Pierce County Washington held its first Ranked Choice Voting election, also called Instant runoff, this past November. 91,000 voters received a survey form with their mail in ballots.
Results are in: 63 percent disliked Ranked Choice Voting
Auditor defends ranked choice
JOSEPH TURNER; joe.turner@thenewstribune.com
Published: December 6th, 2008 12:05 AM Updated: December 6th, 2008 01:45 AM
Pierce County spent a lot of money on a new voting method for a few county offices in November's election, and most voters didn't like it a bit.
Auditor Pat McCarthy said ranked-choice voting will cost county taxpayers about $1.7 million, which is half of the overall $3.4 million it cost to put on the 2008 general election.
Although Pierce County voters changed the county charter last year to allow the new voting method, it appears they've changed their collective mind. Two of three voters who responded to a survey were opposed to the concept.
"It was overwhelming," McCarthy told members of the state Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee on Friday. "The majority did not like it."
That was based on nearly 91,000 voters who filled out a questionnaire that accompanied mail-in ballots.
Read More...
« Times Reporter Email: Truth About Voter Purge Story | ncvoter's Blog | 8 6/7 VotingNews. TN county missing voting machine, PA group needs audit help, Diebold certified, NVRA needed »
Majority of Pierce County voters disliked Instant Runoff Voting, 91,000 surveyed
Advertisement
Pierce County voters are a bunch of wackos. They are the reason Darcy Burner will never be a member of Congress. And they were the only county in the whole state to oppose the death with dignity initiative. They aren't known for their wit.
December 6, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: It was I-985 that Pierce County was alone in supporting, not I-1000 as mentioned above. I-985 was an initiative so boneheaded they even opposed it in Garfield and Asotin counties. That says something.
December 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oakland, CA is switching to instant runoff in the 2010 election. It will allow the "nonpartisan" offices, that is, all of the local govt ones, to be voted on in Nov instead of in the June primary, when about 24 people vote. Could mean big changes in the next mayoral and council elections.
December 6, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just moving the election to November is a big change, but IRV itself will only create a more stagnant political atmosphere.
Look at San Francisco. See any changes there in the Mayoral or City Council? No because IRV has helped the incumbents.
In San Francisco, IRV has not changed the results of the election, whoever got the most votes in the first round ended up winning.
It took San Francisco and Pierce County both 2 1/2 weeks to get the election results, all for nothing.
91,000 voters are alot of people to survey, and this is one survey where they can answer honestly from the privacy of their home.
December 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
why has IRV helped the incumbents? It seems like a way in general to give a reasonable alternative a chance.
December 7, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Say you have one challenger you know anything about, and you list the incumbent as your second choice, because you know nothing about the other challengers.
OTOH, if the incumbent has really been screwing things up and everyone lists him/her as their last choice, not much chance the incumbent can survive an IRV election.
Big problem I see with IRV is it perpetuates the need to spend lots of money even at the local level. I don't see any other way around that until municipalities, as well as all other levels of government, require local media to comply with fairness doctrines (equal time, equal access) as a condition for doing business.
December 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink