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

Durham NC – Stella Adams & Dr. Lavonia Allison Oppose Instant Runoff Voting At Council Meeting

This is some good stuff. I know both of these strong women for justice and they will speak truth to power.  I say thank you to both of these women for keeping hope alive. C. Dancy II – DCN Publisher

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Durham Community leaders oppose Instant Runoff Voting at City Council Meeting

Instant runoff voting was not on the agenda at the Durham City Council meeting last night, but opposing it was on the minds of local community leaders. Further, one very influential leader threatened legal action if Durham City Council decided to try for Instant Runoff Voting. On April 6, the City Council after hearing comments from the public and voted 7-0 to keep Durham’s current runoff system. The city had been considering a switch to “non partisan plurality” in order to avoid expensive runoff elections. The Raleigh News and Observer ran a brief article:

Durham council lets elections be Change to plurality system rejected By Jim Wise – Tue, Apr. 07, 2009

The N&O reported that the majority of folks wanted to keep the current traditional runoff system, and also that some citizens suggested instant runoff voting. The report failed to tell you that two of the most influential people at that meeting spoke strongly against against instant runoff voting.

What the News and Observer didn’t report was what community leaders had to say in opposition to Instant Runoff Voting. Dr. Lavonia Allison, president of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, and the NC State Democratic Party Vice Chair Stella Adams had plenty to say. Both are influential leaders who voiced their strong opposition to instant runoff voting. Here is an excerpt of their comments, transcribed from video. Its pretty much to-the-point:

You can see video of the meeting at the Durham County City Govt website. There’s a drop down list where you can jump right to the part of the agenda discussing Durham’s elections:

44. Proposed City Charter Amendment to Change the Process of Conducting Durham Municipal Elections

Dr. Lavonia Allison – President of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People (around 2:49)
“I stand opposed to this. Democracy is an open process, you should not come up with any process which we limit participatory democracy. 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, because I’ve got a whole lot of things to say about that too..”

Stella Adams – Vice Chair of NC Democratic Party (around 3:02)
“I am here to speak, to inform and then to speak. I was an elected official in Durham 20 years ago and I …the Soil and Water races are local races that are plurality races…so and my daughter Danielle was elected in November in a plurality race… So it is not a new form of election in Durham County.. That’s just a fact.. I m not supporting or opposing.

But I am here, to absolutely put it on the record that 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. .

People in my family have died for the right to the vote I mean buried in their graves for the right to vote… My aunt was denied the vote because she could not explain Article 3 of the constitution. Through a poll, a literacy test. We have a family ritual that which we will carry out on May 6 of this year, when my son turns 18 and we walk our children to register to vote. And we tell them that history.
Instant runoff voting disenfranchises black people, And I will fight to protect that.
NO to instant runoff voting!”

This took my breath away. Fierce defenders of our vote, thank you, and thank you especially to Stella Adams, who recognizes and who meets threats to the vote head on. Voters have a fierce advocate in Ms. Adams.

http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/2009/04/durham-community-leaders-oppose-instant.html

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

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//

NC – What FairVote NC didn’t say about Instant Runoff Voting

FairVote NC is pushing people to lobby the Cary NC city council to be in the IRV pilot again.
Cary meets on Thurs Mar 12 at 6:30 to discuss.  Here is what Fair Vote NC does not tell you:

IRV can not be done within the existing election integrity and transparency laws of North Carolina. It can only be implemented by eroding the Public Confidence in Elections Law and older laws meant to prevent election fraud.

Fair Vote NC is pushing for people (from around the state) to lobby Cary’s Town Council to use IRV again.

But IRV Pilots cannot comply with existing election laws. The NC SBOE admitted as much in a public meeting http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/NCSBoE_IRV_Approved_1-15-2009

Cary’s council should hear from people in Cary, or from those who want to protect the Public Confidence in Elections Law.

IRV erodes election integrity and transparency:

The State Board admits that IRV cannot be conducted in compliance with all current election laws,

IRV ballots will not be counted where cast, but will be hauled away to central location to be counted.

There is no overvote notification for IRV when voters mark the same candidate two or more times.

See video of the Cary Town Council meeting where IRV was discussed on Feb 12. http://www.townofcary.org/med/video/video1.htm

See minute 35 where Don Frantz, the City Council Member elected in the one contest where IRV was used – speaks. Frantz has several concerns about IRV

Mr. Frantz mentions these 4 reservations:

1. He won the election by a plurality vote, not a majority vote, even after all 3 rounds were counted. Why go to the expense in resources and money to use IRV only to get a plurality result?

2. There is no software to count the IRV, and it took a day to count the votes.

3. Security of the ballots – Frantz pointed out that there werre 4 tables of 3-4 vote counters, and “thats alot of hands on the ballots”.

4. Mr. Frantz sees nothing wrong with a traditional runoff election.

Mr. Frantz also suggested that THIS TIME, Cary have a public meeting before considering trying IRV again, that the first go around, the public was NOT invited to comment and that angered many citizens.

PROTECT THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS LAW:

#1 Submit a Letter to the editor of Cary News at: carynews@nando.com

#2 Contact Members of Council:

Jack Smith 919-816-0999
Ervin Portman 919-233-8551
Gale Adcock 919-469-4011
Harold Weinbrecht 919-859-0015
Jennifer Robinson 919-469-4011
Julie Robison 919-677-9752
Don Frantz 919-612-6870

Email the Cary Council at council@townofcary.org

#3 Please speak up at the Public Hearing on Instant Runoff Voting:

March 12th, 2009
6:30pm
Council Chambers at 316 N Academy St

#

Joyce McCloy
www.ncvoter.net