<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Runoffs for Some But Not For Others?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2009/09/24/runoffs-for-some-but-not-for-others/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2009/09/24/runoffs-for-some-but-not-for-others/</link>
	<description>Gotham Gazette&#039;s blog about New York policy and politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 08:10:51 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joyce McCloy</title>
		<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2009/09/24/runoffs-for-some-but-not-for-others/comment-page-1/#comment-84787</link>
		<dc:creator>Joyce McCloy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/?p=5364#comment-84787</guid>
		<description>IRV is a very complicated way to hold elections.. IRV is not additive, you can&#039;t just simply add up 2nd and 3rd choice votes.  A complex sorting and shuffling program is needed for the voting system software. 

Additionally, you will have to centrally count the IRV votes. That increases risk of fraud or error because the IRV ballots are hauled away from where they are cast and then tallied at a later date.

Places that Have Ditched Instant Runoff Voting or are Moving to Ditch It

THESE JURISDICTIONS ARE MOVING TO DITCH INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING OR HAVE ALREADY DITCHED IT:

MOVING TO DITCH, ASPEN COLORADO.
Aspen to reconsider Instant Runoff Voting this November - City Council cite problems with May election (blog) 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

MOVING TO DITCH. BURLINGTON VT. Voters in Burlington are pushing to get IRV repealed. There is a petition drive to get the repealing of IRV on the next possible ballot. WCAX News.

MOVING TO DITCH. PIERCE COUNTY WASHINGTON. The voters will get to reconsider this issue in November. 63% of Pierce County WA voters don&#039;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).

http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/2009/06/places-that-have-ditched-instant-runoff.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IRV is a very complicated way to hold elections.. IRV is not additive, you can&#8217;t just simply add up 2nd and 3rd choice votes.  A complex sorting and shuffling program is needed for the voting system software. </p>
<p>Additionally, you will have to centrally count the IRV votes. That increases risk of fraud or error because the IRV ballots are hauled away from where they are cast and then tallied at a later date.</p>
<p>Places that Have Ditched Instant Runoff Voting or are Moving to Ditch It</p>
<p>THESE JURISDICTIONS ARE MOVING TO DITCH INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING OR HAVE ALREADY DITCHED IT:</p>
<p>MOVING TO DITCH, ASPEN COLORADO.<br />
Aspen to reconsider Instant Runoff Voting this November &#8211; City Council cite problems with May election (blog) 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</p>
<p>MOVING TO DITCH. BURLINGTON VT. Voters in Burlington are pushing to get IRV repealed. There is a petition drive to get the repealing of IRV on the next possible ballot. WCAX News.</p>
<p>MOVING TO DITCH. PIERCE COUNTY WASHINGTON. The voters will get to reconsider this issue in November. 63% of Pierce County WA voters don&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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’</p>
<p>DITCHED. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY. February 21, 2009 Georgetown University ditches Instant Runoff Voting &#8211; cites problems The Hoya and No IRV in NC Blog</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p><a href="http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/2009/06/places-that-have-ditched-instant-runoff.html" rel="nofollow">http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/2009/06/places-that-have-ditched-instant-runoff.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Telesca</title>
		<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2009/09/24/runoffs-for-some-but-not-for-others/comment-page-1/#comment-84786</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Telesca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:48:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/?p=5364#comment-84786</guid>
		<description>IRV isn&#039;t cheaper than traditional elections and rarely-needed runoff elections if you factor in all the costs involved for voter education, poll worker and election administrator training, etc.  

IRV is too complicated a voting system.  Unless you mandate that every voter rank each and every choice in a race, there is a very good chance that you will never get the 50% plus one vote majority winner advocates claim IRV ensures.  All you will get is a larger plurality win.  

You couldn&#039;t do IRV with lever machines.  And you can&#039;t do hand counting with IRV on DRE machines.  Op-scan would be the only way to go, and even one of the best county Election Boards in my state (NC) screwed up an IRV hand tabulation involving a little over 3000 ballots.  And the person who was declared the winner had only 1401 out of 3022 first column votes.  

Beware of IRV - it doesn&#039;t deliver on it&#039;s promises!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IRV isn&#8217;t cheaper than traditional elections and rarely-needed runoff elections if you factor in all the costs involved for voter education, poll worker and election administrator training, etc.  </p>
<p>IRV is too complicated a voting system.  Unless you mandate that every voter rank each and every choice in a race, there is a very good chance that you will never get the 50% plus one vote majority winner advocates claim IRV ensures.  All you will get is a larger plurality win.  </p>
<p>You couldn&#8217;t do IRV with lever machines.  And you can&#8217;t do hand counting with IRV on DRE machines.  Op-scan would be the only way to go, and even one of the best county Election Boards in my state (NC) screwed up an IRV hand tabulation involving a little over 3000 ballots.  And the person who was declared the winner had only 1401 out of 3022 first column votes.  </p>
<p>Beware of IRV &#8211; it doesn&#8217;t deliver on it&#8217;s promises!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Littlefield</title>
		<link>http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2009/09/24/runoffs-for-some-but-not-for-others/comment-page-1/#comment-84785</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Littlefield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:49:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/?p=5364#comment-84785</guid>
		<description>The question is whether the expensive voting machines NY is buying would enable a first and second choice vote, or prevent it.  

If the machines make a first and second choice voting system impossible, it wouldn&#039;t be an accident.  So would the machines allow this?

If so, raise the threshold to 50 percent, and distribute the second choice votes of candidates who are not in the top two.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question is whether the expensive voting machines NY is buying would enable a first and second choice vote, or prevent it.  </p>
<p>If the machines make a first and second choice voting system impossible, it wouldn&#8217;t be an accident.  So would the machines allow this?</p>
<p>If so, raise the threshold to 50 percent, and distribute the second choice votes of candidates who are not in the top two.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
