ASPENISTAN MAYOR HOLDS ASPEN BALLOTS HOSTAGE PT 2

Another lampoon of Aspen's May 2009 Instant Runoff Voting election and questions about public's quest to view the ballots. By BetterBadNews "Political satire anchored by a surly moderator with 'issues'. Half true more or less 100% of the time."

ASPENISTAN MAYOR HOLDS ASPEN BALLOTS HOSTAGE PT 2




Embattled Aspen Mayor Mick Ireland loses his temper as he takes the gloves off in his fight to defeat election quality advocates demanding election transparency in Aspenistan.

The BetterBadNews panel takes advantage of a cease fire among waring factions of rival warlords awaiting a court ruling on a voting rights dispute of national importance including:

1. Did Aspen's instant runoff election violate the city charter and open records law?

2. Was the Aspen city election commission illegally dismissed for questioning election irregularities in a recent municipal election?

3. Can the city of Aspen forbid the public from inspecting ballots?

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

Las Vegas city council won't gamble on instant runoff voting

Another city says NO to instant runoff voting.

Las Vegas rejects proposed charter
Sunday, 20 Dec 2009

LAS VEGAS, N.M. (AP) - Las Vegas city councilors have turned down a proposed new charter for the northern New Mexico community for the second time.

Two weeks ago, councilors rejected a charter because of a provision for instant runoffs, which would let voters rank their choices in municipal elections.

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

Instant runoff voting: You must act now! Sale ends Sunday.

Blogger Bob Patterson writes about instant runoff voting's lack of transparency, and figures that voters are so used to election fraud that they just don't notice or don't care. Bob also zeros in on the heavy handed sales pitch used to promote IRV. Why isn't

Wanna play the shell game with your vote?
By Bob Patterson

Now that American voters have become anesthetized to the dangers of the electronic voting machines which do not leave a paper trail, it wasn’t very surprising to read Riya Bhattacharjee’s page one story in the December 10 – 16 issue of the weekly newspaper, The Berkeley Daily Planet, informing readers that Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) Machines had been OK’d for use in Alameda County because for a cynical, alarmist, conspiracy theory columnist this new topic set off internal sirens and alarm bells in a major way. Not only was Instant Runoffs (also known as ranked voting) a new concept, there were stealth indications about the possibility that “they” had found a new way to deprive Americans of their voting rights in a sneaky, underhanded, and obscure way. Instant runoffs seemed like a major candidate for becoming “the next big thing” in the blogisphere.

The Daily Planet story explained how the new system would give voters the chance to list candidates in a prioritized way so that the machines could anticipate any potential runoff elections and provide enough data for that expensive election result to be avoided.With IRV people rank their selection and the machine uses the results to compute the various mathematical permutations and potential match ups of candidates in case the voting doesn’t provide a clear statistical majority winner.
...
This new voting innovation can be ready for use in next year’s midterm elections but local voting officials must act quickly to implement this cost cutting new technology. (Gee, didn’t the “act quickly” philosophy work so well with the invasion of Iraq?)Expediency is often an integral part of a sales pitch. You must act now! Sale ends Sunday. Fear, such as the possibility that during the current economic slump (Great Depression 2.0?) precious city, county, and state funds could be spent on a runoff which could have been avoided if this magical new voting machine had been approved quickly, can also be used to motivate a fast approval....

Instant runoff voting - better than Sham-Wow? You decide.

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

San Francisco-The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S. if only they had instant runoff voting

Oh wait they DO http://twi.cc/YPI1

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

Experts rebut Gautam Dutta instant runoff voting piece in LA Daily Times

Instant runoff voting doesn't do all that Gautam Dutta claims, say some experts. On Dec 14, 2009 the Los Angeles Daily Times ran this op/ed:

Gautam Dutta: End L.A.'s losing streak with Instant Runoff Voting
By Gautam Dutta. Gautam Dutta is deputy director of New America Foundation's Political Reform Program. 12/14/2009 WHEN it comes to elections, Angelenos are mired in a vicious losing streak.

Take last week's City Council runoff election between Paul Krekorian and Christine Essel. While Krekorian won the two-person runoff, thousands of people actually lost: Essel, Los Angeles voters, and Los Angeles taxpayers.

Comments by elections methods experts disagree with claims made in Mr. Dutta's OP:

Jim RIley Dallas, TX Reply » Report Abuse #9 Wednesday Dec 16
Turnout in the runoff was 23% higher than in September, and 92% higher than the last time the election was contested at a general election in 2007.

Mr. Krekorian would had to receive an improbable 93% of transfers from the other 8 candidates to have garnered the support that he did in the runoff.

More likely the split would have been about 1/3 for Essel, 1/3 for Krekorian, and 1/3 exhausted, as confused or indifferent voters expressed only one preference, or were unable or unwilling to guess which candidates might be contenders.

Krekorian would have received the support of about 2/3 as many voters as he actually did, and quite possibly not a majority of ballots actually cast in September.

If Los Angeles wished to save money, it would switch to 2-year terms for all city offices to eliminate the consequences of officials such as Wendy Greuel jumping offices mid-term. Alternatively, they could require candidates who want to run for another office to resign prior to the general election, so that a special election can be held concurrent with the general election.

Jim Riley Dallas, TX Reply » Report Abuse #10 Wednesday Dec 16
The last conventional runoff for mayor in San Francisco (2003) saw an increase in turnout of 22%, with turnout over 54% of registered voters. In 2007, the only IRV mayoral election in SF, turnout was off an astounding 40% from 2003, and less than 36% of voters bothered to vote.

IRV advocates cite the 2005 election in San Francisco as proof of the increased turnout under IRV, but neglect to note that it was concurrent with the statewide special election called to consider a number of initiatives supported by Governor Schwarzenegger. There were similar turnouts from Mendocino to San Diego. Turnout in Los Angeles County was 47%, even though in the city of LA, there were only two special city council elections.

Last month in SF, votes cast for the same offices as 2009 (Treasurer and City Attorney) were down 58% and 56% from 2005.

If we compare votes cast for those offices in 2001, we see a 33% decline from 2001, when the last conventional election was held.

Warren_D_Smith Kings Park, NY Reply »
Report Abuse #12
A few falsehoods in the Dutta piece and in the comments:
Falsehood #1. Dutta "...and their rankings are then used to determine the majority winner." Reality #1: actually, IRV can fail to elect Majority Winners, and it is wrong to claim it always elects them. An example is Burlington VT mayor election of 2009, where IRV refused to elect the majority winner Montroll and forced Kiss down the throats of Burlington residents even though in their votes they said (by majority they preferred Montroll. Details:
http://RangeVoting.org/Burlington.html

Falsehood #2: Dutta: If Los Angeles adopts IRV for all of its elections, taxpayers will save nearly $10 million every two years. Reality #2: IRV can either raise or lower costs. For example, In San Francisco, the costs rose. Details in:
http://rangevoting.org/SFelhistory.txt

Falsehood #3: Dutta: Equally important, IRV will encourage candidates to run cleaner, issue-based campaigns.
Reality #3: IRV proponents have often said this, but so far I'd say with no evidence.(For example, Dutta presented no evidence for it, he merely asserted it.) What little evidence actually exists, is mixed and unconvincing.

Falsehood #4: Northrop:
"IRV has been used successfully for over 80 years in democracies such as Australia and Ireland without the spoiler effect that we have in the US." --actually;
(a) spoiler effect still occurs with IRV. Indeed, it (also) occurred in the Burlington election cited above (that web page explains).

(b) IRV although used in Ireland for 80 years has so far only yielded a different winner than plain plurality voting in ONE SINGLE INSTANCE in all of Irish history. But in that one instance, IRV exhibited several pathologies. So Irish IRV has not exactly been a shining example encouraging the world to adopt IRV. Instead, the Irish experience argues pretty convincingly IRV has been a waste of time. Details:
http://rangevoting.org/Ireland1990.html

One of the main problems with the spoiler effect is that it causes voting for third parties to be risky and a wasted vote. As a result the third parties die out and we get 2-party domination. That's bad because democracy with few choices is not a good democracy. All those problems can still happen with IRV. That is why Australia's house (the body it elects with IRV) is currently 2-party dominated, with ZERO third-party members holding seats this house. Also zero the previous house. Also zero the one before that.

Subelman: "There is an alternative IRV scheme that is workable: in an election with more than two candidates, you vote for as many as you want. The one with the most votes wins." Response: This is called "approval voting." It is far simpler and cheaper than IRV and can be done with "dumb" voting machines. I recommend it more than IRV, as do most political scientists. The book "Approval Voting" by Brams & Fishburn discusses its properties.

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

Hilarious lampoon of Aspen's May instant runoff election - with video

Aspen Colorado's instant runoff election this May was controversial for many reasons, not just IRV. There were a lot of questionable practices employed. The portrayal of the ballot box just outside the mayor's office during early voting was not a joke. It really happened! The video was produced by a group called Better Bad News. This is a lampoon of the entire election.

ASPEN ELECTION NOT OUT OF CONTROL
produced by Better Bad News

Instant runoff elections Aspen style sparks a voter revolt on BetterBadNews. The panel hears testimony about how a clever politician in Aspen Colorado, gamed an instant runoff election by hiding the ballots to protect voter piracy.

Can ballots photographed for verification of voter intent be hidden from public view because somebody in city hall forgot to shuffle the ballots?

In Colorado early voting is taken very seriously. A ballot box set up near the mayors office gives voters something to do while waiting for their appointment with the boss.

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

An Instant Runoff Voting Majority is not what you think

One of the claims in favor of instant runoff voting is that it provides a majority winner. That is true only if you redefine what "majority winner" means.

In San Francisco,"majority" is of the "continuing" ballots, not a majority of all ballots:

"If no candidate receives a majority of votes from the continuing ballots after a candidate has been eliminated and his or her votes have been transferred to the next-ranked candidate, the continuing candidate with the fewest votes from the continuing ballots shall be eliminated. All votes cast for that candidate shall be transferred to the next-ranked continuing candidate on each voter's ballot. This process of eliminating candidates and transferring their votes to the next-ranked continuing candidates shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes from the continuing ballots." SEC. 13.102. - INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTIONS.(D) go to this link and type in the SEC. 13.102 in search box. Amended in March 2002.

In other words, the majority consists of the votes left after others are eliminated. The elimination of ballots and the exhaustion of ballots (the point a ballot does not have choices marked) is part of the reason that in many instant runoff voting elections often suffer majority failure.

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

New: Instant Runoff Voting majority failure, plurality results in the US

Over at Instant Runoff Voting facts vs Fiction we have updated our page about IRV's pattern of plurality results and frequent majority failure in US locales.

Additions include the majority failure in Cary, North Carolina's 2007 instant runoff voting election, and an Nov 2009 update on San Francisco's election data, including San Francisco elections held by IRV (instant runoff) and ordinary top-2-runoff (T2R) by Warren D. Smith.

If your goal is to end plurality elections, or ensure a majority result, then instant runoff voting is the wrong election method to adopt. If you want to learn more about election methods, there is an excellent discussion group hosted by the Range Voting folks.

Learn more about instant runoff voting's majority failure and plurality results in actual elections in the United States - here.



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

Judges rule: St Paul IRV group made knowingly false claims - $5K fine

St Paul pro instant runoff voting group showed a pattern of deliberate lying. So the pro instant runoff voting group with a name St Paul Better Ballot Campaign might more accurately be called "St Paul Deliberately Deceptive Campaign". Three judges say - the deception was deliberate, the perpetrators unashamed!

Group that backed instant runoff voting in St. Paul is fined $5,000
Group is fined $5,000, but the ruling won't affect referendum approval of IRV.
By CHRIS HAVENS, Star Tribune Last update: December 1, 2009
...
The judges ruled that the Better Ballot campaign deliberately made the false claims on about 40,000 pre-election mailings that urged people to vote for the ranked-choice voting system. Administrative law judges Kathleen Sheehy, Cheryl LeClair-Sommer and Barbara Neilson heard the case.
...
"These false claims of support or endorsement likely influenced some voters, but the impact on the election cannot be quantified on this record." So the vote will stand.
...
The violations were "multiple and deliberate," the panel said, noting that the Better Ballot group "remains completely unapologetic."

From the court order the IRV group "made knowingly false claims"
This is the final paragraph of the decision:

Accordingly, the panel has concluded that the Respondent made knowingly false claims that the Minnesota DFL and the League of Women Voters “endorsed” the St.
Paul ballot question and that it failed to obtain written permission from the national
political figures before using their names as supporters of the ballot question, in
violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.02. The panel has concluded that these violations, which were reflected in approximately 40,000 pieces of campaign literature, were multiple and deliberate. They were made despite the clarity of the statutory prohibitions, and the Respondent remains completely unapologetic. The timing of these mailings made it difficult for opponents to respond before the election and created an unfair advantage. These false claims of support or endorsement likely influenced some voters, but the impact on the election cannot be quantified on this record. Under all the circumstances, the panel believes a fine in the amount of $5,000 is the appropriate penalty.

Crime pays and a bad precedent set.

So, St Paul Better Ballots lost on every point, but still the case was not turned over to the county attorney for prosecution. The decision sets a troubling precedent - the penalty for a rather blatant lie is 5 grand. This sum is a bargain compared to the cost of running an honest campaign! Who will do it next, now that the court has made fraud so affordable? "Technical Violation" is the new term for We can do anything as long as the ends justifies the means.


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

Minneapolis instant runoff voting - lowest turnout since 1902

Minneapolis had its first instant runoff voting election on Nov 3, and had the lowest voter turnout since 1902, well over a hundred years. This was the lowest turnout since Mayor "Doc" Ames, also known as "The Godfather of Minneapolis left office while under investigation for corruption. So much for the claim that IRV magically increases voter turnout.

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
...
Unofficially, 45,964 votes were cast for mayor this year, or the lowest since 35,837 were cast in 1902, when the city's population was about 54 percent of its current estimated population.

The article title incorrectly says "officials" claimed "low-key mayoral contest depressed Minneapolis turnout." But the reporter does not cite officials saying this, but does cite Tony Hill, a Minnesotan working on his phd in poli sci. The title should have said "political scientist says" rather than "officials say".

I thought it would be interesting to see what was happening with Minneapolis politics in 1902, the year with lowest turnout in the state until Minneapolis' first IRV election this year:














"The Godfather of Minneapolis" Albert Alonzo "Doc" Ames (January 18, 1842 – November 16, 1911) held several terms as mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the late 19th century and very early 20th century. He was known for his geniality and assistance of the poor, sometimes giving medical treatment to those who could not afford it. However, he became much more famous for leading the most corrupt government in the city's history.



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

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

Instant Runoff Voting in Hendersonville Orwellian? Letter to Editor

Is the instant runoff voting a bit Orwellian? Hendersonville voters were never asked if they wanted Instant Runoff Voting. IRV was used in Hendersonville's 2007 & 2009 municipal election. Now more voters speak up.

No friend to voters Sunday, November 15, 2009

To The Editor:
"All men are created equal but some men are more equal than others." (George Orwell, "Animal Farm," 1945).

That was fiction but now our election officials have made it a reality with IRV. No not me, Irv. IRV, Instant-Runoff Voting, is double speak for tampering with the rule of "one man, one vote." When election boards can take my vote and divide it between several candidates or decide that it belongs to a candidate for whom I did not vote, our Republic is in deep trouble. IRV may be easy and cheap, but it is wrong and it is election tampering.

Irving Kasner
Etowah

In 2007 and in 2009, there was no public hearing to ask for voter input or comment before the city council adopted. Thanks to new legislation, if Hendersonville's City Council wants to partipate in instant runoff voting again, they have to hold a public hearing first. Hendersonville voters should let their City Council and County Board of Elections ( and staff ) their feelings about IRV.


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

NOV 3 INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING LOSSES - THEY TRIED IT THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT

Some jurisdictions that recently implemented instant runoff voting have developed buyers remorse. They tried IRV and they didn't like what they saw.

THESE JURISDICTIONS ARE MOVING TO DITCH INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING OR HAVE ALREADY DITCHED IT:

MOVING TO DITCH. BURLINGTON VT.
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.
Voters in Burlington began a push to get IRV repealed. WCAX News reported April 29, 2009 of a petition drive to get the repeal of IRV on the next possible ballot. WCAX News. The movement to repeal IRV is gaining traction. See Nov 5, 2009 Burlington IRV repeal picks up momentum
The controversy over Burlington Telecom finances has energized the effort to repeal instant run-off voting, say those involved in the petition drive to put the issue on the city ballot in March...."A lot of people think the mayor's race was invalid, that we have an invalid mayor,"

DITCHED ON NOV 3, 2009. ASPEN COLORADO.
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.
Also see Aspen Election Review May 5 2009 IRV single ballot audit unit

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 immediately
Nov 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-choice
Background: 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. 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.

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’

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

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


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

New York, your Trojan Horse is at the gates - instant runoff voting

New York's election pilots of optical scanners are being used as a trojan horse for instant runoff voting. Last week the NY Senate Elections Committee heard several suggestions to eliminate the costs of runoff elections. One suggestion is to just eliminate runoffs and have winner take all elections. IRV advocates lobbyied for instant runoff voting "pilots", which are really just a way to get the camels nose in the tent. The claim is that New York should have no problem at all implementing IRV with new optical scan machines.

IRV pilots were used in North Carolina in an effort to spread IRV all through the state. The effort failed. Only one town was willing to use IRV this year, and that town did not count or use the 2nd or 3rd choice votes in this November election. Worse, the pilots were run inconsistently with NC election law and IRV supporters publicly endorsed the central counting of votes, the only way IRV CAN be counted.















Instant runoff voting "joins 'Internet Voting' and 'Vote-by-Mail' schemes as the latest bad ideas poised to further cripple American democracy" ~ Brad Friedman , national blogger and sometimes contributor to the Guardian UK

*Senate Elections Committee holds hearing on proposals to improve Election Law *Nov 14-15, 2009 Empire State News
...The Elections Committee also heard testimony on legislation intended to improve the voting process going forward. Legislation sponsored by Elections Committee Chair, Senator Joseph P. Addabbo Jr., and Senator Bill Perkins (S6248) would eliminate runoff elections in New York City and elsewhere. This year, less than eight percent of registered Democrats, and less than three percent of New York City residents, voted in the primary runoff elections. The cost to taxpayers: $15 million.

“After evaluating the 2009 election in New York it is clear that we are on the right track to ensuring that every New Yorker receives a voice in the electoral process,” said Senator Addabbo. “I am hopeful that optical scan voting machines will ensure that every vote is counted on Election Day, and while great improvements have also been made in the areas of poll site accessibility and efforts to end voter suppression and intimidation, I also believe we can do better. Legislation introduced today would eliminate the outdated practice of primary runoff voting, saving taxpayers millions of dollars in these difficult economic times.”

...*Additional legislation provides alternate suggestions to improve the runoff voting process. Two proposals sponsored by Senator Liz Krueger seek to implement instantaneous runoff voting. S3584 authorizes the use of instantaneous runoff voting on a trial basis for three years in primary and general elections at the option of local governments, while S3589 authorizes the State Board of Elections to establish a pilot program using instantaneous runoff voting for up to ten local governments in 2010 and 2011. *

“Runoffs are extremely costly and only a tiny fraction of voters participate," said Senator Krueger. "This past election cycle in New York City we had a runoff for Comptroller and Public Advocate in which only eight percent of the registered Democrat voters went to the polls but the City spent over 15 million dollars. If my legislation is passed New York would be able to use an instant runoff system where if someone doesn't garner a majority of the vote, the second choice votes will be selected at the same time on the same day. This would let everyone know the outcome of the 'instant runoff’ that day, saving taxpayers millions of dollars and ensuring that candidates with the maximum turnout of primary voters are elected. Since the State and City are moving to paper ballots with optical scanners as the new voting machine technology, it will not be complicated to change to this multiple choice voting system."

INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING INCENTIVIZES MORE COMPLEX TECHNOLOGY, DECREASES DEBATE, PLACES AN INFORMATION BURDEN ON CERTAIN GROUPS OF VOTERS AND INCREASES ELECTION ADMINISTRATION COSTS







FairVote Partnership with Internet Voting Company EveryoneCounts erased after post to election integrity group
The page, before scrubbed, said:"Fairvote in partnership with Everyone Counts and The Center for Voting and Democracy (Fairvote) have entered into an agreement to promote proportional representation in the United States."

Radio interview on lawsuit to get Instant runoff voting in St Paul overturned
"If people would have known how its (IRV) not going to be used .. there are a lot of people who won't use the 2nd choices.. and what happens to them.. people who don't make a second choices... they don't actually get a choice in the final election
....
it does cause you harm if there's a runoff and your candidate is not one of the top two....Folks in my party will start to see that there wasn't really any debate in Minneapolis... we had more debate in St Paul with the old system than they had with the new system..they deliberately, intentionally and with as much malice as possible claimed false endorsements and mailed that stuff out to try and save the election.
....
if nothing else, its worth it just to me, as someone whose ran campaigns... to stand up to people who deliberately lie to the public..."

Pierce voters ditch instant runoff voting - save $500K for taxpayers immediately
November 10, 2009 Majority of Pierce County voters reject Instant Runoff Voting on Nov 3Instant 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

Instant Runoff Voting really bad says former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown
"Instant runoff voting is really really bad....it has eliminated the opportunity..." Former Mayor Willie Brown. (Video at link)

St Paul: Judge rules instant-runoff campaign should go on trial
Nov 8, 2009. A judge ruled that there was probable cause that the St Paul Better Ballots Campaign broke the law when sending out endorsement claims in a campaign mailer promoting instant runoff voting.


"Karl Rove wouldn’t pull crap like this."

Instant runoff voting claims in St Paul are phony says 2nd campaign complaint
November 2, 2009
“I was surprised that Santa Claus and Jesus Christ weren’t on the list,” Repke says. “You can’t be more deceptive than to claim the endorsement of the President of the United States when you don’t have it. I’m just flabbergasted.”Repke is particularly peeved that the pro-IRV group is claiming DFL support. He notes that at the St. Paul DFL convention in March, a resolution to support the ballot measure was explicitly voted down by party activists. And in a town dominated by Democrats, the party’s purported backing could carry weight with voters
......
“Karl Rove wouldn’t pull crap like this,” he says. “I’ve never seen a more evil campaign than this and I’ve done politics for 30-some odd years in this town.”















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

St Paul: Judge rules instant runoff voting campaign should go on trial

A judge ruled that there was probable cause that the St Paul Better Ballots Campaign broke the law when sending out endorsement claims in a campaign mailer promoting instant runoff voting. St Paul DFL activist Chuck Repke filed two separate complaints about the last minute mailers that likely affected the outcome of the election. The IRV ballot measure won by only 1%. The misleading mailer may have given the pro IRV group the 1% they needed to barely win.

St. Paul Politics/Judge rules instant-runoff campaign should go on trial
Vote-no group accuses vote-yes group of lying about endorsements

11/08/2009 A judge ruled Friday that there is probably cause to believe an allegation the campaign behind the successful instant-runoff voting ballot question in St. Paul broke state laws by claiming endorsements of President Barack Obama, the state Democratic Party and the St. Paul League of Women Voters.

The ruling by Administrative Law Judge Kathleen Sheehy sends the matter to a three-judge panel, which will hear arguments similar to a trial.
...
Chuck Repke, a St. Paul activist who filed a complaint shortly before the election with the state Office of Administrative Hearings, has another take. "This campaign won by lying about it and I think they knew it," he said.

Repke, the leader of the vote-no No Bad Ballots group, accused the Better Ballot Campaign of knowingly making false statements on pre-election mailings that claimed the endorsements of Obama, the state Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and the St. Paul League of Women Voters.

State law says candidate literature cannot carry endorsements of someone without the expressed written consent of purported endorser, and Repke said the Better Ballot group lacked such permission — at least, as it applied specifically to Tuesday's St. Paul ballot.

MN: Court documents from that Friday hearing:

St_Paul_Prob_Cause_Nov6
St_Paul_Notice_Evidentary_Nov6

St Paul Better Ballots can't claim an endorsement unless they have written permission to do so, according to Minnesota state law:

211B.02 FALSE CLAIM OF SUPPORT.A person or candidate may not knowingly make, directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying that a candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of a major political party or party unit or of an organization. A person or candidate may not state in written campaign material that the candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of an individual without first getting written permission from the individual to do so

St Paul Better Ballots was specifically asked to quit claiming the endorsement of St Paul League of Women Voters, but the pro IRV group ignored that request.

League of Women Voters to pro-IRV: Take our name off your lit
By City Hall Scoop on October 29, 2009

The co-presidents of the St. Paul League of Women Voters are asking instant-runoff voting supporters to "correct" an "error in their literature."That lit would be mailers the Better Ballot Campaign has sent out that list the League under "endorsed by..." implying the League urges a vote of "yes" on Tuesday's ballot question of whether St. Paul should take up the alternate voting method

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

FairVote Partnership with Internet Voting Company EveryoneCounts erased after post to election integrity group

Internet Voting Co. Everyone Counts touts partnership with FairVote, then webpage is scrubbed within days after made public to election integrity activists.

EveryoneCounts, or E1C has a partnership with FairVote, a non profit organization according to their website. It is troubling when an election related non profit endorses an insecure voting method. Computer scientists say that internet voting is insecure "there is ample reason to be skeptical of internet voting proposals". Internet security expet Avi Rubin says there is no way to secure Internet voting. Below is a screen shot of E1C's website touting the partnership. We obtained a screen shot via the Wayback Machine because the page was scrubbed sometime after November 9, 2009.


















(Click on the above message to see it in actual size.)

The page, before scrubbed, said:

"Fairvote in partnership with Everyone Counts and The Center for Voting and Democracy (Fairvote) have entered into an agreement to promote proportional representation in the United States."

This endorsement was visible at EveryoneCounts' website as recently as November 9, 2009.
That same day, I posted commentary about it at the Election Integrity message board, a group that FairVote's Director, Rob Richie recently joined. Richie defended the partnership saying that it was ok as the internet vendor had not donated funds to FairVote.

Revising history: The Partnership magically disappears. On November 12, just three days later, the link for the page about the FairVote/EveryoneCounts partnership is still there, but the content has been scrubbed.

Rob Richie argues that there is nothing wrong or pernicious about their Partnership with EveryoneCounts.

So why did E1C scrub their webpage within days after we raised the issue on a public list serve?

At this time, election integrity activists are fighting to prevent the internet voting. The powerful internet voting lobbyists are making headway in Alabama, Colorado, Massachusetts, and trying for Washington. The push is coming from: the Federal Voting Assistance Program, pushing for internet voting for military, Everyone Counts pushing for internet voting for all voting, and Scytl, who is hiring a salesforce to work with state legislators.

Internet voting will undo several years of work by national and state election integrity groups and will be far more dangerous than paperless computerized voting ever was.


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

Radio interview on lawsuit to get Instant runoff voting in St Paul overturned

Chuck Repke from No Bad Ballots Talking about his lawsuit to get IRV in St. Paul overturned. Radio interview on KSTP November 9th.

"...they didn't have the endorsement of the DFL, and they didn't have signed permission to use Obama's name.... Its a selfish arrogant attitude that they have the right to vote for two people at the same time....they are ignoring the fact that for some people this will be difficult to do."

Click on this link to listen to the podcast of the radio show

Excerpts of the interview transcribed below:

"you have to have a signed written permission to us anybodies name, such as the President of the United States, before you can put it in a piece of campaign literature use it.... and they clearly didn't have that, they didn't have the endorsement of the league, they didn't have the endorsement of the DFL, and they didn't have signed permission to use Obama's name. And they won the election by 1 percentage point...thats as close as it can be, and if you don't think 600 people were influenced by DFL endorsement or the President of the United States, then you don't understand campaigns.....

I don't need to have them pay a fine... I've done politics in St Paul for 35 years, I've never seen a more blatant stealing of the DFL endorsement than than, never seen a worse distortion of the League of Women Voters than that... never seen anything sillier than claiming the endorsement of the president of the United States.

Except, I would think we should be able to show that the DFL index.. the DFL winning big had an influence on the election... when you claim DFL support...

I advocated against it. I think what will happen here... we've won the probable cause which says we basically have a case... then we have an evidentiary hearing... that will determine whether it will go to the county attorney and.. then the judge will overthrow the results of the election.

If if fails, if my efforts to actually require a fair election in St Paul... fails..then what will ultimately happen here is what happened in Takoma... Takoma just threw IRV out 3-1 there....

Now Willlie Brown of San Francisco, who they tout, they tout San Francisco as the icon of how good instant runoff voting is, Willie Brown just did a radio interview on the third that says the reason why no one wants to run for office in SF anymore and we can't have a good contest is because of instant runoff voting..

There are administrative judges that will look at the evidence... we are claiming that they had false statements in their literature...may have had an impact on the election...and that should go to the county attorney for prosecution.

...I really think that what sways people at the end... this was this close, they spent thousands of dollars sending this... it comes at the same time that the DFL sample ballot comes.... it says DFL endorsed... and thats who went out to the polls...

If people would have known how its (IRV) not going to be used .. there are a lot of people who won't use the 2nd choices.. and what happens to them.. people who don't make a second choices... they don't actually get a choice in the final election....it does cause you harm if there's a runoff and your candidate is not one of the top two....

Folks in my party will start to see that there wasn't really any debate in Minneapolis... we had more debate in St Paul with the old system than they had with the new system..

That they had that kind of literature, lying about what their endorsements were...I think the public was.. .the movement was going our way... and then they deliberately, intentionally and with as much malice as possible claimed false endorsements and mailed that stuff out to try and save the election....if nothing else, its worth it just to me, as someone whose ran campaigns... to stand up to people who deliberately lie to the public...

We're talking about a couple hundred votes difference...their tie to the DFL party was deliberate and intentional....and they did it to win an election that they wouldn't have won otherwise....

I'd do anything to stop this thing because its just that bad. It has the potential to really hurt people when they have no idea what they are doing in the voting booth. and I am stunned that people in my party people from the left have not become more angered by that..

Its one of those things we have fought for 50 years. to make sure that the ballot is simple so that everybody can understand it. Literacy tests should not be allowed.. and if you don't think this is a literacy test then I think we're just thinking beyond ourself...

Its a selfish arrogant attitude that they have the right to vote for two people at the same time....they are ignoring the fact that for some people this will be difficult to do...."



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

Pierce voters ditch instant runoff voting - save $500K for taxpayers immediately

Three years ago Pierce County Washington voters adopted instant runoff voting or ranked choice voting. They were told it was the hottest thing going, they wanted it, they got it, then they hated it.

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 nix ‘ranked-choice voting’
November 10th, 2009...It was widely advertised as the latest cool thing in voting – “ranked-choice voting” or “instant-runoff voting.”
...

Proponents say that in retrospect, voters were probably confused by having two separate ballots and because they needed more information on how the system worked. If it catches on elsewhere in the country, as they expect, voters here may be more receptive, they say. Elections activist Krist Novoselic, who backs RCV, said “In retrospect, the (repeal) amendment was inevitable once the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 restored Washington’s Top 2 system for our state and federal races.

...
Elections Director Nick Handy, no fan, said it was probably the death knell for the change:

“Just three years ago, Pierce County voters enthusiastically embraced this new idea as a replacement for the then highly unpopular Pick-a-Party primary.” Pierce County did a terrific job implementing ranked choice voting, but voters flat out did not like it.

The rapid rejection of this election model that has been popular in San Francisco, but few other places, was expected, but no one really anticipated how fast the cradle to grave cycle would run. The voters wanted it. The voters got and tried it. The voters did not like it. And the voters emphatically rejected it. All in a very quick three years.”

And already saving Pierce County taxpayers money:

Nearly $3M cut in Pierce County Council's 2010 budget
Nov 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.

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

Instant Runoff Voting really bad says former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown

The Hon. Willie Brown, Former Assemblymember and Speaker of the California Assembly, and most popular Mayor of San Francisco gives his opinion on Instant Runoff Voting



"Instant runoff voting is really really bad....it has eliminated the opportunity..." Former Mayor Willie Brown.

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

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.

Proposed Charter Amendment No. 3 (approved repealing IRV)

APPROVED 44,145 71.76%

REJECTED 17,372 28.24%

Over Votes 34
Under Votes 2,555

Here's the Charter Amendment description:

Ballot Measures and Validation Requirements Pierce County (253) 798‐7777 Ordinance 2009‐1, Charter Amendment No. 3, if approved,would eliminate Instant Runoff Voting, also known as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and restore the primary and general election for County Elected Offices in accordance with State Election Law. Simple Majority

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

Instant runoff voting claims in St Paul are phony says 2nd campaign complaint

Instant runoff voting was not endorsed by St Paul League of Women Voters, not endorsed by the Minnesota DFL Party, and IRV was not endorsed by President Obama. So charges an election complaint filed against a pro IRV group St Paul Better Ballots Campaign in St Paul. Chuck Repke, of No Bad Ballots is a reluctant activist in this case, says this about filing the complaint: that "none of this gives me any pleasure. As I have said from the beginning, I didn't want to be the person defending our elections system. I am not getting paid for this, and I am only annoying friends. But, elections are important and people's voting franchise is important."

Anti-IRV group calls claims of Obama, DFL endorsement ‘evil’
By Paul Demko 11/2/09 The Minnesota Independent

The knives are out in the battle over instant-runoff voting (IRV) in St. Paul. The No Bad Ballots Committee has filed a second complaint alleging nefarious campaign practices by supporters of a ballot measure that would adopt the new voting system.

At issue is a mailing that the Saint Paul Better Ballot Campaign, which is running the pro-IRV campaign, has sent out to potential voters. It claims a wide array of supporters for the ballot measure, from President Obama to the Star Tribune to the Minnesota DFL party.

But Chuck Repke, co-chair of the No Bad Ballots Committee, charges that the claims are patently false. Under state election law, a campaign cannot claim the support of an individual unless that person has provided written permission. Clearly President Obama, Repke notes, hasn’t taken time out from his schedule to provide written support for the local ballot initiative.

The complaint is that St Paul Better Ballot Campaign violated this Minnesota state law: 211B.02 FALSE CLAIM OF SUPPORT.A person or candidate may not knowingly make, directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying that a candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of a major political party or party unit or of an organization. A person or candidate may not state in written campaign material that the candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of an individual without first getting written permission from the individual to do so.

“I was surprised that Santa Claus and Jesus Christ weren’t on the list,” Repke says. “You can’t be more deceptive than to claim the endorsement of the President of the United States when you don’t have it. I’m just flabbergasted.”

Repke is particularly peeved that the pro-IRV group is claiming DFL support. He notes that at the St. Paul DFL convention in March, a resolution to support the ballot measure was explicitly voted down by party activists. And in a town dominated by Democrats, the party’s purported backing could carry weight with voters.

“They cannot claim DFL endorsement,” Repke says. “These people know that. They were at the convention. I saw them there. They were standing next to me.”
...
But Repke is unimpressed by suggestions that any campaign violations were committed out of innocence rather than malice. He believes the alleged infractions should be vigorously prosecuted.

“Karl Rove wouldn’t pull crap like this,” he says. “I’ve never seen a more evil campaign than this and I’ve done politics for 30-some odd years in this town.”

Fortunately we finally have a case where the laws and circumstances allow someone to stand up to the deceptive claims of endorsements where none were given. Just one more case FOR instant runoff voting that proves to be false. So many claims about instant runoff voting have proven inaccurate, or just plain wrong, that it pays to verify any. No wonder Brad Friedman calls instant runoff voting a virus.


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

Instant Runoff Voting endorsed by WHO? Misleading mailers in St Paul

From No Bad Ballots latest on the campaign for instant runoff voting in St Paul, Minnesota:

BREAKING NEWS Complaint: Better Ballot campaign lies about support from the League of Woman Voters. Advocates for instant run-off voting have wrongly claimed to have the support of the Saint Paul or Minnesota chapters of the League of Woman Voters, according to a complaint filed today with the State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings board against the Better Ballot Campaign and Fair Vote Minnesota.Click here to read the news release.Click here to read the full complaint.

St Paul Locals are unhappy about being lied to - whether they like IRV or not:

"Even so, the public shouldn't be okay with what appears to be a significant and obvious misrepresentation." ~ a comment posted in the St Paul e-democracy forum.

St Paul Minnesota voters will vote this November 3rd on whether to adopt instant runoff voting.
The group Better Ballot Campaign has been claiming all sorts of endorsements for IRV on its mailers to voters. The problem, these mailers may violate the law because BBC didn't get written permission for at least groups portrayed as endorsing IRV. St Paul League of Women Voters has asked Better Ballots to correct their misleading mailer that wrongly claims LWV endorsement for the IRV issue that is on the Nov 3 ballot.

League of Women Voters to pro-IRV: Take our name off your lit
By City Hall Scoop on October 29, 2009

The co-presidents of the St. Paul League of Women Voters are asking instant-runoff voting supporters to "correct" an "error in their literature."

That lit would be mailers the Better Ballot Campaign has sent out that list the League under "endorsed by..." implying the League urges a vote of "yes" on Tuesday's ballot question of whether St. Paul should take up the alternate voting method.

"The League of Women Voters of St. Paul has no position on this issue," write Co-Presidents Sigrid Johnson and Phyllis Hollihan in a letter Johnson said she e-mailed to the PiPress editorial page.

So DFL activist Chuck Repke of No Bad Ballots filed an complaint about this:

No Bad Ballots Committee files campaign grievance
By Paul Demko 10/30/09 ...Specifically at issue is a postcard mailed out by the St. Paul Better Ballot Campaign urging support for the change in voting systems. Among the individuals and organizations listed as backing the measure is the League of Women Voters of Minnesota and St. Paul.

Better Ballots tries to defend what they've done:

Fans, foes spar over instant-runoff voting decision in St. Paul
Pioneer Press Updated: 10/30/2009
...
The pro-IRV Better Ballot Campaign has mailed out literature claiming the "League of Women Voters of St. Paul and Minnesota" endorses their side.

On Thursday, the St. Paul league's co-presidents, Sigrid Johnson and Phyllis Hollihan, sent a public letter saying the St. Paul League has taken "no position" and asking the Better Ballot Campaign to correct its literature.

On Friday morning, the anti-IRV No Bad Ballots group filed a formal complaint with the state Office of Administrative Hearings, accusing the Better Ballot Campaign of knowingly making false statements.

Better Ballots can't claim an endorsement unless they have written permission to do so, according to Minnesota state law:

211B.02 FALSE CLAIM OF SUPPORT.
A person or candidate may not knowingly make, directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying that a candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of a major political party or party unit or of an organization. A person or candidate may not state in written campaign material that the candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of an individual without first getting written permission from the individual to do so.

If you look at the comments in the St Paul E-Democracy Forum you can see that no one likes to be tricked or misled in order to sell them something.

..."They have been asked to remove these erroneous, misleading, false claims
of support of Major Political Parties (in violation of Section 211B.02 of theMinnesota Statutes - State Campaign Laws) BUT THEY HAVE NOT. They CANNOT allege that a misunderstanding has culminated in this false claimof support of the St. Paul DFL.

They KNOW they lost at the 2009 CityConvention. They KNOW the DFL sample ballot does not endorse Vote Yes on the ballot question. When is this going to end? Maybe there needs to be another complaint and inquiry into the violation of State Campaign laws by BBC and itsemployees. Violations of many of our State Campaign Laws can be prosecuted ascrimes - this isn't merely a slap on the wrist. In addition, violations cancause a candidate/ballot question to be removed from a race or to Lose - evenif they have the votes to win. THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF !!!"

#

"Instant Run off Voting is a confusing, complicated voting system that if passed would do nothing to improve elections in Saint Paul. Free and fair elections are the hallmark of any democracy and voters need to know that their votes count and that voting for their candidate to win can only help that candidate, not hurt them. VOTE NO ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3rd" ~ No Bad Ballots group.

IF somehow the issue of adopting Instant Runoff Voting passes, it is ripe for court challenge.


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

Instant Runoff Voting - Is it Democratic?

Instant Runoff Voting - Is it Democratic? Information from an in-depth study performed on the Burlington, VT Mayoral Election by the University of Vermont's Legislative Research Shop. It answers the question which all voting systems should address - do the results reflect the will of the people?



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

Instant runoff voting video shows insane results - like in real life

See how instant runoff voting math works in real life. Voting Matters blogs it most succintly, and has a short youtube video at the link.

You want insane election results? Just try IRV! Voting Matters Blog.
One of the many dubious claims about Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is that it will produce a consensus winner. Not always true, as has been found in studies of both Aspen, CO and Burlington, VT. The candidate with the most first and second place support does not always win. This is because it is possible to hurt your preferred candidate by turning out too many supporters in his behalf. How is this possible? Just take a look at this explanatory video to see how this could happen (and has indeed happened in real elections in various places across the U.S.) at the link

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

Oakland Mayor questions instant runoff voting in Alameda County - rightly so

Mayor Perata of Oakland, California is raising concerns about whether the county is ready to implement ranked choice voting aka instant runoff voting in next years elections. His opponent, City Councilwoman Jean Quan slings mud at him claiming Perata is afraid RCV would help her to win. But Perata is wrong wrong wrong, if San Francisco's track record with IRV/RCV is right. IRV/RCV is complex, costly, confusing and in non partisan elections acts as incumbent protection. Many jurisdictions that have actually implemented instant runoff voting have ditched it or are moving to ditch it.

Perata questions ranked choice voting in Alameda County
By Chris Metinko Oakland Tribune 10/29/2009
Three years after Oakland voters approved instant runoff voting for city elections, one Oakland mayoral candidate is questioning whether or not the city, county and voters are ready for it.

In a letter to Alameda County Administrator Susan Muranishi, former state Senate leader Don Perata brings up a variety of questions and concerns about the possibility of using instant runoff voting in next year's city elections.

Oakland voters approved instant runoff voting under Measure O in 2006. ...
The measure called for such ranked choice voting to start in 2010. However, in Perata's letter he questions if there is enough time to educate voters on the new system, if the new system is safe and secure and the cost of using such an "experimental voting system."

"This is our most sacred right," Perata's campaign manager, Larry Tramutola, said. "We need to make sure it's done right and not something that's just rushed.

"Too many times in Oakland, things just get thrown out and then someone has to go clean it up," Tramutola added, pointing to the recent controversy over city parking meter hours.

If Mayor Perata were truly self serving, he would WANT instant runoff voting, aka ranked choice voting. All you need to do is look at San Francisco, the one California jurisdiction that has administered several IRV/RCV elections. It has served as incumbent protection there.

Just In Case You Were Wondering....Some Ideas on How To Vote on 11/3
... So there's an election going on next Tuesday, but I think this off-year must have set a record for Most Boring Election Ever.

...Remember how we were told that voting for so-called "instant runoff voting" was going to usher in this big future where under-funded candidates could be freer to challenge The System and all that?
...
The problem this year is that we have two incumbents, each running unopposed this year. This is nothing new - three years ago I wrote about this very same phenomenon and offered up then what I'm offering now - Fun With IRV Ballots.... Fill out your ballot with your own favorite characters. If all of this seems silly, well it is. So is the fact that all the promises made about IRV never came true. We're left with paying for an expensive system that hasn't lived up to its promises.

If someone is a lame nobody running for office, they still lose. Just because we played games to fit the needs of a handful of ideologues whose true agenda has yet to be revealed, doesn't mean anything is different.Incumbents are always re-elected,
and the candidates who have the most support always win. It's even easier when no one bothers to run against them!

Perhaps IRV should more aptly be renamed Incumbent Return Voting.

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

San Francisco Instant runoff voting 2009 Most Boring Election Ever - incumbents always re-elected

Greg Dewar, a writer and consultant for Greens and Dems says this year's muni election is "Most Boring Election Ever."

Just In Case You Were Wondering....Some Ideas on How To Vote on 11/3

... So there's an election going on next Tuesday, but I think this off-year must have set a record for Most Boring Election Ever.
...
Fun with the Waste of Time That Is IRV This Year

Remember how we were told that voting for so-called "instant runoff voting" was going to usher in this big future where under-funded candidates could be freer to challenge The System and all that?

Yeah, I know. Worked out well so far, right (insert sarcasm tag here).

The problem this year is that we have two incumbents, each running unopposed this year. This is nothing new - three years ago I wrote about this very same phenomenon and offered up then what I'm offering now - Fun With IRV Ballots.

I mean, the city went to all the trouble to print "IRV style" ballots, the least we can do is use them. So, while we all like ya, Mr. Herrera and Mr. Cisneros, and you did get my vote, I decided to enter in a few names for 1st and 2nd who will most assuredly lose. This year I used the names of favorite TV characters:

For City Attorney:

1. Don Draper
2. Bert Cooper
3. Dennis Herrera (Winner!)

For Treasurer

1. Hank Moody
2. Greg House
3. Jose Cisneros (Winner!)

Fill out your ballot with your own favorite characters. If all of this seems silly, well it is. So is the fact that all the promises made about IRV never came true. We're left with paying for an expensive system that hasn't lived up to its promises. If someone is a lame nobody running for office, they still lose. Just because we played games to fit the needs of a handful of ideologues whose true agenda has yet to be revealed, doesn't mean anything is different.

Incumbents are always re-elected, and the candidates who have the most support always win. It's even easier when no one bothers to run against them! So have fun. Besides, Don Draper is cool.

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

INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER

Roberts Rules DOES NOT recommend Instant Runoff Voting. Period. What they recommend is not IRV as implemented everywhere, nor as proposed by FairVote. There is a crucial difference, and that difference is relevant.

What Robert's rules "describes" (not "recommends") is not what is described as Instant Runoff Voting. It is similar, but different, in an important way that points out how the claim that IRV always elects a majority winner is a tautology. It*creates* a "majority winner" in some cases by discarding ballots, by excluding them from the majority.

From the list of election-methods FairVote on Robert's Rules of Order and IRV
Abd ul-Rahman LomaxSat, 20 Dec 2008

Robert's Rules are pretty clear: avoid making decisions, including elections, without a majority vote, and they don't fall into the trap of thinking that one gets a majority by excluding ballots without a vote for the top two.
...
But what they describe as "preferential voting," while the rules are single transferable vote, do *not* elect by plurality, they merely make it easier to find a majority, and they suggest that voters be made aware that if they do not rank enough candidates, the election might fail to find a majority "and must be repeated."

FairVote has radically misrepresented this section of RRONR, and that misrepresentation has been taken up and repeated by election officials in places which have implemented IRV or RCV. The method described in RRONR is indeed "better than election by plurality," but what is being implemented is, in some of the applications, no better than plurality: it *is* plurality, almost always. That's with nonpartisan elections. There are subtle but crucial differences between what RRONR describes and what is being implemented: the most important is that election by plurality is allowed, and the dirty little secret is that IRV usually, with nonpartisan elections, where full ranking is not obligatory, does not find a majority if one did not exist in the first round; further, it only rarely -- no examples so far in the U.S. with nonpartisan elections! -- finds any winner other than the first round leader.

In other words, with all the jurisdictions that have implemented IRV, with nonpartisan elections, no results have been shifted from what Plurality would have obtained. But results almost certainly *have* shifted: most of these jurisdictions were ones that required a runoff election if a majority wasn't found, and runoff elections, depending on rules, do find a real majority, at least in some senses, and even when the method is open to write-in votes, majorities are normal.

IRV is replacing top-two runoff, not Plurality, usually, so the comparison with Plurality is a false one. And top-two runoff, while certainly not perfect, is different from IRV in a number of important ways. Regardless of theory, it seems that about one out of three TTR elections results in a "comeback" where the first round leader loses to the runner-up. Since IRV is not presenting us with these, in nonpartisan elections, we can be fairly sure that IRV is changing results from TTR (better) to Plurality (worse).

FairVote, in describing or giving examples of how IRV works, focuses on *partisan* elections, where vote transfers follow some relatively predictable pattern. Not as strong a pattern as they or voting systems theorists often predict, but still strong enough to shift results. So the Green candidate is eliminated and *some* of the votes go to the Democrat. Not all. Usually, it turns out, there are enough exhausted ballots that a majority still is not found. IRV is a form of election by plurality, merely a slightly more sophisticated one that can *sometimes* fix the spoiler effect.

And who benefits from that? Mostly the major parties, which is why IRV, where it is significantly used, is associated with strong two-party systems. What voting system is associated with multiparty systems? ...

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