Instant Runoff Voting rejected by Sunnyvale, Burlington, Pierce Co, Cary. Aspen in Nov?

Updated on Nov 21, 2010. Instant runoff voting ditched by Sunnyvale California, Aspen, Colorado, Cary North Carolina, Pierce County Washington, Burlington Vermont, the Utah Republican Party and even Georgetown University. IRV has been controversial in San Francisco and a lawsuit was filed to try to block the limited pick 3 style IRV. The list grows.

Exit polling shows that a significant number of voters do not understand IRV. See Instant Runoff Voting Not So Good Polls: Cary NC, Hendersonville NC, Pierce Co WA, and San Francisco 22.0% of Cary voters did not understand IRV at all

DITCHED ON NOV 2 2010. Aspen, Colorado Aspen voters vote to ditch IRV November 3, 2010. Aaron Hedge. The Aspen TimesAspen, CO Colorado. ASPEN — Instant runoff voting's tenure in Aspen lasted only one election, as preliminary numbers reported by Pitkin County election officials Tuesday night showed voters wanted to get rid of it.
Aspen mulls vote-counting July 28, 2010 ASPEN — City attorneys are drafting language for a November ballot item that could replace the controversial voting method known as instant runoff voting for Aspen's May election.
Aspen Instant Runoff Voting--Up for Repeal in November 2010 Aspen to reconsider Instant Runoff Voting this November - City Council cite problems with May election (blog)IRV still fails after all of the
 provisional 
ballots counted November 17, 2009 November 3, 2009 Aspen rejects Instant Runoff Voting — by six votes.The city of Aspen launched its first-ever IRV election this past May. Shortly thereafter, doubts among elected officials and some residents surfaced as to whether the method was the best way to elect a mayor and City Council members.Aspen voters to vote on how they vote — again Wednesday, July 22, 2009 Carolyn Sackariason The Aspen Times Aspen, CO Colorado (news article).Also see Aspen Election Review May 5 2009 IRV single ballot audit unit

DITCHED ON MAY 20, 2010. Monday, May 24, 2010 Sunnyvale CA scraps Instant Runoff Voting for selection of Mayor! Sunnyvale's City Council says no more to instant runoff voting after using it for first time since adopting it. The council said that IRV was "too complicated for the public to understand". Sunnyvale council changes the way it chooses the mayor By Mayra Flores De Marcottemflores@community-newspapers.com 05/20/2010 08:04:34 PM PDT

DITCHED ON MARCH 2, 2010. Burlington, Vermont On March 2, 2010 Burlington voters voted to repeal IRV. Voters decided that they would tell the politicians how they preferred to vote rather than let the politicians tell them. The grassroots stood up to a huge influx of out of state pro IRV dollars and to big politicians' last minute lobbying and robo calls. 7315 voters voted on the question in 2005, 326 less than this year. The difference between then and now is experience:
"Being charmed by it ideologically is quite different from experiencing how it twists the results of an election." - Lea Terhune of Repeal IRV blog.
Burlington rejects instant runoff voting March 3, 2010
...Ewing, a longtime Democratic leader in the city, called the measure a principled effort to repeal an overly complicated system, “a system which, on paper, persuaded people to give it a try but in reality resulted in a very confusing and poor system.”
Whatever the motive, FairVote, a Takoma, Md., group which supports IRV, as well as the League of Women Voters and Vermont Public Interest Research Group, showed interest in the outcome in a traditional way — they gave money. The League gave just $400, but VPIRG gave $10,000 and FairVote, $6,500, significant amounts for a small-city local ballot item.
Councilor Calls for Mayor Bob Kiss to Resign March 3, 2010...Adrian said the defeat of instant-runoff voting, combined with the city council losses of two Progressives, and the loss of a Democratic ally of the mayor send a clear message that voters have lost confidence in the city's top elected official. After the Burlington Vermont 2009 IRV mayor election , reports showed that the election suffered from just about every pathology in the book: thwarted-majority, non-monotonicity, spoiler effect & other failures. See Nov 5, 2009 Burlington IRV repeal picks up momentum "...A lot of people think the mayor's race was invalid, that we have an invalid mayor..."

DITCHED ON JAN 7, 2010 Utah Republican Party Utah Republican Convention Change Could Change Strategy for Candidates There’s one big change coming to the Republican State Convention in May. The central committee has scrapped “instant run-off voting” in favor of the more traditional multiple-ballot system to determine their nominees.

DITCHED ON NOV 3, 2009. PIERCE COUNTY WASHINGTON. Majority of Pierce County voters reject Instant Runoff Voting on Nov 3 Instant runoff voting was rejected by an overwhelming majority of Pierce County Washington Voters. 44,145 of 64,106 voters said yes to ditching instant runoff voting, also called ranked choice voting. That is 71.76% for eliminating IRV and 28.24% who wanted to keep IRV. Pierce voters ditch instant runoff voting - save $500K for taxpayers immediatelyNov 10 2009... Voters' repeal of Ranked-Choice Voting last week also freed-up $500,000 would have been needed to implement the voting system for the 2010 election.Also see Voters changing their minds on ranked-choiceBackground: A poll from 2008 showed that 63% of Pierce County WA voters don't like Ranked Choice Voting. That is 56,751 out of 90,738 Pierce County voters who answered a questionnaire included with their ballots that asked, “Did you like this new Ranked Choice Voting method?” December 7, 2008 The News Tribute. The county could save $600,000 if they scrapped instant runoff voting now.

DITCHED. CARY NORTH CAROLINA Cary North Carolina rejected a second go at IRV, voted to keep current election method. WRAL News Apr. 30 2009 Cary, N.C. — The Cary Town Council voted against a proposal Thursday to change the current election method. WRAL News and Protect NC Elections Stop IRV Blog . Also see Cary NC tries IRV, then says ‘no more’

"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." ~ Don Frantz Cary City Council member.

"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

"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

DITCHED. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY. February 21, 2009 Georgetown University ditches Instant Runoff Voting - cites problems The Hoya and No IRV in NC Blog

REJECTED. BRITISH COLUMBIA (2ND TIME) 61% of the voters gave a thumbs down for STV, Single Transferrable Vote, a ranking method in British Columbia. May 12, 2009. BC chose NOT to adopt STV for the 2nd time.Instant runoff voting was invented in 1870 by American architect William Robert Ware yet has not been widely adopted. IRV has also been rejected by a few jurisdictions that used it. Perhaps the problem is that IRV is loaded with the potential for perverse outcomes and is difficult to count in a transparent fashion (since it it not additive and votes are redistributed). To learn more about Instant Runoff Voting problems see our website Instant Runoff Voting in the US


Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

Aspen Instant Runoff Voting--Up for Repeal in November 2010

Instant runoff voting is on its way out in Aspen Colorado says Glass Ballot Box - an election transparency blog based out of Aspen.:

Status of Aspen IRV--Up for Repeal in November

MONDAY, MAY 10, 2010 AT 8:51AM

Status of Aspen’s IRV Method—--Up for Potential Repeal in November Election after November 09 Advisory Vote to Discontinue IRV.

In Aspen, the election season is gearing up again for August primaries and November elections for our County, State and Federal offices. Voters are beginning to inquire about the candidates and the issues on the ballot. The IRV status is one confusing element which needs to be updated.

Aspen City Council has committed to put a binding measure on the November 2010 ballot to allow voters to decide to continue with or repeal IRV . The question is what method may take its place---the “winner-take-all” plurality, or the traditional run-offs. That must all be worked out over the summer. But Council is committed to putting IRV to an up or down vote in November 2010.

Many voters in Aspen think that this has already been decided last November when IRV was on the ballot as an advisory question.

But it was not a binding vote. So it is a bit confusing.

Here’s the history---

In November 2009, the City put IRV up for an advisory vote. ( Council refused to have a binding vote.)

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20091103/NEWS/911039976&parentprofile=search

It was a close vote, 801 to 808 with , with 808 rejecting IRV.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkfdDWQSJaPfdHRLNmpnLVQxWENjZUdjRDBTLUJhWUE&hl=en

Some Aspen voters are going to be surprised that they must vote on IRV AGAIN in November. There seems to be a lot of agreement that it did not work as advertised. It certainly has not saved money---or time. Things may get more confusing depending on how the ballot question is worded. That seems completely up in the air.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20100421/NEWS/100429970&parentprofile=search

3 of our 5 council members are negative on IRV now. 2 of them voted for it in 2007

IRV was passed in a very small turnout election in 2007

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0fdDWQSJaPfMzdmYzRiMzgtN2I0MC00Mjk5LWFjOGItNjM0NTFhMDA5OGI5&hl=en&pli=1

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20071107/NEWS/111070039&parentprofile=search

608 Yes to 186 No.

So more people voted AGAINST IRV in the Nov 09 advisory vote than vote in total in the election to install IRV in Nov 2007.

Read this and other articles about Aspen's one and only IRV election and the issues of election transparency at Glass Ballot Box

Aspen will soon join Cary North Carolina, Pierce County Washington, Burlington Vermont, the Utah Republican Party and even Georgetown University in finally ditching instant runoff voting.

Aspen's May 5, 2009 IRV election has generated controversy from election night on to today, with voter confusion the rule on election night, voting machines mis programmed by the vendor, election tally wrong, a vendor/corporation running the election, investigations, reports, lawsuits and criminal charges. Controversy continues today.

Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

Burlington VT to North Carolina-Instant Runoff Voting is a pig in a poke!

Burlington voters at the Repeal IRV blog have a message to North Carolina media: beware of the IRV pig in a poke that is being sold to you.North Carolina media, you are being pawned by special interests.

From the Repeal IRV Blog, by BVT voter:

NC being sold a pig in a poke

Several people commenting on an article about IRV in an NC newspaper know quite a bit about Burlington VT. They throw around names like Kurt Wright, Vince Dober and Ward 7 runoff election with obvious familiarity. Check it out...http://wake.mync.com/site/wake/news/story/51610/

Burlington Vermont used IRV in two mayoral elections and voters came back to the polls in force to ditch it.

Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

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.


Why does IRV damage North Carolina Election Transparency Laws?

Procedures to implement instant runoff voting violate several parts of North Carolina election transparency laws, and key principles of election integrity. This is mostly due to the complexity of counting Instant Runoff Voting. IRV is complex to count because it is not additive. 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.

Tallying procedures for instant runoff voting are error prone and complex. With optical scan - there are 2 ways to tally IRV on optical scan - 1) by hand, or 2) by running the ballots through the machines 4 times with machines reprogrammed before each run. Both are complex. But with touchscreens, the only certified option would be a manual tally of the paper trail. The State Board of Elections procedures are to use a spreadsheet and not manually tally the paper trail. So for IRV, the paper trail is not used for anything.

1. IRV undermines North Carolina standards for voting systems and vendors. There is no certified software to tally Instant runoff voting on North Carolina voting machines. Manual counting of IRV on touchscreen VVPATS would be difficult, so an illegal work around was devised. The NC State Board of Elections devised a complicated uncertified workaround to copy the vote data over to a spreadsheet. This error prone work around requires following 5 pages of single spaced instructions.

2. Audits and Recounts are undermined: The SBOE IRV touchscreen tallying procedure undermines the hard fought for 2005 legal requirement to use voter verified paper trails for manual audits and recounts.

The SBoE IRV procedures replace the Voter Verified Paper Trail with a "Spreadsheet":
In regular elections, when there is a recount or audit, volunteers examine the voter verified paper trail. But with IRV, in recounting or auditing in touchscreen jurisdictions, the State Board of Elections SUBSTITUTES an Excel spreadsheet prepared by officials - for the "voter verified paper trail".

3. IRV undermines the voter verified paper trail - for IRV in touchscreen counties, the voter verified paper trail will not be the count of record in the case of audits or recounts. A spreadsheet by an election official will usurp the paper trail.

Excerpt from SBE Guidelines for IRV:

Instant Runoff Voting:
Goals, Standards and Criteria for Implementation and Evaluation
Approved by the North Carolina State Board of Elections on January 15, 2009

"The 2006 Act specifies that the SBE may make modifications as it deems necessary .....
...
For jurisdictions located in counties using DRE machines, the first round of counting similarly can be conducted using the DRE’s regular automated counting but as a practical matter subsequent rounds, if necessary, cannot be counted directly by the DREs themselves or by the central tabulation software. For that reason the staff of the SBE have developed methods by which the vote information from the DRE is transferred to an Excel or other approved spreadsheet, validated for transfer accuracy, and then sorted and counted, either through the regular Excel functions or by hand-to-eye from the Excel spreadsheet. Any interested person may obtain a copy of the algorithm and spreadsheet.
.
Hand-to-eye counting is, by statute (G.S. 163-165.7), a certified voting system where the hand-to-eye count is from paper ballots marked by the voter, or marked by machine and verified by the voter prior to the ballots being cast. For that reason, the second round of voting where OS machines are used clearly involves a certified voting system. The second round of counting where DRE machines are used, however, involves a hand-to-eye count from an Excel spreadsheet or an automated count through regular Excel functions. In either case, the Excel software only serves the purpose of an electronic adding machine to total the votes.
...
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/NCSBoE_IRV_Approved_1-15-2009


4. NC law requires that votes be counted where cast. But with IRV, ballots are counted away from where they were cast. In Cary, NC - the 2nd and 3rd choice votes for the "instant runoff" were not counted on election night. Instead, they were carried away from where they were cast and then counted at a later date. Below is section of law that IRV pilots violate:

§ 163-182.2. Initial counting of official ballots . (a) The initial counting of official ballots shall be conducted according to the following principles:(1) Vote counting at the precinct shall occur immediately after the polls close and shall be continuous until completed.

Violating this law puts those choices at risk of tampering after being hauled away from the polling places and put into storage.

5. There is no Election night reporting for voters' second and third choices. There are no election night reports/poll tapes for IRV results because the machines cannot count the 2nd and 3rd choices, and officials do not themselves count the 2nd and 3rd choices on election night. North Carolina's voting machines are incapable of doing such reporting, The only way to account for the voters choices and secure them against fraud would be to count all second and third choices on election night at the polling places and create a manual report of that data. Election night reporting helps deter fraud from occurring while ballots are in transit.

6. Incomplete vote data. We don't get report of all votes cast in IRV elections.
In Cary's Oct 2007 IRV election, only partial data was reported for the District B contest where voters second and third choices were ultimately counted. None of the raw vote data was reported for the other IRV contests that had a winner in the first round. Without all raw vote data, i.e the tallies for all choices, whether they were needed to ascertain a winner - we cannot ascertain if this election was "non monotonic", i.e voters hurt their first choice by voting for them. Campaigns cannot see where their efforts succeeded or failed in campaigning and even cross endorsing as IRV advocates promote.

7. In Cary's 2007 IRV election, provisional ballots were not counted until after the 2nd and 3rd choices were counted, and supposedly "added" back in. Since IRV is not "additive", it is not clear how these votes could possibly be added back in without doing a complete recount. In SBoE new procedures, provisional ballots will only be counted "if needed".




Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

Tallying Instant runoff voting in NC. Complex, not transparent, error prone

Instant runoff voting is complex to count. It is the only election method today that is not additive, i.e it can't be simply added up at the polling places. Tallying IRV is a complex scheme of sorting, reallocating and eliminating votes until a "winner" is declared. There is no IRV software for North Carolina's new voting machines. None exists. If there were, we would be beta testing it on real elections. It is never good to be the first to use a new invention.

"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

At the behest of pro IRV non profits, the state legislature allowed for pilots to try instant runoff voting. Cary and Hendersonville NC participated in 2007, and only Hendersonville NC participated in 2009, although Hendersonville never counted the IRV votes.

There are currently three methods proposed by the North Carolina State Board of Elections to tally instant runoff voting, only one has been used, the manual method, in Cary. Tallying procedures for instant runoff voting are error prone and complex. With optical scan - there are 2 ways to tally IRV on optical scan - 1) by hand, or 2) by running the ballots through the machines 4 times with machines reprogrammed before each run. Both are complex. But with touchscreens, instead of using the only certified option, a manual tally of the paper trail - the State Board of Elections procedures are to manually inspect a spreadsheet accumulation of the votes.

Method # 1: Tallying instant runoff voting in Cary NC in 2007: Manual method. Not easy as 1-2-3 ...Instant runoff voting - counting by hand a nightmare? tallying IRV in Cary NC in 2007.

Method # 2: Tallying instant runoff voting: North Carolina proposed optical scan method. Not easy as 1-2-3 ...Instant Runoff Voting don't like to talk about the tabulation part of IRV. It isn't for the faint of heart...

...The "automated" method means scanning each ballot up to 4 times, reprogramming the PCMCIA cards in between each scan. This post is about the automated tallying method.

Method # 3: Tallying instant runoff voting in Hendersonville NC: touchscreen nightmare Hendersonville has participated in NC's instant runoff voting pilot in 2007 and 2009, but never counted the IRV votes according to an email from Henderson Co BoE Director.

Instant runoff voting is not "easy as 1-2-3", nor is it transparent or simple. IRV violates a core principle of democracy, the KISS Principle. Voters shouldn't need a calculator to decide how they will vote, and the election tallying process should be publicly observable and understood by the layperson.

Understanding the hardware & software limitations

Refer to this document from the State Board of Elections March 6, 2007 meeting:.

· Certification issues

Current state law says we must comply with federal regulations. Timeline is an issue when it comes to upgrading current equipment. It is not known how long it will take to get new upgrades/changes through the federal certification process. 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.

http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/NCSBOE_3_6_07_IRV_Limitations_No_2008.doc

Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

Tallying instant runoff voting in Hendersonville NC: touchscreen nightmare

Hendersonville has participated in NC's instant runoff voting pilot in 2007 and 2009, but never counted the IRV votes according to an email from Henderson Co BoE Director. Hendersonville uses E&S iVotronic touchscreens for their in person voting, and optical scan to tally absentee ballots. There is no software to tally IRV, so the State Board of Elections has created an uncertified work around to tally the touchscreen votes. This process has not been used in Hendersonville yet, because there was always a winner in the "first round" of votes. The 2nd and 3rd choice votes were never tallied or reported according to Henderson BoE. Procedures for tallying optical scan here & here .

The Henderson IRV Touch Screen Tabulation Work-Around - Not as easy as 1-2-3

1. This work around removes vote data from the ES&S Unity system to a system not tested with it - exporting data first to notepad/wordpad and then excel to tabulate the votes.

a. neither word pad, note pad or excel have been tested for their vote tabulation ability.
b. this process erases audit data as it progresses, excel doesn't have an audit trail, and some versions of excel have bugs.
c. it is not known what happens to the data as it is moved from the ES&S vote tabulation system to a non ES&S vote tabulation system.

2. All parts of the vote tabulation system must be federally tested together, to ensure they work together.

3. There are over 100 steps in the process, with instructions like "click on the red tab, or click on the blue tab", and one single keystroke error would change the outcome of the election, and there is no audit trail for this process. Audit data is deleted as steps are performed.

Just glance at the full 5 pages single spaced details on how to perform this work around. A glance is all you need to get the point. It is crazy.

The Full Hendersonville County IRV Tabulation Procedures (according to NC State Board of Elections)
If you have trouble printing this from the email, you can download the document from this file

Determine if there are any candidates that have received the 50% threshold to be declared winner(s). Use document - Henderson County IRV Tabulation –Threshold.pdf.

To tabulate a runoff election follow these procedures:
1. Announce the two (2) candidates that are in the Instant Runoff.
2. Print document - Hendersonville IRV-Ballot Position Numbers.pdf to determine the voting positions for each candidate in the Instant Runoff.
3. Remove the “Compact Flash Cards” from the iVotronic voting devices in the City of Hendersonville precincts.
4. Capture the Election Data in ERM;
a. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
b. Import Compact Flash Audit Data
c. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –
c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
d. Select machines from Armory Precinct only.
e. Consolidate Audit Data.
f. Create Vote Image Log.
g. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
h. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_Armory.txt and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
i. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
j. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
k. Select machines from Southwest Precinct only.
l. Consolidate Audit Data.
m. Create Vote Image Log.
n. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
o. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_Southwest.txt and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
p. Clear Audit Data in ERM.
q. Collect Audit Data - From Specified Drive –c:\elecdata\7GNCHEND\GNGFLASH\ADT.
r. Select machines from all remaining Hendersonville precinct machines.
s. Consolidate Audit Data.
t. Create Vote Image Log.
u. Print Vote Image Log – Select Contest/Precinct, Numbers Only, Printer.
v. Select EL155 from the Report File Utility and click on Copy – Name the file IRV_All and copy to a location that you can retrieve from (desktop, portable flash drive, etc).
5. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_Armory.txt to import – Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name IRV_Armory.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
6. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_Southwest.txt to import – Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name IRV_Southwest.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
7. Open a blank Excel Spreadsheet and import.
a. Change “files of type” to All Files - Select file IRV_All.txt to import –
Click on OK.
b. Select Fixed width and click on Next.
c. Place separators at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50.
d. Press Next and then Finish. Save the Excel File with the name
IRV_All.xls and a location that you can retrieve.
8. Open file Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls.
9. Open the Excel file that you created in Step 5d.
a. Delete Column B
b. Sort data on Column A
c. Delete all rows without machine numbers.
d. Highlight all the data for Armory Precinct and copy.
e. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the RED Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
f. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B
g. Using the file created in Step 5d, highlight all the data for Southwest Precinct and copy.
h. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the BLUE Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
i. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B
j. Using the file created in Step 5d, highlight all the data for all the other precincts in the City of Hendersonville (excluding Armory and Southwest) and copy.
k. Copy the data into Hendersonville IRV Tabulation Form.xls in the BLACK Tab 1st-2nd Choice – click in Cell A9 and then copy.
l. Highlight the imported data (A9 to the end) and sort on Column B.
10. Verify that the vote totals for the candidates match the ERM Report.
a. Click on Yellow Tab Grand Totals – Totals for each candidate should match the report on ERM.
b. Print copy of YELLOW Tab Grand Totals.
11. Click on BLACK Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 3 thru 7 – example: Caldwell=3, Caraker=4, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 13 thru 17).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
12. Click on BLACK Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 9e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 13 thru 17 – example: Caldwell=13, Caraker=14, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
13. Click on BLACK Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 10e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 20 thru 24 – example: Caldwell=20, Caraker=21, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
14. Click on RED Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice in Armory Precinct.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 16 thru 20 – example: Caldwell=16,
Caraker=17, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 26 thru 30).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
15. Click on RED Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 12e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 26 thru 30 – example: Caldwell=26, Caraker=27, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
16. Click on RED Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 13e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 33 thru 37 – example: Caldwell=33, Caraker=34, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
17. Click on BLUE Tab 3rd Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice in Armory Precinct.
a. Column B should already be sorted.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 1st & 2nd Choice (Voting positions 11 thru 15 – example: Caldwell=11, Caraker=12, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 3rd Choice but not a 1st or 2nd choice (Voting positions 21 thru 25).
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
18. Click on BLUE Tab 4th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 3rd Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 15e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 3rd Choice (Voting positions 21 thru 25 – example: Caldwell=21, Caraker=22, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 4th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice.
e. Highlight the remaining data (A8 to the end) and copy.
19. Click on BLUE Tab 5th Choice – Remove all votes for Runoff candidates from 4th Choice.
a. Paste the data from Step 16e into cell 9a.
b. Highlight all rows that have a vote for the runoff candidates from 4th Choice (Voting positions 28 thru 32 – example: Caldwell=28,
Caraker=29, etc.).
c. Delete the selected rows.
d. The votes for the runoff candidates should now reflect the votes cast for the runoff candidates that were a 5th Choice but not a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.
20. Click on YELLOW Tab Grand Totals – The votes displayed in the grand totals for the Runoff Candidates should be the final results.

Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

Tallying instant runoff voting: North Carolina proposed optical scan method. Not easy as 1-2-3

Instant Runoff Voting don't like to talk about the tabulation part of IRV. It isn't for the faint of heart. Tallying is a problem because IRV is not "additive", in other words, you can't simply add up the results, you have to follow a complex algorithm to sort, eliminate and reallocate the votes.

"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

There are currently 2 ways to tally IRV on optical scan ballots in North Carolina: 1) The manual counting of optical scan ballots requires sorting ballots into piles. That method is described here. 2)The "automated" method means scanning each ballot up to 4 times, reprogramming the PCMCIA cards in between each scan. This post is about the automated tallying method.

"Automated" method of counting IRV as proposed to Cary City council by the State Board of Elections:

This letter to the Cary City Council describes how to tally instant runoff voting using North Carolina's optical scan voting machines.
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Cary_IRV_Letter%2003-17-2009.pdf

This process requires handling a single set of ballots multiple times, running each individual balllot through a single scanner 4 times, burning 4 separate memory cards (each different) for a single election contest. The opportunity for error is still great and one single mistake could change the outcome of the election.

Mar 17 Cary IRV M100 Instant Runoff Voting Single-Seat Contests ES&S Optical Scan Tabulation Procedures Version ID OS1-2009.1.1 Overview To: Council Members, Town of Cary Re: Instant Runoff Voting Dear Council Members: The North Carolina State Board of Elections has prepared a procedure to process Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) optical scan ballots using the fully certified Model 100 voting equipment to sort and tabulate the votes. The attached is an overview of the optical scan IRV tabulation methods that are in effect for the 2009 IRV Pilot Program subject to State Board of Elections revisions. Sincerely, Gary O Bartlett Instant Runoff Voting Single-Seat Contests ES&S Optical Scan Tabulation Procedures Version ID OS1-2009.1.1 Overview The purpose of this document is to instruct election officials in North Carolina in the steps required to use existing voting tabulation equipment and current versions of both software and firmware to allow a complete electronic sort and count of IRV ballots for the purpose of determining a winner in a singleseat contest. The procedure detailed herein makes use of functionality in HPM allowing the creation of a subset election from an existing election (basically a copy of the existing coding), with subsequent modification of the coding to restrict the M100 tabulators and Unity ERM to evaluating only the runoff contest, and tallying and reporting votes for only the runoff candidates. Due to equipment limitations, this procedure requires two distinct ballot scan runs. In the first run, ballots are scanned solely for the purpose of identifying ballots containing overvotes within any of the three choice selections in the runoff contest, so that those ballots may be properly segregated. A ballot with an overvote in the second choice selection may still count as a first choice vote; a ballot with an overvote in the third choice selection may still count as either a first choice or second choice vote. The second scan run requires the use of three PCMCIA cards per Unity precinct, one for each of the selection options in the runoff contest. Using the first card, a ballot’s first choice selection is evaluated and the ballot accepted if a valid first choice vote is detected; otherwise the ballot is rejected so that it can enter the queue for the second choice. Similarly, the second card is used to accept or reject ballots based on the evaluation of the second choice selection, and the third card for the third choice selection. Any ballots rejected by the M100 using the third card are counted as undervotes. The procedure allows for the simultaneous use of three M100 tabulators per precinct, if desired. Alternately, a jurisdiction using optical scan ballots for Instant Runoff Voting may use the SBE approved 2007 Pilot Program method of hand sorting and hand tabulating the ballots after the first round of vote tabulation. OS1-2009.1.1 IRV Single-Seat Optical Scan Tabulation Overview

What this means:

Ballots will still be centrally counted. Officials will need 4 memory cards to count a precinct instead of just one. Election officials will have to "burn" 4 different memory cards (instead of 1) to scan a single Unity precinct In burning those cards, the official will recreate the election onto each different card, and instruct each card to ignore a different part of the contest and record a different part. (more room for error as complexity increases).

Per Kathy Dopp of US Counts Votes explains the method:

This "opti-scan" machine IRV counting method requires (to accomplish just this one simple counting round for only one election contest) feeding each ballot one at a time by hand through the precinct opti-scanners up to FOUR TIMES with the optical scanner needing a differently programmed PCMCIA card in it for each of these four "counts", during which poll workers must pay close attention to whether or not each ballot is "rejected" or "accepted" and put each ballot in a correct pile depending on which stack it comes from and whether it is rejected or accepted by the M100. ...So the ballots must be resorted and re-fed one at a time into the optical scanner four (4) times the number of IRV election contests. E.g. If there are three IRV contests on the ballots, then many individual ballots could be scanned and resorted up to twelve (12) times each! The four ballot runs through the opti-scanners for each IRV contest are done to determine the: 1. over-votes in each ballot position 2. 1st choice votes for the two continuing candidates 3. 2nd choice votes for the two continuing candidates 4. 3rd choice votes for the two continuing candidates Are the election officials going to create the three PCMCIA cards accurately for EACH precinct or poll loc for each IRV contest, label them accurately and make sure that the right card is inserted at the exact right time in the process? Purchases must be made of at least 3 extra PCMCIA cards for EACH polling place and buying 3 backup PCMCIA cards for each polling place would be helpful as well in case any of them fail ...

Bob Joyce at the NC Institute of Govt, who has been tasked with explaining the above letter, advised that:

Provisional ballots may go uncounted. Provisional ballots will be counted at the discretion of election officials, if they decide that the provisional ballots would not affect the outcome of the election, they can ignore them. This however, does not mesh with Section 302(a) 4 and 5 of the Help America Vote Act, which says that all valid provisional ballots MUST be counted. http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

Tallying instant runoff voting in Cary NC in 2007: Manual method. Not easy as 1-2-3

Instant Runoff Voting don't like to talk about the tabulation part of IRV. Tallying is a problem because IRV is not "additive", in other words, you can't simply add up the results, you have to follow a complex algorithm to sort, eliminate and reallocate the votes. There are currently 2 ways to tally IRV on optical scan ballots in North Carolina: 1) The manual counting of optical scan ballots requires sorting ballots into piles. 2)The "automated" method means scanning each ballot up to 4 times, reprogramming the PCMCIA cards in between each scan. This post is about the manual tally.

1) Manual count as used in Cary NC in October 2007

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!

http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/2008/11/instant-runoff-voting-counting-by-hand.html

This is just one reason why Cary, North Carolina chose not to participate in the IRV pilot a second time.

"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." ~ Don Frantz Cary City Council member.

In the Cary, North Carolina "instant runoff" pilot, since the voting machines could not tabulate IRV, the ballots had to be manually sorted for the “runoff”. A few errors cascaded into a miscount, and ballots had to be recounted. The election workers count didn't match the candidates' informal count. An "audit" was done (not in a public meeting) and it resulted in the ballots being recounted and a "correction" of the results. See "Critics Take Runoff Concerns to Elections Board" NBC 17

To “automate” the counting process would mean spending millions of dollars on new voting machines

North Carolina has two different voting machines, some counties use a blend of the two: ES&S M100 optical scan and iVotronics with RTAL (paper trail). Every county (including touchscreen counties) would have some absentee by mail ballots which would be counted by optical scan. Consider that the results would have to be combined somehow.

Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

The continuing cost of Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis $244,000

Minneapolis Council Members 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 years. [ Low-key mayoral contest depressed Minneapolis turnout, officials say At 20 percent, turnout hit a low not seen since 1902. Results released Wednesday were good for incumbents. By STEVE BRANDT, Star Tribune November 11, 2009 ]

City council actions :: Korbel confirmed
BY CRISTOF TRAUDES May 10, 2010

The continuing cost of RCV: $244,000

Barring a change in available technologies, Minneapolis municipal elections could cost almost $250,000 extra every year that ranked-choice voting is in place.

Last year, the first time the city used RCV, there were about $365,000 in expenses specific to the new voting system, according to an Elections Department study received and filed by the City Council’s Committee of the Whole. That included one-time costs such as vast voter education and a post-election wrap-up survey commissioned to St. Cloud State University researchers.

But some of those voter education costs are projected to stick around — at least for the near future — since a refresher could be necessary when RCV returns in almost four years. Combined with other on-going costs, such as paying for ballots to be counted by hand, the projected ongoing costs of RCV total about $242,000.

Technology could be the savior here. There are machines that can count RCV ballots; however, none are certified yet by the state, and that certification isn’t expected unless more cities switch to RCV. And even then, while the city would save a projected $140,000 in RCV costs by being able to eliminate the hand count, the cost of technology is unknown.

At least one council member, President Barb Johnson (4th Ward), was miffed by the study. She noted that RCV’s supporters had promoted the system by saying it would draw out more voters and cost less than a traditional primary-plus-general election system. Considering the study’s results and last year’s very low voter turnout, she said, “all of these things did not happen in our city.”

“It is disturbing to me that we’re talking about an extra quarter of a million dollars for a system that was supposed to decrease our costs,” Johnson said.

Find the report at http://bit.ly/d5q2Y1.

http://www.downtownjournal.com/index.php?publication=downtown&page=65&story=15355

Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US

Sunnyvale CA scraps Instant Runoff Voting for selection of Mayor!

Sunnyvale's City Council says "no more" to instant runoff voting after using it for first time since adopting it. The council said that IRV was "too complicated for the public to understand".

Sunnyvale joins Cary, North Carolina, Georgetown University, Pierce County WA, Burlington Vt. and Aspen CO. tried instant runoff voting and said "no more". Update: (Aspen put IRV up for an advisory vote in November 2009. After provisional ballots were counted 801 to 808 - with 808 rejecting IRV For an effective repeal of IRV, it has to be voted on again in November 2010.) See full article on Sunnyvale're rejection of IRV below, emphasis mine.

Sunnyvale council changes the way it chooses the mayor
By Mayra Flores De Marcotte
mflores@community-newspapers.com
05/20/2010 08:04:34 PM PDT

The Sunnyvale City Council will select its next mayor differently than in previous years. The council agreed April 27 to use a simple majority vote to determine which council member will fill the top position every two years. The change is intended to simplify what some considered a confusing process following January's selection that, for the first time in city history, saw a competition for the post.

"[We] should end up with a process that, more than anything else, people understand how it came out. If we go to a simple up and down [majority] vote, we very clearly have a way to explain," said Councilman Jim Griffith.

Until 2007, when the city changed its charter, the mayoral position rotated to the member with the most seniority. The seat is now open to any council member nominated by another member.

During January's selection process, Melinda Hamilton and Ron Swegles became the first council members to compete for the position, revealing some potential problems with the ranked-choice voting method.
Candidates must receive at least four votes—the majority of the seven-member council—to win. Hamilton secured four votes and was named mayor, but three members abstained from voting, which raised concerns about how to settle potential ties in the future.
Under the ranking system, council members rank their first- and second-choice candidates and vote for all candidates at the same time. If a council member's first candidate of choice does not receive enough votes and is eliminated, their second-choice vote is used.

Council members decided the ranked system was too complicated for the public to understand. Under simple majority, if three candidates are competing and there is a 3-2-2 vote, the council would break the 2-2 tie with a majority vote. The person with three votes would then run off against the second candidate who won the tie-breaker.

The change in voting procedures is a short-term solution while the council looks at whether the city should move forward with letting residents directly vote for the mayor. The implementation of a direct mayoral election would require a public vote to change the city charter. The council is set to discuss the possibility of instituting a direct election for the mayor's seat at the May 25 council meeting.

Councilmen Otto Lee and David Whittum both liked the ranked system, but only Whittum supported the motion to move forward with this method.

The council voted 5-2 to change the system back to the up and down vote.
"It's too complicated for the public's point of view," Lee said.
Along with the method of voting, the question of whether council members are required to vote was also on the table. Some members were concerned that if members abstained, it would be difficult to break a tie.

Council considered requiring all council members to vote when it came to choosing a mayor and vice mayor and not allowing them to abstain.
City attorney David Kahn explained to council that these are policies and not guidelines.

"Unless you have a legal reason to not vote, expectation is that council members should vote on every matter that's before them," Kahn said.
"Hamilton explained that the rationale was to avoid a situation in which someone refuses to vote and the council is left with a tie and no way to break it.
The council voted 5-2 against requiring members to vote.

If the objective of an election process is to discern the will of the voters, then that process must be the simplest, most enfranchising method for all voters.



Visit this link to sign up for email updates:http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectUsElections-StopInstantRunoffVoting&loc=en_US