairs will now have some money to play with.  The state party was keeping all the money from the tax checkoffs, but the law said they had to split it with the districts.  The NCDP (and I suspect the GOP) hasn’t been doing that.

Chris Telesca

Resolution to create NCDP Electoral Reform Committee

Whereas, two competing resolutions on Instant Runoff Voting (“IRV) were submitted to the NCDP State Party Convention in New Bern in June 2008; and

Whereas, both resolutions were tabled in favor of resolution from the floor passed by the body which called for the Chair to appoint a committee to study IRV and make a recommendation to the State Party and our legislative delegation; and

Whereas, Chairman Jerry Meek never formed the committee or made appointments before leaving office in January 2009; and

Whereas, after the June 2008 statewide primary runoff contest, an amendment was added to an omnibus election reform bill to extend the IRV pilot for another three years with no study about the value of IRV in general or the performance of IRV during the 2007 pilot; and

Whereas, the omnibus election reform bill called for the creation of a joint legislative committee to study election law and provide legislative oversight of the State Board of Elections, but no members have been appointed to this committee which has never met; and

Whereas, the lack of a meaningful legislative agenda on electoral reform from the Democratic Party allows non-profit groups and non-governmental agencies to lobby our legislators on electoral reforms that may not be in the best interests of the Democratic Party or the people of North Carolina.

Therefore, be it resolved that the Chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party shall, within 60 days of passage of this resolution, appoint an Electoral Reform Committee made up of two members whose names are submitted from the Chair of each of the 13 Congressional Districts in North Carolina; and

Therefore, be it further resolved that, if the NCDP Chair does not appoint that Electoral Reform Committee by the 60 day time limit, this body hereby authorizes and directs the Congressional District Chairs to form the Electoral Reform Committee, consisting of the two members whose names they submitted to the NCDP Chair; and

Therefore, be it further resolved that the Electoral Reform Committee shall study electoral reform issues such as IRV and other voting methods, campaign finance reforms such as voter-owned elections, and report on progress and any findings to the next SEC meeting in early 2010, and at any subsequent SEC meetings or State Conventions if further study is warranted.

Submitted by:

Chris Telesca, SEC member from Wake County

See related:

NC Coalition for Verified Voting

North Carolina – IRV groups push method that makes ballot box stuffing easier

IRV groups push method that makes ballot box stuffing easier

North Carolina. We have a disturbing development thanks to the Instant runoff voting pilots. Three NC groups promoting IRV/Instant Runoff Voting have come out endorsing counting votes away from where they are cast. This is also called central counting. North Carolina law requires that votes be counted where cast. This is a basic tenet of election integrity. BUT – it is not convenient for IRV advocates. Nor are requirements for certified software. * If these votes were money $$$$ would this be allowed? *

The LWV in NC, Democracy for NC and Fair Vote, all IRV advocates have come out with an endorsement for central counting of votes, in particular the IRV votes cast at the polling places which may only be counted if there is no winner in the first “round” of the election. The first round will still be counted at the polling places, it is the 2nd and 3rd choice votes that are at risk.

This increases the risk of ballot box stuffing. A valid ballot that is only partially counted is an invitation to steal an election. So counting votes away from where they are cast is akin to handing out signed checks with the amount left blank. That is why we have laws like § 163‑182.2 – it is to prevent election fraud. We weaken these laws at our own peril.

The groups are also endorsing a Rube Goldberg-esque way to count IRV votes with the optical scanners (ES&S M100) that requires using 4 different memory cards (instead of 1) for one Unity precinct, and running each ballot through the optical scanners 3 or 4 times (which means removing from ballot box several times as well.)

Interesting enough, the secret ballot came from Australia where they use a form of IRV, but they do not use central counting. Instead, precincts are in touch with a central office. They do first round, call it in, then count second round where they are cast. NC Verified Voting would support something like this, but it was deemed too cumbersome for the Instant Runoff Voting pilot. Also interestingly in Australia, IRV has esentially killed any third party which is the goal of many IRV proponents. NCCVV continues to argue that the integrity of our elections are most important, regardless if they are combersome.

Lawmakers and citizens get that we need our verified voting law, and we need to implement it correctly. Our standards for vote counting, voting systems, certified software and vendors are key to protecting our voters from harm caused by uncertified software or unscrupulous vendors, and we ignore those at our peril.

See www.ncvoter.net our home website.
Joyce McCloy
NC Coalition for Verified Voting

Hendersonville NC – Do National Instant Runoff Voting lobbyists think we are ignorant hillbillies who “just fell off the turnip truck”?

I’m talking about Hendersonville NC considering the Instant Runoff Voting Pilot. It makes no sense to use instant runoff voting for multi seat “pick two” contests, especially since IRV is intended for single winner contests. This fake IRV would have voters “pick two” in their first round and then rank 3 more candidates. Having a threshold of 25% is even more ridiculous, given that IRV is touted by proponents of providing a majority outcome. No other place in the world has tried to use Instant Runoff Voting for multi seat contests

***North Carolina, 04/06/2009 ***NCCVVNewswire/NC Coalition for Verified Voting *

NCCVV urges the Hendersonville City Council to vote “NO  to IRV” this Thursday,  April 9th, 2009 at the City Council meeting.  The NC Coalition for Verified Voting urges the Hendersonville City Council to resist lobbying efforts promoting the Instant Runoff Voting Pilot.

This isn’t just about Hendersonville, this is about North Carolina.
IRV pilots that set a dangerous precedent of undermining election transparency while exposing elections to inaccuracy and fraud.

Urgent Contact the Hendersonville City Council
Mayor Greg Newman Mayor Pro-Tem Barbara Volk Councilman Jeff Collis Councilman Bill O’Cain Councilman Steve Caraker

Email addresses: gnewman@cityofhendersonville.org; bvolk@cityofhendersonville.org; jcollis@cityofhendersonville.org; wocain@cityofhendersonville.org; scaraker@cityofhendersonville.org City Hall, 145 Fifth Avenue East, PO Box 1670, Hendersonville, NC 28793. 828/697-3000

Regardless of whether you like Instant Runoff Voting or not, with the current Instant Runoff Voting Pilot Guidelines and Procedures, the pilot violates core principles of election integrity and harms voter confidence. IRV also can produce perverse outcomes and paradoxes, as demonstrated in the recent Burlington Vermont election for Mayor.

If the city goes ahead, Hendersonville may be the only volunteer for the IRV experiment this year. No other cities have voted for it at this time.

*What is Instant Runoff?* Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters can rank candidates in order of preference. It is not instant to count – it can take days to figure out who won the election. Not all votes are counted – only votes for the “top two” candidates are. It does not produce the same results as a runoff election.

1. The Instant Runoff Voting Pilot is a threat to our election integrity standards.
2.  Experts oppose the use of spreadsheets to tabulate the instant runoff election results
3.  Instant Runoff Voting discriminates against classes of voters.
4.  Instant Runoff Voting is for single contest elections, Hendersonville is the only place in the entire world that has ever attempted to use IRV in multi seat contests.
5.  Instant Runoff Voting Often Fails to Produce Majority Winner.

*When other cities asked the public, the answer was “no”.*  In cities like Raleigh, Rocky Mount and Asheville, that invited public comment on the adoption of IRV, the answer was “no” to the Instant Runoff experiment. This year, the Cary City Council held a public hearing on IRV, and decided not to participate a second time. (Cary tried it in 2007). Cary City Council member Don Frantz was elected in the only contest where the IRV ballots were counted, and he is strongly opposed to IRV.
See Cary North Carolina turns down second bite of Instant Runoff Voting Pilot, process still too flawed  http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/2009/03/instant-runoff-voting-pilot-remains.html

*The Instant Runoff Voting Pilot is bad for Verified Voting – counting procedures not recommended by computer experts*

The procedures to tabulate IRV in touch-screen jurisdictions cut corners on election transparency. Since there is no federally certified software to tabulate IRV votes, the State Board of Elections has devised a work around. This “workaround” employs a spreadsheet using a five page single spaced algorithm  http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Henderson_County_IRV%20Tabulation.pdf to tabulate the votes. Doing manual recounts or audits of complex IRV ballots on the long paper trail rolls would be difficult if not impossible, since these printouts do not have a ballot summary. Until the touchscreens print a simple voter verified ballot summary, IRV should not even be considered, or Hendersonville should agree to use paper or optical scan ballots instead.

*The IRV Pilot is a threat to our election integrity standards.* The NC Coalition for Verified Voting www.ncvoter.net argues that the uncertified “workaround” that Hendersonville would have to use to tabulate any IRV votes – is an encroachment on the hard fought for and nationally acclaimed standards of SL 323, The Public Confidence in Elections Law <http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTML/S223v7.html> which requires federally certified software for tabulating the votes.**

*Experts oppose the use of spreadsheets to tabulate the instant runoff election results*

Berkely University Statistics Professor Philip Stark, warns against using a spreadsheet* to tabulate the instant runoff results. In a Dec 26, 2008 email http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/12_26_08_Philip_B_Stark_Comment_Exel_Workaround.pdf
Professor Stark explained his concerns, here are a few:

1) The procedure proposed is very complicated, with many manual steps. Human error in such a complex task is almost inevitable. A slight slip can result in mis copying data, overwriting data, hitting the wrong function, etc.
2) Spreadsheets mix data and programming. It is not possible to tell at a glance whether a cell in a spreadsheet is data or the result of a calculation. *As a result, it is quite easy–deliberately or inadvertently–to corrupt a calculation or the data on which it is based. *In principle that can be detected, but it requires additional scrutiny–such as clicking each cell and looking at what is displayed. And even that is not foolproof. …

Tom Dahlberg, of Dahlberg Business Logic Inc. (his business IS spreadsheets)
www.business-analysis-using-spreadsheets.com also warns against using the excel work around /www.ncvoter.net/downloads/12_28_08_Tom_Dahlberg_Comment_Exel_Workaround.pdf
to tabulate the instant runoff results. Here’s an excerpt:

“How can the state prove, to those who have standing (all voters)  consistent with the compelling state interest, that the automation is working properly and not committing fraud? And who has the burden of proof if not the election officials responsible for the integrity of the process?”

*Recounts and audits of the “voter verified” paper trail would be laborious and confusing*, since these printouts do not have a ballot summary. Until the touchscreens print a simple voter verified ballot summary, IRV shouldn’t even be considered, or Hendersonville should agree to use paper or optical scan ballots instead.

*Instant Runoff Voting discriminates against classes of voters*

Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski, Supervisor for the Vermont Legislative Research Shop
has analyzed the exit poll data of the recent Burlington, Vermont Mayoral Election. The Vermont Daily Briefing has an article up by Gierzynski, here’s an excerpt:

March 12th, 2009 Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political
Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out A Case Against Instant Runoff
Voting <http://vermontdailybriefing.com/?p=1213>

Let’s get right into it: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is not good. It
is not good because it suffers from three fundamental problems: it
discriminates against classes of voters by adding complexity the
ballot; it has a very real potential to produce perverse outcomes or
voting paradoxes that are not majoritarian; and it fails to address
the real problem that arises when multiple parties compete in a
two-party system…..

The effect of adding such complexity to the ballot is not neutral or
random; it is more likely to confuse those same groups of
disadvantaged voters confused by the Florida ballots. This fact was
demonstrated by exit polls of both Burlington voters and San
Francisco voters who have also used IRV.

Even when used in a single contest, IRV caused greater confusion
among those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. In other
words, IRV discriminates. Proponents of IRV like to frame this
argument by countering that what critics of IRV are saying is that
voters are stupid. We are saying no such thing.

These analyses are not impugning the intelligence of the American
voter, just recognizing the limits to what a political system can
ask of its citizens and recognizing that adding complexity to the
ballot will disproportionately harm some groups of people more than
others … (more at the link <http://vermontdailybriefing.com/?p=1213> )

*Instant Runoff Voting is for single contest elections, Hendersonville is the only place in the entire world that has ever attempted to use IRV in multi seat contests:

1. Henderson’s election is a “vote for two”, while IRV is defined as a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters can rank candidates in order of preference. “Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is the American English term for a voting system used for single-winner elections, in which voters rank candidates in an order of preference.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

2. IRV proponents claim that IRV selects a candidate that has the support of the majority. Hendersonville multi seat pick two contests require a threshold of 25%, not majority support.

3. Instant runoff voting thwarts “bullet voting”, also called “single shot” voting that some groups use as a strategy to elect candidates.

*Instant Runoff Voting Often Fails to Produce Majority Winner*.

October, 2007.  Cary North Carolina.
After running voters 1, 2n and 3rd choices, Don Frantz obtained 1,401 votes,
which is 46.36% of all votes cast in the Cary District B contest.
http://msweb03.co.wake.nc.us/bordelec/downloads/cary_irv_results.htm

Saturday, March 7, 2009 No Majority Winner in Instant Runoff Voting
election in Burlington Vermont Mayoral Contest
<http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-majority-winner-in-instant-runoff.html>

December 7, 2008 2 out of 3 Pierce County RCV “winners” don’t have a true majority
<http://noirvnc.blogspot.com/2008/12/2-out-of-3-pierce-county-rcv-winners.html>

Consistent Majority Failure in San Francisco’s Instant Runoff Voting
Elections. <http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/majority.html>
A review of the results for San Francisco Ranked Choice Voting elections shows that IRV elects a plurality winner: These results are remarkably consistent. Out of 20 RCV elections that have been held since the referendum establishing it passed, when IRV was used, it elected a plurality winner

Please feel free to call or email me with any questions or comments that you may have.

Joyce McCloy, Director, NC Coalition for Verified Voting

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 Verified Voting – phone 336-794-1240 www.ncvoter.net
For more information about Instant Runof Voting, for reports, news and analysis see www.instantrunoffvoting.us also see our blog  http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/

Durham NC – (Press Release) The NC Coalition for Verified Voting urges the Durham City Council to resist lobbying efforts for Instant Runoff Voting Experiment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

North Carolina, March 25, 2009 / NCVVNewswire/NC Coalition for Verified
Voting

The NC Coalition for Verified Voting urges the Durham City Council to
resist lobbying efforts for Instant Runoff Voting  Experiment.
North Carolina’s Instant Runoff Voting Pilot is still as flawed as the
one run in 2007 and still violates key election integrity laws.
Efforts to make IRV fit are much like trying to put a square tire on a
wheel.

The City of Cary has chosen not to repeat the experiment.
Two weeks ago the Town Council of Cary just voted 6-1 to switch to non
partisan plurality elections and not be a guinea pig for IRV again.
Cary experienced the effects of one botched IRV election in Oct 2007 and
has chosen not to participate this year.

Why we care:  My organization, the NC Coalition for Verified Voting is a
statewide grassroots organization that worked to pass the paper ballot
law (S323 August 2005) that has been highly complimented by national
organizations such as the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, and
the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We have worked hard to protect that
law, fighting off special interest groups and even going to court
against Diebold.
Instant Runoff Voting threatens standards in the much touted Public
Confidence in Elections Law as well as other sections of the law
that have long stood to protect our votes from fraud. Instant Runoff
Voting is very complicated to count.

The push for IRV is not coming from citizens of North Carolina, but has
been engineered by outside national special interest groups.
These outside groups even went as far as to send a national alert to
urge all members to lobby the Cary NC city council.

Below is a writeup on Cary’s decision to switch to non partisan
plurality elections, and what that means:

*Saturday, March 14, 2009*

Cary North Carolina turns down second bite of Instant Runoff
Voting Pilot, process still too flawed
<http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/2009/03/instant-runoff-voting-pilot-remains.html>

North Carolina’s Instant Runoff Voting Pilot is still as flawed as the
one run in 2007. The Cary City Council has turned down a second stab at
instant runoff voting based on concerns with flaws and complications in
the process. The vote was 6-1.
<http://wake.mync.com/site/wake/news/story/29453/> This instant runoff
pilot still violates key election integrity laws. Efforts to make IRV
fit are much like trying to put a square tire on a wheel. Apparently the
Cary City Counsel realized that and plans to avoid another poorly
developed election experiment. The “new” pilot is the same as the “old”
pilot in that ballots will be carried away from the polling places
before the 2nd and 3rd choice votes are counted. The confidence in the
election outcome will be strained.

Instant runoff voting cannot be administered within compliance of
current election laws. Cary was one of two participants in NC’s first
instant runoff pilot, the other was Hendersonville. Raleigh, Rocky Mount
and Asheville turned it down cold after public discussion.

Luckily, this time, jurisdictions cannot be forced by Boards of
Elections to participate in Instant runoff pilots. Instead the governing
bodies have to agree to participate. And that is what the Cary City
Council discussed yesterday at their Town Council meeting.

Cary’s city council conceded that proponents of IRV were focused on the
front end of elections, while, opponents of instant runoff voting were
focused on the “back end”, which is election transparency and integrity.

*No matter how you slice it, Instant Runoff Voting Pilots cannot be
conducted within existing election law.* Let me outline that for readers:

*The new guideliness do not address § 163-182.2(1) which requires
the counting of votes where they are cast.

*The SBOE has stated that IRV is one election, not several, so by
law these votes should be counted where they are cast. This is a
basic tenant of election integrity.

*Moving votes before they are counted opens the election up to fraud.

*Current guidelines still mandate secret votes that are not ever
counted or made public in any way.

*There is no overvote protection to alert voters if they make the
mistake of ranking the same choice 2 or 3 times, (thereby negating
their 2nd nd 3rd choices). The Help America Vote Act mandates either
a) overvote protection/warnings from voting systems or b) voter
education to alert to risk of overvoting.

There are many types of “instant runoff voting”, and North Carolina’s
pilots would use what is known as “Sri Lanken Contingency Voting”. This
is also known as “Top Two Batch Elimination” style, where after the
first round of voting, all votes but except those for the top two
candidates are eliminated from the counting.

So, if you did not rank either of the top two candidates as your
choices, then you do not have a vote in the “runoff”.

Since this is all done in one election, you have no way of knowing who
the top two candidates would be, so you might not get to vote in the runoff.

Wake’s BOE proposes new procedures to help sort the Instant Runoff
ballots using the optical scanner to reduce manual sorting. This will
require changes to the voting machines after the first round of votes
are counted, and before each round. Questionable!

*Problems are not eliminated by Wake BoE’s suggested procedure to use
optical scanners:*

*This does not eliminate the hand sorting and shuffling of ballots
that can lead to miscounting of votes.

*This does not eliminate the problem that 2nd and 3rd choice votes
will not be counted where cast, but will still have to be counted at
a central location

*This does not solve the problem that the optical scanners cannot
report election night results for 2nd or 3rd choices

*This does not solve the problem that some of the votes cast (2nd
and 3rd choices not for the top two candidates) will never be
counted and never be reported to the public.

*Violating our election transparency laws puts the public in the
position of having to “trust” our officials.* While we do hold our
election officials in high esteem, the confidence in our elections can
have no other basis than the transparency and integrity of the process.

Regardless of how you feel about Instant Runoff Voting, it should not be
used in our state until it can be done without damaging election
transparency.

/The NC Coalition for Verified Voting is dedicated to election
transparency and protecting the individual vote.

http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/2009/03/instant-runoff-voting-pilot-remains.html

/
//Joyce McCloy//

//www.ncvoter.net
NC Coalition for Verified Voting
Since Sept, 2003
//

//336-794-1240//