Natl Expert: Instant Runoff marred with flaws
Just today a new report has been released on Instant Runoff Voting, by Mathematician Kathy Dopp, President of The National Election Data Archive. Here is her press release, and the full report is linked if you wish to review it. North Carolina has been targeted by outside groups to be a "beta test" for this election experiment. Many groups are being persuaded to endorse Instant Runoff Voting without hearing these important facts. North Carolina's voting software and machines are not up to mission requirements for this. Senior citizens and less educated voters will be hindered by this system.
Monday, June 9. 2008
New Report Says that Worrisome Realities Mar Alternate Voting Method - 15 Flaws and 3 Benefits of Instant Runoff or Ranked Choice Voting
Park City, UT June 9, 2008
The National Election Data ArchiveThe National Election Data Archive has released a research report “15 Flaws and 3 Benefits of Instant Runoff Voting or Ranked Choice Voting” which concludes that “Ranked choice voting (RCV)/instant runoff voting (IRV) is not worthy of consideration and its use should be avoided” because “there are simpler, fairer, less costly, more auditable alternative voting methods.”
According to Kathy Dopp, the report’s author, “The RCV/IRV method creates serious obstacles to implementing measures to detect and correct machine vote miscount, such as post-election audits. If counting complexity, increased potential for undetected vote fraud and error, increased costs, and difficulty of auditing were not important factors for elections, then RCV/IRV could be considered an improvement over today’s voting method.”
"Instant runoff voting" or “ranked choice voting” is a system where each "vote" is a rank ordering of all the candidates. The counting would proceed in "rounds" where in each round, the candidate with the fewest votes in that round is eliminated (both from the election, and from all orderings inside votes).
RCV/IRV is billed by its proponents as a solution to the “spoiler problem”. The “spoiler problem occurs when two candidates have overlapping support and both candidates are penalized. When a third party candidate receives an amount of votes that is more than the vote margin between the two major political party candidates, it may tip the balance of votes to the major political party candidate who is favored by fewer voters overall.
Support for RCV/IRV has grown since the 2000 election, and it is being tested or considered for adoption in some jurisdictions within Minnesota, North Carolina, and California.
According to Dopp the flaws of IRV/RCV include that it does not solve the “spoiler” problem except in special cases; it requires centralized vote counting procedures at the state-level; it encourages the use of complex high-tech voting systems; it confuses voters and increases over-vote rates; its complex and time-consuming to implement and to count; it makes post election analysis difficult to perform; it is difficult and time-consuming to manually count; it is difficult and inefficient to manually audit; it could necessitate counting all presidential votes in Washington D.C. if a national popular vote compact were passed; it entrenches the two-party system; it could deliver unreasonable outcomes; not all voters’ ballots are treated equally; it is costly; it increases the potential for undetectable vote fraud and erroneous vote counts; and it violates some election fairness principles.
The benefits of RCV/IRV over today’s U.S. voting method, called “plurality voting”, include that RCV/IRV eliminates the spoiler scenario in situations where the minority party candidate is behind both frontrunners; it will not elect a candidate who loses pair-wise to all other candidates; and it gives voters an opportunity to express their preferences among all candidates.
The National Election Data Archive recommends that fundamental integrity of elections should be restored first before considering any alternative voting methods, and notes that today, not one State utilizes all the measures that are required to ensure fundamental election integrity such as:
1. public access to all election records and data necessary to evaluate the integrity of the electoral process,
2. observable post-election independent manual audits of machine vote counts,
3. post-election ballot reconciliation of all printed, counted, unused, and spoiled ballots with voter process records, and
4. public oversight of ballot security.
The eight page report “15 Flaws and 3 Benefits of Instant Runoff or Ranked Choice Voting” explains the flaws and benefits of instant runoff voting in detail plus provides appendices with examples of how RCV/IRV violates fairness principles, plus provides three pages of endnotes of references and additional facts.
The full report is found on-line at http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFla...
This release is also posted online at
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/FlawsIRV-PressRelease....Press Contact: Kathy Dopp 435-658-4657 kathy@electionarchive.org
About The National Election Archive:
The National Election Data Archive has been organized for educational and scientific purposes of promoting fair and accurate elections by researching, developing and promoting methods and procedures to detect voter disenfranchisement and vote count inaccuracy. Such methods include independent manual vote count audits, exit poll discrepancy analysis, and the public release and scientific analysis of election data along with public release of election records necessary to verify the integrity of elections. NEDA is a completely non-profit organization that relies on the donation of time by its volunteers who donate their time and expertise because of their dedication to vote integrity and public service. The project depends on donations from from citizens who are concerned about fair and free elections in the U.S. in order to continue its work. All donations are tax deductible. To make a donation or become involved in the project, please visit http://electionarchive.org
Fair Vote, a national organization, and Fair Vote NC are asking groups in North Carolina to endorse Instant Runoff Voting, also called IRV. The NC Coalition for Verified Voting vehemently opposes this voting method for many reasons. NC Democrats will be discussing resolutions this week at "town halls" and voting on them at the NCDP state convention on June 21.
IRV directly threatens NC's hard fought for Public Confidence in Elections Act, our law that requires paper ballots, audits and set strict standards for voting vendors. Our law would have to be gutted in order to weaken standards enough to allow for uncertified, untested voting software needed for IRV. Standards requiring vendor responsibility would also have to be removed.
Other North Carolina voters oppose IRV because of voter confusion and also because it is so difficult to count:
Eugene Weeks, Chair of the Wake Voter Education Coalition says: “We feel that IRV will disenfranchise certain segments of voters-especially the challenged and impaired voters. The ballot that is being used now is already confusing to some voters, yet you want to antagonize and confuse the voters more by asking them to not only vote for one candidate, but indicate a second and third choice before leaving the voting booth. Where is the voter's rights in this process?”
Janice Sears of Wake County said: “If the best board of elections in North Carolina had this much trouble counting 3,000 votes, this is too dangerous to try statewide....The claim that 'voters like it' does not impress me because whether they like it or not has nothing to do with whether it is an accurate and effective way to conduct an election and count votes”
A Hendersonville voter said “It doesn't make any sense I call it instant confusion."
Rueben Blackwell, Rocky Mount City Council Member and co-chair for the NC Justice Center advised that: "To cast out an instant runoff speculative experiment in communities that have had historic voting rights violations issues is absolutely wrong…"
Is IRV worth the damage to our verified voting law, is it worth the expense, the voter confusion?In San Francisco, the largest IRV jurisdiction in the US, in 20 contests the results were the same as if a plurality contest were held. In other words, the final winners were still the candidates with the most votes in the first round of voting.
1. If you are a registered democrat, please contact your county and district party chairman ASAP, ask them encourage the delegates attending the State Convention (June 21) to vote YES for the Resolution OPPOSING Instant Runoff Voting.
County Party Chairman:
District Party Chairman:
2. Speak up at one of the town hall meetings this week.
The North Carolina Democratic Party Resolutions and Platforms Committee has 2 Town Hall meetings this week, one in Raleigh this Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 7:00pm, the other in Greensboro on Thursday, June 12, 2008 both at their county party headquarters. The meetings are open and the Committee invites participation from all Democrats as they review and consider the Committee's recommendations to the State Convention. You can encourage discussion about the Instant Runoff Resolutions being considered for a vote at the state convention.
Vote YES for Resolution Opposing Instant Runoff Voting: The 2nd and 13th districts have passed resolutions in opposition to Instant Runoff Voting(IRV) because of it endangers the Public Confidence in Elections Act that we worked so hard for and that passed in August 2005.
Vote NO for Resolution Supporting Instant Runoff Voting: The 11th district Dems have passed a resolution in favor of Instant Runoff Voting.
Delegates will be attending the NCDP State Convention this Saturday, June 21st at the New Bern Riverfront Convention Center, 203 S. Front St., New Bern, 28563 at 10:30 am.
Support the resolution OPPOSING Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
Resolution to restore Election Integrity by Opposing Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
WHEREAS, supporters of Instant Runoff Voting (hereinafter “IRV”), a form of Ranked Choice Voting (hereinafter “RCV”), succeeded in getting an IRV pilot program passed in 2006, allowing IRV to be used in up to 10 municipal elections in 2007 and up to 10 county elections in 2008, and that said law further requiring that the State Board of Elections set up closely monitor the program and report on the results to the General Assembly;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the North Carolina Democratic Party and elected and appointed Democratic officials urge the North Carolina General Assembly not to extend the IRV pilot project beyond 2008, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the North Carolina Democratic Party and elected and appointed Democratic officials urge the North Carolina General Assembly hereby withhold any further endorsement of IRV and oppose IRV because it has endangered Public Confidence in Elections in North Carolina.
3. Ask your non political group or organizations to adopt their own resolution opposing Instant Runoff Voting and share that with the NC Coalition for Verified Voting, via joyce@ncvoter.net
For more information please read Jan 14, 2008 Point of View: Worrisome realities mar instant runoff voting
Learn more about IRV in North Carolina at http://www.ncvoter.net/irv.html and also at
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us












