Instant Runoff Voting still fails in Aspen after provisional ballots counted

Aspen should not continue using instant runoff voting, say the results after counting provisional ballots.

IRV still fails after all of the
 provisional 
ballots counted

by Curtis Wackerle, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
...
The advisory question, although split nearly down the middle, will likely compel City Council to place a binding charter amendment question on a future ballot. IRV became the city’s voting method in the November 2007 election when voters supported the change by a 76 percent margin. IRV does away with runoff elections by allowing voters to rank their candidate preference. If no candidate gets majority support with the first count, lower-ranking candidates are eliminated with those voters’ votes assigned to their next highest choice. This process is repeated until there is a winner.

The system has been criticized by some for the complexity of how votes are counted in Aspen’s council races and for how it eliminates the chance for voters to get to know top candidates better in a runoff election.

This is what happens after voters find out what instant runoff voting is really like. It doesn't work as advertised most of the time, and it isn't transparent to the voters. It is hard to trust a system that reallocates votes and which produces results that only academics and non profit directors understand. Another case of instant runoff voting/IRV being rejected once implemented.

Sign up to receive updates by email here:
http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

DEAR OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL, ABOUT INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING

Dear Honorable Oakland City Council Members:

I am not from Oakland, but have studied instant runoff voting extensively and if you will permit, I'd like to ask you an important question.

Has the city commissioned a professional fiscal analysis?
Can Oakland, CA afford to implement instant runoff voting within a year?
Is there risk that implementing IRV increase your $19M budget shortfall?

If you haven't done a fiscal analysis, then you should have one done now, to find out how much instant runoff voting's impact on annual operating and capitol expenditures.

If you move ahead with instant runoff voting/IRV, will you expend what is necessary in labor and funds in order to educate your diverse community?

If you move ahead with instant runoff voting/IRV, are you willing to be a large IT beta test and for new voting software and or equipment?

Are you willing to let IRV capability be the number one priority in choosing new voting equipment (over reliability, affordability, proven performance)?

If Oakland cannot afford the expected and unexpected costs of instant runoff voting/IRV, Are you willing to take away funds from other city areas such as police, fire and other basic city services, as well as layoffs of city workers? (Some unexpected contingencies are that the IRV voting system you purchase cannot work as proposed, this happened in Pierce Co Washington. New precinct scanners could not be used and ballots had to be hauled to a central location to be counted)

The multi million $ question is, can Oakland afford to implement instant runoff voting?

Meanwhile, while you are getting that fiscal analysis or deciding which departments to cut, lets address some of the issues with IRV.

IRV IS COSTLY:

See IRV cost estimates or actual cost information for Maine, Maryland, Minneapolis MN, Pierce County Washington, Vermont and San Francisco.It cost Pierce Co 2 million to implement an uncertified system for 375,589 votes – or $5.33 per registered voter! That is on top of the regular costs of their election system. (And Pierce rejected IRV this Nov 3 by huge majority vote) http://tinyurl.com/irvcosts

IRV DOES NOT INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT
http://tinyurl.com/irvturnout

IN FACT, MINNEAPOLIS MN JUST HELD FIRST IRV ELECTION ON NOV 3, AND HAD LOWEST VOTER TURNOUT SINCE 1910 http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/69814067.html

IRV USUALLY PRODUCES A PLURALITY WINNER.AND OFTEN SUFFERS FROM MAJORITY FAILURE

IRV has produced a plurality result in 2 out of 3 contests in Pierce Co WA,Out of 20 RCV elections that have been held since the referendum establishing it passed, when IRV was used, it elected a plurality winner.http://tinyurl.com/IRVmajorityfail

IRV LEADS TO 2 PARTY DOMINATIONhttp://tinyurl.com/2partyrule

THERE’S NEVER ENOUGH VOTER EDUCATION:After 4 years of IRV and a fortune spent each year in San Francisco, a Grand Jury Report: said that poll workers and voters do not understand instant runoff.http://tinyurl.com/sfgrandjury

IRV IS DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX TO COUNT:
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. The tallying software utilizes a complex algorithm that makes the process even more opaque.
http://tinyurl.com/tally-irv

Unfortunately, the talking points in favor of IRV do not pan out and reality and the IRV chickens will come back to roost.

For more about IRV that is based on news and reports, see
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/ and our blog http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/

Sign up to receive updates by email here:
http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US