How County Charter Amendments Seek to Rig the System

Many Pierce County voters have seen our No Rigging the System yard signs and bus signs and want to know what those signs mean.

It's very simple, really. Incumbent Pierce County politicians have put three charter amendments on this November's ballot that are designed to rig the system in their favor so that they can stay in office. These proposed amendments:

* extend their own term limits to over a decade
* reduce electoral competition and turnout by moving to odd-year elections
* double the amount of money incumbents can raise from their biggest contributors
* limit everyone else's access to the ballot by going to the state primary system

Here is an example of what we saw as recently as 2006. In that year there were five county level elections on the ballot with five incumbents running for re-election. Four of these incumbents ran unopposed and uncontested. The remaining incumbent had only token opposition. The election was decided before any of us even went to the polls!

The election in 2008 was a completely different story. In 2008, there were seven county level elections. Because of voter approved term limits and ranked choice voting, there were 22 candidates vying for those 7 seats. Voters had choices. There were competitive races. No incumbent ran unopposed.

Incumbents want the 2010 election to be just like 2006. They would like to be able to run for re-election in a "Top 1" election with no opposition. They want to rig the system in their own personal favor.

Tell the incumbents NO!

Reject all three charter amendments.

No Rigging the System.

Kelly Haughton
Citizens Against Rigging the System
RejectAll3.com

Official Top 2 Results Unavailable Until Final Certification

ALL of the results released on election night are unofficial. In fact, ALL results are unofficial until election certification.

On October 26, 2009, the Auditor's office released to the media its "General Elections Results Reporting Schedule". In the release, the Auditor's office reports that at 8:30 pm on Tuesday, November 3, they will put out results based on "absentees processed through Election Day and unofficial Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) algorithm results."

Why does the Auditor's office repeatedly refer to the RCV results as unofficial, but not the Top 2 results? She is striving to make it look like it takes longer to determine the winner of a RCV race than a Top 2 race. But this is NOT TRUE.

The Auditor's office will be releasing preliminary results based on the ballots counted through the end of each day. There will be preliminary results for the Top 2 races as well as the RCV race. ALL of these results (RCV or Top 2) will be unofficial until final certification. With some races, we will be able to safely guess who the winner will be before all of the votes are counted. In other races, we will need to count all of the votes before we know who wins. But regardless, none of the results (RCV or Top 2) are official until final certification.

Some races (both RCV and Top 2) are too close to call on election night. Indeed, the RCV race for Auditor this year just might be one of those. But the Top 2 race for Mayor of Tacoma may well be such a race as well.

Since RCV races are more likely to be competitive, they are more likely to be too close to call on election night. Competitive elections are a good thing. Uncontested Top 1 races are a bad thing, but the results are known before election night.

Some races are landslides. The RCV race for Sheriff last year was a landslide and we all knew who the winner was going to be at the first release of results. Uncontested races, such as about half of the Top 2 races in Pierce County, are always landslides. This does not make them good elections.

Reject All 3 Charter Amendments

Reject Amendment 1:

* Stop career politicians from increasing their term limits to more than a decade
* Prevent term limit extensions by current incumbents so they can run again
* Keep even year elections when more people vote
* Save Pierce County taxpayers the cost of running a county wide election

Website: PierceCountyTermLimits.org

Reject Amendment 2:

* Keep even year elections when more people vote
* Save Pierce County taxpayers the cost of running a county wide election

Reject Amendment 3:

* Keep elections competitive
* Don't let politicians double the amount of money they are able to fundraise from special interests
* Minimize mudslinging in political campaigns
* Save taxpayers the cost of having to pay for twice as many elections

Website: ProtectVoterChoice.com

Reject All Three Amendments:

* All three rig the system in favor of incumbents and parties
* All three were placed on the ballot by the County Council, not the usual Charter Commission process

Number of Candidates

Below is a listing of candidates for the major offices on the ballot in Pierce County this fall. Of the 96 positions, 46 are uncontested races and 49 have just two candidates in the race. The one Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) race has three candidates. RCV consistently provides voters with more choices. There has never been an uncontested RCV race in Pierce County.

Voters who want more choice should Reject Amendment 3.


Candidates for Auditor: Jan Shabro, Julie Anderson, Will Baker
Candidates for Port Commissioner #1: Connie Bacon, Bill Casper
Candidates for Port Commissioner #2: Charles Kelly Cresco, Dick Marzano
Candidates for Port Commissioner #3: Don Meyer, Cathy Pearsall-Stipek
Candidates for Auburn Mayor: Pete Lewis, Virginia Hagen
Candidates for Auburn City Council #2: Gene Cerino, John T. Partridge
Candidate for Auburn City Council #4: Nancy Backus
Candidate for Auburn City Council #6: Rich Wagner
Candidate for Bonney Lake Mayor: Neil Johnson
Candidate for Bonney Lake At Large #1: Lynda Dabson, Randy McKibbin
Candidate for Bonney Lake Ward #1: Andy Gomen, Dan Swatman
Candidate for Bonney Lake Ward #4: David Bowen, Donn M. Lewis
Candidate for Buckley Mayor: Pat Johnson
Candidate for Buckley Council: Randy Reed
Candidates for Buckley Council #2: Cristi Boyle Barrett, Marvin Sundstrom
Candidate for Buckley Council #3: Doug Harple
Candidate for Buckley Council #5: Melissa B. Patson
Candidate for Buckley Council #7: Bryan Howard, Mark McNally
Candidate for Carbonado Council #1: Sandi Carlson, Joseph E. King
Candidate for Carbonado Council #2: Kevin M. Vesey
Candidate for Dupont Council #1: Linda B. Cumberbatch, Roger Westman
Candidate for Dupont Council #2: Michael Grayum
Candidate for Dupont Council #3: John Ehrenreich
Candidate for Dupont Council #6: Jim Hills, Vicky Marin
Candidate for Dupont Council #7: Larry Wilcox, Jason Pierce
Candidates for Eatonville Mayor: Ray Harper, Brenden Pierce
Candidates for Eatonville Council #1: Gordon B. Bowman, Brian M. Gacke
Candidate for Eatonville Council #2: Robert E. Schaub
Candidate for Edgewood Council #3: Jeffery Hogan
Candidate for Edgewood Council #4: Daryl Eidinger
Candidates for Edgewood Council #5: Donna J. O'Ravez, John F. Powers
Candidates for Edgewood Council #6: Dave Olson, Colleen Wise
Candidates for Fife Council #3: Carole Sue Braaten, Glenn E. Hull, Jr.
Candidate for Fife Council #6: Nancy L. deBooy
Candidate for Fife Council #7: Donald Alveshere
Candidates for Fircrest Council #1: Chris Case, Matthew P. Jolibois
Candidates for Fircrest Council #2: Chris Gruver
Candidates for Fircrest Council #6: Hans Hechtman, Denny Waltier
Candidate for Fircrest Council #7: Kathy L. McVay
Candidate for Gig Harbor Mayor: Chuck Hunter
Candidates for Gig Harbor Council #1: Mark Hoppen, Tim Payne
Candidate for Gig Harbor Council #2: Steven K. Ekberg
Candidates for Gig Harbor Council #3: Ken Asplund, Derek M. Young
Candidate for Gig Harbor Council #7: Paul L. Kadzik
Candidates for Lakewood Council #1: Mary Moss, Darrel Shiley
Candidates for Lakewood Council #2: Mike Brandstetter, Connie Coleman Lacadie
Candidates for Lakewood Council #3: Sam Ross, Jason Whalen
Candidates for Lakewood Council #5: Doug Richardson
Candidates for Milton Mayor: Leonard Sanderson, Katrina Asay
Candidates for Milton Council #1: Terry Borek, Debra Perry
Candidates for Milton Council #2: Bart L. Taylor
Candidate for Milton Council #3: Bryan W. Ott
Candidate for Milton Councl #5: Todd Morton
Candidates for Orting Mayor: Kim Farnes, Cheryl M. Temple
Candidate for Orting Council #1: Joachim (Joe) Pestinger
Candidate for Orting Council #2: Stanley Holland
Candidate for Orting Council #3: Tyler Coughlin
Candidate for Orting Council #4: Nicola McDonald
Candidates for Orting Council #7: Scott A. Drennen, Tamara M. Potter
Candidates for Pacific Council #2: Barbara C. Lourdes, John C. Jones
Candidate for Pacific Council #4: Leanne Guier
Candidates for Pacific Council #5: Kevin M. Cline, James McMahan
Candidate for Pacific Council #7: Tren Walker
Candidate for Puyallup City Council District #1: Tony Aho, George D. Dill
Candidates for Puyallup City Council District #2: Rick Hansen, Christopher B. Taylor
Candidates for Puyallup City Council District #3: John Alexander, Kent Boyle
Candidate for Roy Mayor: Karen E. Yates
Candidate for Roy Council Position #1: Charles H. Chappell
Candidate for Roy Council Position #3: Ray Bourne
Candidate for Roy Council Position #5: Leon E. Garrison
Candidate for Ruston Mayor: Bruce Hopkins
Candidate for Ruston Council #1: Lyle Hardin
Candidate for Ruston Council #2: Deborah Kristovich
Candidate for Ruston Council #4: Bryan Ficiala, Jane Krock Hunt
Candidate for South Prarie Mayor: Peggy Levesque
Candidate for South Prarie Council #3: Dave Lykstad
Candidate for South Prarie Council #5: Laura Heideman
Candidate for Steilacoom Mayor: Ron Lucas
Candidate for Steilacoom Council #1: Lowell G. Bier
Candidate for Steilacoom Council #2: Marion V. Smith
Candidate for Steilacoom Council #3: Connie Aboubakr, Steven L. Stovall
Candidates for Sumner Mayor: Dave Enslow, Matthew Richardson
Candidates for Sumner Council #1: Ed Hannus, Stuart L. Scheuerman
Candidate for Sumner Council #2: Randy Hynek
Candidate for Sumner Council #3: Steve Allsop
Candidates for Tacoma Mayor: Jim Merritt, Marilyn Strickland
Candidates for Tacoma City Council #6: Keven Rojecki, Victoria R. Woodards
Candidates for Tacoma City Council District #2: Jake Fey
Candidates for Tacoma City Council District #4: Roxanne Murphy, Marty Campbell
Candidates for Tacoma City Council District #5: Beckie Summers Kirby, Joe Lonergan
Candidates for Tacoma Civil Service Position #1: Mark Craypo, Charles N. McKenna
Candidates for University Place Council #1: Javier Figueroa, Linda Bird
Candidates for University Place Council #3: Eric Choiniere, Lorna Smith
Candidates for University Place Council #4: Ken J. Grassi, Carl J. Mollnow
Candidates for University Place Council #5: Rose Ehart, Denise McCluskey
Candidates for Tacoma School District #2: Jerry Thorpe, Catherine Ushka-Hall

Top 2 Legal Challenge Court Date Set

The Democratic and Republican parties are challenging the current statewide primary system, known as the Top 2, in US District Court. A court date of October 4, 2010 has been set by Judge John C. Coughenour for Washington State Republican Party v State, cv-05-927.

This year in Pierce County, charter amendment 3 would move county level elections to the statewide primary system. Currently, this would mean a move to the Top 2 primary system.

If amendment 3 passes and the parties win their lawsuit, then Pierce County will be at the whim of what happens on a statewide basis. The last time the Top 2 was thrown out, the legislature gave us the pick-a-party primary as our statewide primary system.

Don't put us at the whim of the state legislature.

Reject amendment 3.

Bad Ballot Design Costs Taxpayers and Voters in Pierce County

The Pierce County Elections Department sent out ballots to voters this past weekend. Due to poor ballot design, voters received two ballot cards with much wasted space. Using two ballot cards drove up the expense of the fall general election by $600,000 in printing, postage and paper costs. It also drives up the return postage cost to voters from a regular stamp to "approximately" $0.61. This poor design appears to be politically motivated by Auditor Jan Shabro.

Shabro wants to repeal Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and blames RCV for having to use two ballot cards. She then allocates all of the cost of going to two ballot cards to RCV.

Shabro was so intent on discrediting RCV that she designed a ballot with blank sides and empty columns. Meanwhile, she proposed other cost savings measures such as closing the polls and reducing the number of words her opponents received in the voters’ pamphlet. These measures provided a small fraction of the savings possible by better ballot design.

If her department had done a better job of designing the ballot, it would have fit all into one card. But then the Auditor would not have been able to complain about the cost of RCV. In fact, she would have been forced to admit that RCV saved money relative to the Top 2 in 2009.

Good ballot design and cost savings should come before political motivations.

Julie Anderson - First Choice for Auditor

In the special election for Pierce County Auditor, our first choice is Julie Anderson, second choice is Jan Shabro and third choice is Will Baker.

Julie Anderson, current Deputy Mayor of Tacoma, has promised to manage expenses aggressively, cutting down on election expenses in particular. We like Anderson's experience and can do approach to the job. Anderson is our first choice. Jan Shabro, the current Auditor, has done such a poor job of managing expenses in her brief time in office that we can only list her as the second choice. Will Baker is a perennial candidate who would be a disaster as an Auditor. He, therefore, is our last choice.

Yesterday, I received my ballot for this election in the mail. There were two ballot cards in the package, both with huge amounts of wasted space. Of course, there were big unnecessary printing, postage and paper expenses associated with this ballot design. These large expenses were incurred while the Auditor's office was focused on relatively small expense reductions associated with reducing the number of words in the candidate statements and closing the polls. Shabro's poor leadership on this issue means she can not be our first choice.

Fortunately, Anderson is advocating aggressively managing vendor expenses to save money for the county. Anderson is also more willing to accept ideas from experts outside of her own group of associates. Searching more broadly for ideas on how to save money is generally going to allow you to accomplish this task more effectively. We enthusiastically endorse Julie Anderson as our first choice.

Tacoma News Tribune recommends Rejection of Charter Amendment 3

The Tacoma News Tribune has decided to recommend the rejection of Pierce County Charter Amendment 3. The News Tribune recommendation comes on the heals of the Seattle Times' recommendation of rejection and the League of Women Voter's similar position.

Of course, this website has endorsed the rejection of Charter Amendment 3 as well. This amendment was hastily put on the ballot by a county council looking to reduce competition in their runs for re-election. We encourage voters to examine the Protect Voter Choice website to make informed decision on this issue.

Pierce County voters should keep ranked-choice voting

The Seattle Times recommends a No vote on Pierce County Charter Amendment 3, which would repeal ranked-choice voting (instant runoff voting).

PIERCE County voters should not throw out ranked-choice voting in the Nov. 3 election. It is a new and promising system, and it has hardly had a chance to prove itself.

Charter Amendment 3, which would repeal ranked-choice voting, is a reflex action by politicians who didn't like it responding to voters who weren't used to it.

They cannot say it didn't work. In the county executive race a year ago, four candidates were on the ballot. Voters were asked to pick their first, second and third choices. Sean Bunney, Republican, got the most first-choice votes. Under the system, Mike Lonergan, who got the fewest, was knocked out, and his voters were reassigned to the others based on second choices. Still Bunney was ahead, but when Calvin Goings was knocked out and his voters were reassigned, Pat McCarthy was the winner. All this knocking-out and reassigning happened instantly once the votes were counted.

In this case, the top-two system would have given the same result. In Seattle's mayoral race, ranked-choice might have given a different result. It would be a result that more clearly reflected the people's choices, because a ranked-choice ballot asks for, and uses, more information than an ordinary ballot does.

Ranked-choice voting is used in Australia, San Francisco and soon to be used in Minneapolis, but it is not otherwise used in the Pacific Northwest. It does require smarter voters than an ordinary ballot, but we think Pierce County voters are up to it.

King County and the Top 1

King County has five County Council seats up for election this year. There are five incumbents running for re-election in this odd-numbered year election. Four of the five incumbents are running in uncontested elections. Krist Novoselic, Chair of FairVote, observes that the members of the King County Council have achieved incumbent nirvana, the Top 1.

The incumbent members of the Pierce County Council must surely view this with envy. They have sponsored a series of charter amendments which will have the net effect of moving Pierce County towards this incumbent nirvana. Voters are not confused by multiple candidates. The results are known before the election occurs. Incumbents stay in office as long as they want without competition.

Reject all three charter amendments. No rigging the system.

Voters want choices. The Top 1 is not democracy.

How Many Choices?

The Reject Amendment 3 campaign in Pierce County believes voters deserve the opportunity to choose between more candidates on the ballot. The incumbent led Pierce County Better Government League (PCBGL) and Secretary of State Sam Reed have come out in favor of fewer candidates and fewer choices. In particular, the proponents of Amendment believe voters should have a maximum of two choices on the ballot and want us to shift to a system of voting which about 50% of the time results in only one candidate on the ballot.

In 2006, there were five county level positions on the ballot. Five incumbents were running for re-election. Four of the incumbents had no opposition. The remaining incumbent had only a token opponent.

In 2008, due to the combination of term limits and ranked choice voting, there were 22 candidates for seven positions. Three incumbents running for re-election all had opponents. The County Executive race was the most competitive race in a long time in Pierce County. The competition was strong and voters had choices.

Incumbent county politicians want to go back to the bad old days of 2006. For 2010, they want a re-run of the 2006 election. They want to rig the system in their own personal favor.

To accomplish this, they have put on the ballot charter amendments 1, 2 and 3. These amendments would extend the term limits of the politicians who put the amendments on the ballot, so that they can run for another term and move us back to a system that discourages candidates from running. Voters should reject all three amendments.

Below is a listing of candidates in major races in Pierce County this year. About half of the races have just one candidate. About half of the races have just two candidates. One race, the ranked choice voting race, has three candidates. The incumbent politicians prefer to go back to the system which limits the number of candidates to a maximum of two and about half of the time results in uncontested races. Voters who like more choices should reject all three charter amendments in Pierce County.

Candidates for Auditor: Jan Shabro, Julie Anderson, Will Baker
Candidates for Port Commissioner #1: Connie Bacon, Bill Casper
Candidates for Port Commissioner #2: Charles Kelly Cresco, Dick Marzano
Candidates for Port Commissioner #3: Don Meyer, Cathy Pearsall-Stipek
Candidates for Auburn Mayor: Pete Lewis, Virginia Hagen
Candidates for Auburn City Council #2: Gene Cerino, John T. Partridge
Candidate for Auburn City Council #4: Nancy Backus
Candidate for Auburn City Council #6: Rich Wagner
Candidate for Bonney Lake Mayor: Neil Johnson
Candidate for Bonney Lake At Large #1: Lynda Dabson, Randy McKibbin
Candidate for Bonney Lake Ward #1: Andy Gomen, Dan Swatman
Candidate for Bonney Lake Ward #4: David Bowen, Donn M. Lewis
Candidate for Buckley Mayor: Pat Johnson
Candidate for Buckley Council: Randy Reed
Candidates for Buckley Council #2: Cristi Boyle Barrett, Marvin Sundstrom
Candidate for Buckley Council #3: Doug Harple
Candidate for Buckley Council #5: Melissa B. Patson
Candidate for Buckley Council #7: Bryan Howard, Mark McNally
Candidate for Carbonado Council #1: Sandi Carlson, Joseph E. King
Candidate for Carbonado Council #2: Kevin M. Vesey
Candidate for Dupont Council #1: Linda B. Cumberbatch, Roger Westman
Candidate for Dupont Council #2: Michael Grayum
Candidate for Dupont Council #3: John Ehrenreich
Candidate for Dupont Council #6: Jim Hills, Vicky Marin
Candidate for Dupont Council #7: Larry Wilcox, Jason Pierce
Candidates for Eatonville Mayor: Ray Harper, Brenden Pierce
Candidates for Eatonville Council #1: Gordon B. Bowman, Brian M. Gacke
Candidate for Eatonville Council #2: Robert E. Schaub
Candidate for Edgewood Council #3: Jeffery Hogan
Candidate for Edgewood Council #4: Daryl Eidinger
Candidates for Edgewood Council #5: Donna J. O'Ravez, John F. Powers
Candidates for Edgewood Council #6: Dave Olson, Colleen Wise
Candidates for Fife Council #3: Carole Sue Braaten, Glenn E. Hull, Jr.
Candidate for Fife Council #6: Nancy L. deBooy
Candidate for Fife Council #7: Donald Alveshere
Candidates for Fircrest Council #1: Chris Case, Matthew P. Jolibois
Candidates for Fircrest Council #2: Chris Gruver
Candidates for Fircrest Council #6: Hans Hechtman, Denny Waltier
Candidate for Fircrest Council #7: Kathy L. McVay
Candidate for Gig Harbor Mayor: Chuck Hunter
Candidates for Gig Harbor Council #1: Mark Hoppen, Tim Payne
Candidate for Gig Harbor Council #2: Steven K. Ekberg
Candidates for Gig Harbor Council #3: Ken Asplund, Derek M. Young
Candidate for Gig Harbor Council #7: Paul L. Kadzik
Candidates for Lakewood Council #1: Mary Moss, Darrel Shiley
Candidates for Lakewood Council #2: Mike Brandstetter, Connie Coleman Lacadie
Candidates for Lakewood Council #3: Sam Ross, Jason Whalen
Candidates for Lakewood Council #5: Doug Richardson
Candidates for Milton Mayor: Leonard Sanderson, Katrina Asay
Candidates for Milton Council #1: Terry Borek, Debra Perry
Candidates for Milton Council #2: Bart L. Taylor
Candidate for Milton Council #3: Bryan W. Ott
Candidate for Milton Councl #5: Todd Morton
Candidates for Orting Mayor: Kim Farnes, Cheryl M. Temple
Candidate for Orting Council #1: Joachim (Joe) Pestinger
Candidate for Orting Council #2: Stanley Holland
Candidate for Orting Council #3: Tyler Coughlin
Candidate for Orting Council #4: Nicola McDonald
Candidates for Orting Council #7: Scott A. Drennen, Tamara M. Potter
Candidates for Pacific Council #2: Barbara C. Lourdes, John C. Jones
Candidate for Pacific Council #4: Leanne Guier
Candidates for Pacific Council #5: Kevin M. Cline, James McMahan
Candidate for Pacific Council #7: Tren Walker
Candidate for Puyallup City Council District #1: Tony Aho, George D. Dill
Candidates for Puyallup City Council District #2: Rick Hansen, Christopher B. Taylor
Candidates for Puyallup City Council District #3: John Alexander, Kent Boyle
Candidate for Roy Mayor: Karen E. Yates
Candidate for Roy Council Position #1: Charles H. Chappell
Candidate for Roy Council Position #3: Ray Bourne
Candidate for Roy Council Position #5: Leon E. Garrison
Candidate for Ruston Mayor: Bruce Hopkins
Candidate for Ruston Council #1: Lyle Hardin
Candidate for Ruston Council #2: Deborah Kristovich
Candidate for Ruston Council #4: Bryan Ficiala, Jane Krock Hunt
Candidate for South Prarie Mayor: Peggy Levesque
Candidate for South Prarie Council #3: Dave Lykstad
Candidate for South Prarie Council #5: Laura Heideman
Candidate for Steilacoom Mayor: Ron Lucas
Candidate for Steilacoom Council #1: Lowell G. Bier
Candidate for Steilacoom Council #2: Marion V. Smith
Candidate for Steilacoom Council #3: Connie Aboubakr, Steven L. Stovall
Candidates for Sumner Mayor: Dave Enslow, Matthew Richardson
Candidates for Sumner Council #1: Ed Hannus, Stuart L. Scheuerman
Candidate for Sumner Council #2: Randy Hynek
Candidate for Sumner Council #3: Steve Allsop
Candidates for Tacoma Mayor: Jim Merritt, Marilyn Strickland
Candidates for Tacoma City Council #6: Keven Rojecki, Victoria R. Woodards
Candidates for Tacoma City Council District #2: Jake Fey
Candidates for Tacoma City Council District #4: Roxanne Murphy, Marty Campbell
Candidates for Tacoma City Council District #5: Beckie Summers Kirby, Joe Lonergan
Candidates for Tacoma Civil Service Position #1: Mark Craypo, Charles N. McKenna
Candidates for University Place Council #1: Javier Figueroa, Linda Bird
Candidates for University Place Council #3: Eric Choiniere, Lorna Smith
Candidates for University Place Council #4: Ken J. Grassi, Carl J. Mollnow
Candidates for University Place Council #5: Rose Ehart, Denise McCluskey
Candidates for Tacoma School District #2: Jerry Thorpe, Catherine Ushka-Hall

Pierce County Better Government League "reforms"

Supporters and board members of the Pierce County Better (sic) Government League have proposed and passed reforms in past elections. The impact of these "reforms" has been to reduce voter turnout for county level offices. How did they do that?

In 2007, they put on the ballot charter amendments to make the Auditor and the Assessor-Treasurer positions non-partisan as well as to extend the term limits of these positions from two terms to three terms.

In 2008, there were seven county level races on the ballot. The one race shifted to being non-partisan was the Assessor-Treasurer race. All other county level races showed increases in voter participation between 2004 and 2008. The non-partisan Assessor-Treasurer race saw a decline in voter participation from 70.4% of registered voters in 2004 to 63.7% in 2008. As this comparison shows, the decline in voter participation was due entirely to the "reform" foisted on us by the council members who are now behind the PCBGL.

This year's PCBGL amendments 1 and 2 would shift some county level races (but not all) to odd-numbered years. This will also decrease voter participation as fewer people vote in odd-numbered years. In addition, PCBGL's amendment 3 would shift more of the voting to the even lower turnout August primary in odd-numbered years. This will result in even lower turnout.

Voters should reject all three charter amendments this year. These "reforms" are designed to reduce voter participation in county level elections.

Timing of Election Results: RCV vs. Top 2

There are no differences between Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) races and Top 2 races in when the results become officially certified. In landslide elections such as the 2008 Pierce County Sheriff's race (RCV) and the 2008 Congressional races (Top 2), the preliminary results on election night indicate to us the eventual winners.

Some races, such as the 2004 Governor's race and the 2008 County Executive race, the preliminary results released on election night show elections "too close to call" and the vote counting must continue for days before we know who the winner will be.

Of course, the results of uncontested races are well known BEFORE election day. Whenever we have such elections, election night is not much of an event. Pierce County has never had an uncontested RCV race. We have had many uncontested Top 2 races.

In 2008, the combination of term limits and RCV resulted in a large number of candidates for county level offices and some highly competitive races. There were no uncontested RCV races. There were no RCV races where we knew the winner with certainty BEFORE election night. There were several RCV landslide races where we knew the winner upon the release of preliminary results on election night (e.g. Sheriff and some of the County Council races).

A higher proportion of RCV races were competitive. As a result, a higher proportion of races were "too close to call" on election night. In these races, every vote counted. This is a good thing, but does not happen in every election.

Certification of Official Results

All elections are not official until the results are certified by the Elections Department and the Pierce County Auditor. This is by state law and there is no difference in the implementation of this law between Top 2 races and RCV races. This happens three weeks after election day.

Part of the reason for the long time between election day and official certification is our heavy emphasis in this state on mail-in ballots which need only be postmarked by election day. Mail-in ballot generally result in higher voter participation which is good, but the trade-off is later results.

Preliminary Results

All elections departments release preliminary results for all elections before official certification. These results are not official, but give the public a snapshot of the votes which have been counted to a particular point in time.

The release of preliminary results for Pierce County elections is a two phase process. In the first phase, the Elections Department release the Top 2 results and the first choice results of the RCV races. For some RCV races such as the Pierce County Sheriff race or the County Council, District #4 race, these results were enough to indicate who will win.

About 45 minutes later, the results of the RCV tabulation and the RCV ballot image file were released. This later timing was partially due to the far greater amount of information about the RCV votes included in the ballot image file.

The ballot image file information is not provided on Top 2 races at all. The precinct information is only available on the Top 2 races after certification. The precinct level information can be calculated using the ballot image file. The RCV ballot image file provides a far greater level of openness and transparency to the elections process than is available for Top 2 races.

Use of the ballot image file to analyze preliminary results was not done as widely in this first RCV election, but provides the public and the media with the ability to study the votes of the public in great depth.

Landslides vs. Close Races

In both Top 2 and RCV elections, there are some landslides and some close races. For example, in our local Congressional races and in the Pierce County Sheriff's race, it was easy to project a winner with the release of the first set of preliminary results on election night. Norm Dicks, Adam Smith and Paul Pastor were easy winners in their races. Dicks and Smith won in Top 2 races. Pastor won in a three-way RCV race.

In both Top 2 and RCV races, there are some close elections. In these races, the first set of results show that the race is "too close to call." In a 2008 Top 2 race for state legislature in Snohomish County, the News Tribune reported on December 12, 2008 (over a month after election day) that the race has been finally decided. In very close races, this can happen.

In the hotly contested Pierce County Executive race, after examining the preliminary results on election night, most observers considered the race "too close to call." Pat McCarthy was ahead in those preliminary results and never relinquished her lead, but nevertheless it was "too close to call" on election night.

Some observers have written that the existence of "too close to call" RCV races make RCV inferior to the Top 2. "Too close to call" races occur in both systems. Since we had more competition in the RCV races, probably a higher proportion of the races were "too close to call" than Top 2 races. Competitive races are good for democracy and a better alternative than Soviet-style elections with a single candidate on the ballot.

Conclusion

Top 2 and RCV election results become official on the same day at the same time as prescribed by state law. For preliminary results, Top 2 and the first choices in RCV races are available at the same time. For many races (both Top 2 and RCV), these results make the winner easy to call. (For example, County Council District #6 race was easy to call with these results.) For other races, these preliminary results can mean that the election is still "too close to call."

Less than an hour later, the results of the RCV tabulation and the RCV ballot image file are available. These results can make other races easy to call (e.g. County Council District #2). The ballot image file gives analysts information on precinct level data which in unavailable on Top 2 races.

Some hotly contested races (both Top 2 and RCV) will remain "too close to call" for days if not weeks. While it is better to know the results more quickly, our system of mail-in voting is something which promotes greater voter participation and causes a slower counting process.

Ranked Choice Voting: Myths and Misperceptions

By Professor Richard Anderson-Connolly of UPS

Editors Note: Representatives from Citizens Against Rigging the System and the PCBGL have been carrying on a debate on a previous posting. This statement merited a separate posting.

Alex Hays is the paid political consultant for the campaign committee behind Amendments 1, 2, and 3. He has made numerous incorrect statements about instant runoff voting, which amendment 3 seeks to repeal. Some of these statements were directed at me and I will correct them here.

Hays

1. Majority rule. Your statement in the Seattle Times is correct Top-two yields a majority winner. I will further note it does so in every case except perhaps where write in ballots would deny this in a very close election.

RCV failed to generate a majority winner in both the Execs race and the auditor's race, the only two county wide races. McCarthy won with 45% and Washam with 37%.

Response

1. My statement was that IRV is a majority winner system. The top-2 is also but it requires two elections and has worse mathematical properties because vote splitting can still occur at the low-turnout primary. Thus IRV is the better system for achieving majority winners.

Both McCarthy and Washam won with majorities. The correct denominator is from the last round not the first. I suspect that Mr. Hays already knows this and therefore would be intentionally stating something he knows to be false (which is one definition of lying).

Hays

2. RCV gives more power to extremists. Studies of returns in Australia show that RCV eradicates third party candidates, but allows third party voters to distort the election by shifting the major parties toward the extremes.

Response

2. This critique suggests that Mr. Hays is concerned because IRV doesn't do enough to help third parties (it “eradicates” them). The number of parties tends to be a function of the type of voting system. This is Duverger's Law. Plurality voting (first past the post) is the worst. Proportional representation is best. IRV/Preferential voting can be seen as an intermediate step. If Mr. Hays were serious about this criticism then he would be a proponent of proportional representation. His objection to IRV would therefore be on the grounds that it is easier to go from the top-2 or pick-a-party to proportional representation. But this is a disingenuous critique because Mr. Hays is not concerned about the eradication of third parties.

Secondly, most elected officials in Australia are not extreme by any conventional meaning of the term. Perhaps the range of officials is a better match for the range of opinions found in the general public, but this would be a good thing. Ireland also uses IRV and over the post-war period has steadily become more secular, peaceful, and prosperous. It is better for different political factions to have representation in legislative bodies instead of being forced to resolve conflicts through other means.

Hays

3. RCV advocates clearly state -- I'm told you personally make this claim, but I have not heard it from you myself -- that RCV will shift the US Democratic Party to the left and this is why they advocate for the new system. Altering the election system to promote ideological goals is a violation of democratic principles.

Response

3. This is an application of the Median Voter Theorem. In many jurisdictions under a plurality/two-party system, the parties can ignore folks who are left or right of center. In a multi-party system they can no longer take those folks for granted because the lesser-of-two-evils dynamic is gone. I believe that the Democratic Party would either move leftward or be replaced by a party of the left, like the Progressives or the Social Democrats. We don't need two parties – the Democrats and Republicans – occupying such similar ideological territory. There are many of us who are not well represented by either party despite constituting a large percentage of the population. In fact every year a smaller and smaller share of population identifies with the two parties.


Unless Mr. Hays is using a very odd definition of both ideology and democracy his claim that “altering the election system to promote ideological goals is a violation of democratic principles” is flatly wrong. If one believes, as I do, that our current system is undemocratic (an ideological position) then one has every right, and perhaps a duty, to try to change (alter) the system. Those who fought for voting rights for women and minorities were animated by an ideological position. What should we call the efforts of people like MLK Jr. or Susan Anthony or Gandhi? Why did they do it? These certainly were movements to alter the election system to promote ideological goals.

In reality it is Mr. Hays' defense of the two-party system that reflects an anti-democratic ideology. The fact that he is defending the status quo is no excuse. Racism, sexism, and most other forms of exclusion have been defended on the grounds of tradition. I hope and anticipate that two-party bigotry will eventually suffer the same fate as those other forms. Whether we win or lose in Pierce County won't make much difference when the history of this civil rights movement is written. The US will eventually have a multi-party democracy.

Hays

4. In California the US Supreme Court ruled that altering the election process for the express purpose of changing candidate speech (such as claimed in the voters' pamphlet statement authored by the no on 3 committee) is prima facie evidence of unconstitutionality and an abridgement of free speech rights.

Response

4. I have no idea what Mr. Hays is referring to in the voters' guide statement. Perhaps he is alleging that our voters' guide statement is not protected by the First Amendment? If so we must disagree over the meaning of free speech.

Hays

5. According to Kelly he was able to muster the votes for RCV expressly because major party members of the Commission wanted ballot control. So yes, at first at least one major party wanted RCV because of the new powers it gave them.


Editor's Note: I did not say this. Party regulars were the primary opponents of IRV on the Charter Review Commission.

Response

5. I attended most of the charter review meetings and the issue of ballot control was not given much attention. Regardless IRV got more votes from political outsiders, independents, and progressives than from establishment folks like Pearsall-Stipek, Kevin Wimsett, or Aubrey Chase. Those who voted for IRV probably recognized it was better than plurality, regardless of the associational issue.

This reinforces our position that the charter review process by citizens elected for a short term is much better than anything done by incumbents on the council (Mr. Hays' fellow board members behind Amendments 1, 2, and 3). If councilmembers Muri and Bunney are concerned about having too much power then why are they trying to extend their term limits and stay in office? They could have written the amendment so that current incumbents did not receive the extension. Maybe they will promise to step down and make room for new people instead of running again. Amendments 1, 2, and 3 are attempts to expand the power of the already powerful, not some altruistic effort by politicians to voluntarily give power to the citizens.

Hays

6. "honest voting" -- in Colorado an analysis of RCV shows that if the supporters for one candidate had gamed their ballots and ranked him second, not first, that candidate would have won. Does that sound like RCV promotes "honest voting"

Response

6. Mr. Hays' argument is that if somebody had gamed the system then it would have been dishonest. Such circularity is known as the fallacy of begging the question. I have never argued that IRV solves Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. No voting system is perfect. But some systems are worse than others and Mr. Hays is defending what is perhaps the absolute worst. For example, polls typically show more support for third party candidates than the number of votes they actually receive. Many folks resign themselves to vote dishonestly for the lesser of two-evils in the two parties. When people who like Nader are actually honest they end up giving us George Bush. Honesty is punished under the plurality system. IRV would a big improvement. I could vote honestly for someone like Nader first and the Democrat second. A libertarian could also vote honestly.

Mr. Hays and his political allies need to explain how our current system promotes honesty. This would be an impressive discovery because it would go against everything we know from political science about plurality voting. The difficulty of this task probably explains the attempts to distract attention from the serious flaws with plurality voting. I'm not falling for it.

Hays

7. What's dishonest about the top-two? Everyone runs in the primary (third parties included) and then we make a choice from the two who advance to the general. This is how RCV was used in many jurisdictions in the past -- an RCV style primary that yielded two candidates for the general. So clearly RCV promoters in the past liked the pause and revaluation allowed in a top two system.

The fact that once people (including people who are active in political parties) saw and disliked RCV and changed their opinion (myself included) is a function of the defects of the system.

The parties opposition to RCV is a function of setting aside self interest in favor of public interest. You reject this because you prefer to create a fantasy where you are the good guy and others are corrupt. Many people who were intrigued by and even supportive of RCV have changed their minds.

Example: Scotland

Example: Ann Arbor, MI

Example: Dick Muri

Example: Alex Hays.

Pending: Pierce County and a growing number of people in San Francisco.

Your argument against me is essentially I disagree with you therefore I must be a liar.

Also, a good run down online proves the APA doesn't use RCV and Roberts suggests multiple rounds of balloting not RCV. For the record RCV probably is a good system for private organizations (e.g. a political party) to select delegates for a national convention. It would still distort results based on ideology, but if you've ever sat through a multi-round series of elimination ballots that seems like a small price to pay.

Cheer up -- hardly any voters will read this. just you and few hardcore pro-IRV folks. So if I were really trying to confuse anyone I've just wasted a ton of time.

But hey -- you keep talking about the pick-a-party primary if you really want to confuse people.

Response

7. The top-2 encourages insincere voting (dishonesty) because vote splitting and spoiling is possible at the primary. There have been reports that the top-2 was selected by legislators in Olympia because they knew it would effectively kill third parties. The claim that the two parties have set aside self-interest is hard to take seriously.

And the American Political Science Association indeed does use IRV. I believe Mr. Hays found the APA, which is the American Psychological Association. I was referring to the APSA, the organization for political scientists. And Robert's Rules has two systems: voting by rounds (traditional runoffs) or preferential voting (instant runoffs). And Scotland uses a form of PR (proportional representation), even better than IRV and much better than plurality. Furthermore the British are currently studying both IRV and PR as means of replacing plurality. Mr. Hays' claim about San Francisco is almost without significance. Plus New York and Los Angeles are currently looking into IRV. Despite Mr. Hays' attempt at repeal in Pierce, IRV tends to be adopted by a new jurisdiction or two every year or so.

While Mr. Hays may be a good person he is not a credible critic of IRV. I don't know whether he is lying, searching for good campaign talking points, or making (some) mistakes in good faith, but whatever the reason his arguments are consistently wrong. He is a paid political consultant hired to win just like an attorney who is representing a client who is known to be guilty. His fellow board members are county council members and the prosecuting attorney. The folks who personally stand to gain if term limits are extended and if races become less competitive. The same folks who are trying to sneak the term limit extension past voters by including the move to odd-years. His fellow board member Lindquist was recently appointed by these council members and now seems to be scratching their backs. These are the same folks who wrote a prejudicial ballot title and then hid behind their own lack of an open procedure to get away with it. The committee for 1, 2, and 3 has a real credibility problem. Some politicians, like Bill Baarsma or Burt Talcott, are honest. The admit they don't like IRV because it's bad for the two-party system. I disagree that the two-party system is worth saving but believe that they are acting in good faith.

I would imagine these talking points probably work with members of the two parties who naively trust the party leadership to give them accurate information, but they don't stand up to logical or empirical scrutiny. From the perspective of the average citizen IRV is a better voting system than plurality. That's the central reason to reject amendment 3. Our real challenge is getting the auditor's office to implement it properly. (Voting the current auditor, who was appointed by the county council, out of office is probably a good start. But that would be the subject for another post.)

Are Republican Women in New Jersey "Extremists"?

Alex Hays of the County Council-dominated Pierce County Better Government League has called those who favor the retention of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) (aka RCV) extremists.

The list of people who favor IRV includes President Barack Obama who introduced legislation in the Illinois State Senate to move to RCV. It also includes George Amick writing on the Republican Women of Mercer County, New Jersey website.

Another example is the Republicans in Utah. I gather they should be considered extremists.

In New York, a Democratic State Senator has introduced a bill to implement IRV. In this article, it points out that in many cases minorities do poorly in Top 2 systems and IRV would be an improvement for them.

Even the Academy Awards will now be determined using IRV.

All of these extremists do not compare to John McCain. Yes, that John McCain.

Judging from the Pierce County Better Government League output, all of these people are likely extremists.

Ranked Choice Voting: One person, one vote

At a recent League of Women Voters forum, Karen Vialle and Alex Hays of the Pierce County Better Government League, proponents of limited voter choice, speculated that Ranked Choice Voting might violate the one person, one vote rule. They were wrong.

There have been two court cases testing Ranked Choice Voting. One in 1975, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, showed RCV (which in Michigan went by the name of the "Ware" system) to be constitutional.

RCV was tested again earlier this year in Minneapolis. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously that RCV is constitutional and does not violate the one person, one vote rule.

RCV has been court tested. And has passed the test.

Reject Amendment 3.