Utah Republicans Use IRV/RCV

Utah Republicans used Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) (aka Ranked Choice Voting) to elect their choice to fill a vacancy in the State Senate.

There were eight candidates who signed up to fill a vacancy in the Utah State Senate. Republican by-laws in the state require that the winning candidate receive over 50% of the vote. The Davis County Republican Party then used RCV to nominate Stuart Adams to fill the vacancy.

Indeed, Republican parties all over the country (including Pierce County and the national party) have the 50% rule. Various forms of runoff voting are used to comply with the 50% rule. For example, the 25th District Republicans use this rule to elect their officers.

What is good for the Republican Party is good for the common voter. Please vote to Reject Charter Amendment 3 and keep the 50% rule for county level elections.

League Favors Ranked Choice Voting in Pierce County

The League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County has issued the following letter about proposed charter amendment 3 in Pierce County.

"The League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County opposes Pierce County Charter Amendment 3, which the County Council has put on the 2009 ballot.
Charter Amendment 3 attempts to repeal ranked choice voting in Pierce County races. The League strongly recommends a NO vote, and supports retaining ranked choice voting (RCV).

In last November’s election, with RCV, Pierce County voters had more choices than in previous elections. The County Executive race, for instance, was the most competitive race since the institution of the county charter, and the League supports increasing the number of citizens running for office.

The League also strongly supports lessening the impact of money in politics. In 2008, three of the six winners in RCV races were outspent by opponents.

Finally, the League is committed to increasing voter participation. Without RCV, third-party candidates are knocked out of the running during the low turn-out Primary vote. Their issues, sometimes important, are not heard for the rest of the election cycle. RCV allows voters to hear from every candidate, broadening the issues before the public, during the high turn-out general campaign.

Let’s retain RCV and remedy whatever its weaknesses may be. The League’s mission is to encourage informed and active participation in government, and to increase understanding of major public policy issues. Ranked choice voting is instrumental to those goals."

See www.protectvoterchoice.com for more information.

Port-Only Primary for Many Voters

The Port of Tacoma will be holding the only countywide primary in Pierce County this August. 146 precincts in the county will receive a primary ballot with only Port Commission Position 1 with candidates Bernardo Tuma, Connie Bacon and Bill Casper on it. This represents 39% of all the precincts in Pierce County.

The 146 precincts had 131,367 registered voters in November 2008. This represented 32% of the total voters in the county.

The Pierce County Auditor race has three candidates (Julie Anderson, Will Baker, Jan Shabro) running, but no August election since the County will be using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for that election. If the Port was using RCV to elect its Commissioners, then these 131,367 voters would have had no primary ballot. The cost of the August primary would have appropriately lower.

More Lay-offs at the Port?

The game of filing week Top 2 roulette is over and the losers are the Port of Tacoma, the City of Tacoma and the Tacoma School District. The winners included the Metro Parks District and Pierce County itself. The losers had "too many candidates" sign up to run for a position on the Port Commission, the Civil Service Commission or the School Board. The winners had only one or two candidates fill for each of their positions OR are using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to elect their officials.

In the Top 2 election system used by most local jurisdictions, if more than two candidates sign up to run for a particular office, the corresponding jurisdiction must hold a primary and pay the associated bill. For example, three candidates signed up to run for Port Commissioner, Position 1, so the Port will receive a bill probably between $350,000 and $400,000 for the primary. The Port has to pay a big share of the total bill for the primary since it is a countywide district. If there had been one fewer candidate for this position, the Port's bill for the primary would have been $0.

The county itself will be using RCV to elect the Auditor position. Three candidates signed up to run for Auditor, but since RCV elections fold the primary into the general election, there will be no primary and the County's bill will be $0.

Facing this unforeseen bill, the Port Commission is likely to have to come up with additional lay-offs to cover the bill for the primary. This is quite unfortunate and could be prevented in the future by shifting the election of Commissioners to RCV.

All of this applies to the City of Tacoma and the Tacoma School District as well, but the scale of their problem is smaller. Their bills are more likely in the $80,000-100,000 range. Obviously, these are significant numbers in this day of tight budgets. The Metro Park District will have no primary, so they will not be affected by a bill for the primary.

The current Top 2 system for electing local officials causes districts to want fewer candidates vying for office in order to save money. Obviously, we should prefer systems which encourage more civic engagement, including more candidates running for office. The RCV system used by the county encourages more candidates without the additional cost of a primary. The Port should adopt RCV to elect its commissioners.

Whatcom County Opportunity to Save Money

Whatcom County would save significant costs by adopting Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and folding the primary into the general election for its county level officials. Whatcom County's system of electing its county level officials in odd-numbered years is significant in obtaining more cost savings. Whatcom County should adopt RCV.

Much has been written and said about the costs of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Pierce County, but little analysis has been done for Whatcom County elections and how they would be affected by the adoption of RCV for county level elections.

Whatcom County can take advantage of the experience in Pierce County, Washington as well as Aspen, Colorado to save money for its taxpayers. Plus Whatcom County has the advantage that it holds its county level elections during odd-numbered years.

To see how this would work, let's examine the last set of county level elections in Whatcom County. In the August 2007 primary election, 6 jurisdictions in Whatcom County held primaries for one office or another. The County had one County Council seat in the primary, while the City of Bellingham had a primary for the Mayor's race as well as two City Council seats. The bills received by the various jurisdictions are a function of the number of races requiring a primary in the Top 2 system.

The total cost of the election was about $238,600. The costs were allocated amongst the various jurisdictions and the county's bill was $47,866. If Whatcom County county level officials were elected using RCV in 2007, the county's bill for this election would have been $0 because there would have been no primary for county level elections. This would have been a savings of $47,866 for the county.

The amount of potential savings once every two years is a function of the convoluted Top 2 primary system we use. Primaries are held in the odd-numbered years for those races with three or more candidates. This means local jurisdictions incur costs in the primary when "too many candidates" file to run for office. The more offices with "too many candidates" the more the expense. So the City of Bellingham had three races with "too many candidates" so their bill for the August primary was higher than Whatcom County's bill. Potential candidates are placed in the position of costing taxpayers money by running for office and participating in our democracy.

RCV would eliminate this anomaly by folding the primary into the general election. Whatcom County voters would then be placed in the position of welcoming more candidates as more choices in November. The current Top 2 system makes filing week like Russian roulette for the taxpayers of the various jurisdictions. The voters are rooting for more choices and the taxpayers are rooting for no primary. It does not need to be this way. RCV solves this dilemma.

In 2008, Pierce County did not experience this cost savings since all counties in the state of Washington must pay for the federal and state level primaries held in their respective counties. These primaries only occur in even-numbered years. Thus, the county had to pay for the primary despite the fact that there were no county level races happening. Whatcom County is in a far different position than Pierce County in this respect. Interestingly, there are a couple of charter amendments on the Pierce County ballot this year to move county level elections in Pierce County to odd-numbered years similar to how King, Snohomish and Whatcom County handle their elections.

Pierce County spent a significant amount on software provided by its existing elections systems vendor. Pierce County used an extra ballot card for the RCV races with the attendant additional costs for printing and postage. In Aspen, Colorado, the elections department hired an outside consultant to help with the RCV elections. The outside consultant helped the elections department use their existing systems to handle the Top 2 elections and use off-the-shelf optical scanners plus open source software to tabulate the RCV results. The fees charged in Aspen were $7,500 plus expenses. These charges were substantially less than the cost savings associated with eliminating a run-off election. By using a strategy similar to Aspen's approach, Whatcom County could drive down the costs of implementing as compared to Pierce County. In addition, having the odd-numbered year elections would result in substantial cost savings by eliminating the need for a primary for the county level positions.

The Whatcom County situation is such that RCV will save Whatcom County money if it adopts RCV for its county level officials. The voting public would be put in the position of welcoming more candidates rather than dreading the costs. This would strengthen our democracy.

Whatcom County should adopt RCV to elect its county level officials. Once this is accomplished it becomes feasible for other Whatcom County jurisdictions such cities and school districts to use RCV to save money for their taxpayers as well. We are sure that the City of Bellingham would like to have the cost savings without sacrificing candidate participation.

Note: The cost allocation numbers are based on information received from Whatcom County Elections.

Who will pay for the August primary this year?

Hint: It won't be Pierce County.

Events of the coming week will make a difference of $300,000+ to the Port of Tacoma's budget. The City of Tacoma may well send people into the Auditor's office to file to run for Port Commissioner and save Tacoma some serious money. While we have never heard of someone doing this, in this time of budgetary problems it wouldn't be surprising. Why?

Let's look at what happened during the last cycle. In 2007, the Port of Tacoma had one Commissioner race where more than two candidates signed up to run. Using their current election system, the Port is required to hold a primary if more than two candidates file for one or more of their Commissioner positions. The result was a $327,000 bill to the Port for the August primary. If there had been no race with three or more candidates, the Port's bill would have been $0.00. This is what the Port is up against.

On the other hand, Pierce County has a race for County Auditor happening this year, and regardless of how many individuals sign up to run in this race with no elected incumbent, their bill for the primary will be $0.00. Why? Because Pierce County will be using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to elect its Auditor and there is no primary in RCV races regardless of how many candidates sign up.

The total costs of the August 2007 primary in Pierce County were about $850,000. Using the formula prescribed by the state, the Port was billed $327,000. If the Port had not participated in the primary, most of those costs would still have been incurred but they would have been billed to the other jurisdictions who participated in the primary. Most of the $327,000 of cost would have gone to the Tacoma Schools, the Metro Parks District and the City of Tacoma. Probably just under $100,000 each.

This year, the City of Tacoma will have a primary due to the large number of open seats for City Council and Mayor. To control costs, the City will want the Port, the Tacoma School District and the Metro Parks to have primaries as well. The City may well want to consider going into the candidate recruitment mode.

Of course, if all of these entities were using RCV, this would all be moot. None of these entities would be on the hook for expenses in the primary because they would not be participating. Unfortunately, currently state law does not allow local jurisdictions such as the Port to use RCV to elect its Commissioners. So while the County can relax this week about the number of candidates who will be signing up to run for Auditor, the Port will be sweating this one out.

Too bad, the Port is in the position of discouraging people from running for Port Commissioner since it would cost the Port money if "too many" candidates filed. It would be a better system if this anomaly were fixed so that the Port could use RCV to elect its Commissioners.

King County Would Save $1+ million by Using Ranked Choice Voting

King County would save significant costs by adopting Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and folding the primary into the general election for its county level officials. King County's system of electing its county level officials in odd-numbered years is significant in obtaining more cost savings. King County should adopt RCV.

Much has been written and said about the costs of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Pierce County, but little analysis has been done for King County elections and how they would be affected by the adoption of RCV for county level elections.

King County is different from Pierce County in several ways. It is a larger county in terms of numbers of voters. It holds its county level elections during odd-numbered years. It has a very large number of local jurisdictions such as cities, school districts, fire districts, etc. What impact do these differences have on the costs of implementing RCV at the county level for King County? All of these differences mean spreading the cost of implementation over a larger base and enjoying more of the savings.

To see how this would work, let's examine the last set of county level elections in King County. In the August 2007 primary election, 35 jurisdictions in King County held primaries for one office or another. The total cost of the election was about $3.7 million. The costs were allocated amongst the various jurisdictions and the county's cost allocation was $1.24 million. If King County county level officials were elected using RCV in 2007, the county's cost for this election would have been $0 because there would have been no primary for county level elections. This would have been a savings of $1.24 million for the county.

In the November 2007 general election, 131 jurisdictions held elections for one office or another. The total cost of the election was about $5.8 million. The costs were allocated amongst the various jurisdictions and the county's cost allocation was $750,000. This reduced cost was due to sharing costs amongst the larger number of jurisdictions participating in the general election.

In odd-numbered years, there are always more jurisdictions participating in the general election, since primaries are only held for offices where more than two candidates signed up to run for a particular city council or school board position. By opting out of the primary by adopting RCV, the county will be able to save significant money over the top 2 system currently in use.

In 2008, Pierce County did not experience this cost savings since all counties in the state of Washington must pay for the federal and state level primaries held in their respective counties. These primaries only occur in even-numbered years. Thus, the county had to pay for the primary despite the fact that there were no county level races happening. King County is in a far different position than Pierce County in this respect. Interestingly, there are a couple of charter amendments on the Pierce County ballot this year to move county level elections in Pierce County to odd-numbered years similar to how King, Snohomish and Whatcom County handle their elections.

The Pierce County Elections Department testified before the King County Citizens' Elections Oversight Committee (CEOC) and completely left out the cost savings from eliminating the primary from their presentation. From a King County perspective, this leaves a significant portion of the analysis out of the discussion.

The CEOC should understand that the King County situation is such that RCV will save King County money if it adopts RCV for its county level officials. The probable savings are something on the order of $1 million every two years after the original investment has been made.

King County should adopt RCV to elect its county level officials.

Note: The cost allocation numbers are based on information received from King County Elections.

South Carolina State Legislator Wants to End Runoffs

In South Carolina, the voters participate in both a primary and a general election. In the primary, voter turnout in South Carolina (and Washington state) is quite low in comparison to the general election. Republican State Representative Bill Herbkersman and Fairvote Executive Director Rob Richie write about the advantages of higher turnout in Instant Runoff (IRV) or Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) elections which concentrate all of the action in the general election.

Political Leaders in Minnesota Rally for Ranked Choice Voting

FairVote Minnesota held a fundraising event for Ranked Choice Voting attended by 200 people last night. Many prominent politicians attended the event.

Minneapolis will be using RCV in electing its city level officials in November, 2009. This will be the first use of RCV in the state of Minnesota. In addition, Fair Vote Minnesota is striving to get the cities of St. Paul and Duluth to use RCV to elect their city level officials.

Minnesota clearly has more forward-looking politicians than the sitting politicians in Pierce County. Many Pierce County politicians do not seem to see the benefits of Ranked Choice Voting.

Economies of Scale in Elections

Summary

When one makes a large investment in infrastructure, it is most cost efficient to use the investment as much as possible. Elections departments use their investment in traditional election software frequently and reap the rewards of that investment as a result. Thus far, Pierce County has not used the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) software investment more than once and, as a result, the county is not leveraging the investment wisely.

In a previous posting, we discussed the main method of gaining financial efficiency with RCV is to eliminate an election. An analysis of the 2007 primary and general elections shows the benefits of using the same software/hardware infrastructure for multiple elections. Using RCV in multiple elections would leverage the already in place investments while saving the costs of the additional election. An example of this would be if in 2009 the Port of Tacoma and the Metro Parks District of Tacoma were to use RCV in addition to Pierce County itself, it would save money for all three entities.

Lessons from the 2007 Elections

In the 2007 August primary election, there were 26 entities who shared $850,239.28 in expenses. In the 2007 November general election, there were 79 entities who shared $1,054,340.92 in expenses. The 26 entities which had a primary were allocated only $379,749.19 in general election expenses. This is less than half of the expenses incurred in the primary itself.

Why was the general election so much cheaper than the primary for those entities participating both the primary and general elections? The usage of the fixed costs of running an election were spread out over more entities in the general election than in the primary. The costs of printing and processing ballots were spread out over more entities. It is more efficient to hold multiple races in the same election.

Impact on RCV

Currently, Pierce County uses RCV for only county level positions such as County Executive and County Council. In current state law, there is no provision for local entities such as ports or park districts to use RCV in their elections. RCV activists have gone to the state legislature to ask for authority for Pierce County entities to use RCV. The Pierce County Elections Department has testified against this legislation, giving as part of the reason the large expense of the original investment expense. The Elections Department analysis ignores the fact that using the RCV investment more times will result in a decline in elections spending not an increase.

As discussed in an earlier posting, if the Port of Tacoma and the Metro Parks District were to use RCV as well as Pierce County in 2009, ALL three entities (County, Port and Parks) would save money!

Why? The expenses in the general election would be spread out over more entities and the expenses in the primary would be eliminated. It would make sense to leverage the already in place investments of RCV. The Port of Tacoma and the Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma should consider taking advantage of the investment already made.

2007 August Primary Cost Allocations for Pierce County

After each election in Pierce County (and other counties around the state), the costs of running the election are allocated to the entities which participated in the election. The mechanism for allocating costs is set by the state.

For the 2007 August Primary in Pierce County, the cost allocations are available here. Total cost of the election was $850,239.28. The largest allocations went to:

Port of Tacoma: $327,176.55
Tacoma Schools: $85,090.70
Metro Parks of Tacoma: $80,003.14
City of Tacoma: $78,721.44

The county itself paid no money since there were no county level elections in 2007. In 2009, if the county was using the Top Two election system, it would have incurred expenses about the same level as the Port incurred in 2007.

In the case of the Port, the School District and the Park District, they had only one seat each which had a primary, so all of these expenses were incurred due to a single contested race. There is something wrong with this system.

The Metro Parks District incurred its $80,000 of expense due to three candidates signing up to run for one seat on the Commission. The eventual winner, Tim Reid, won over 50% of the vote in the August election. Reid ended up winning over 50% of the vote in two elections to win the seat. RCV would have accomplished this in just one election and save the Park District a significant amount of money. Our current system requires these two elections and the associated expense at times when the Park District could use the money to fund the parks.

The current system discourages people from participating in our democracy. Running for office is likely to cost the entity significant money. RCV makes running for office a public service. The current system does not.

These kinds of savings of time, money and energy are available for counties like King, Snohomish and Whatcom counties since they elect their county level officials in odd-numbered years on a regular basis and get the cost savings from sharing the systems.

Burlington, Vermont, Elk Hunting, and Ranked Choice Voting

by Krist Novoselic, Chair of Fairvote and resident of Naselle, Washington

On March 3rd, Burlington Vermont had an RCV election. The mayor’s race shared a similar dynamic to the Pierce County Executive election. Burlington had five candidates and Pierce had four. Pierce had two Democrats, while Burlington had a Progressive Party along with a Democratic Party candidate – again similar.

The race went into an instant runoff and the incumbent mayor won with over 51 percent. Since they all vote at the polls, they knew the winner at 8:25pm.

It’s important to note how civil the campaigns were. A Democratic city councilor said the candidates were forthright and the race was, “the most respectful and informative campaign in Burlington in a long time.”

I advocate reforms like RCV out of altruism. The idea is to make the democratic experience more inclusive and compelling. It makes me feel good that the Burlington experience was so positive.

I get a lot of visitors down here on the mouth of the Columbia during elk hunting season. Last fall, most everybody told me how they were ready for the election to be over. It was like, “I’m sick of the TV ads!” They were tired of the negative campaigning. I even know PETA supporting vegans who grew weary with the election season - so the feeling was universal!

The Burlington experience is a clear reason of why RCV – there was a lot less negative campaigning. And as we’ve seen in San Francisco, rival candidates were actually endorsing each other.

Pierce voters knew how to do RCV but there could have been a stronger effort with telling why. And nowhere is this more apparent than with the county auditor’s Flash RCV tutorial. It asks, WHY RCV? And only answers with – because voters approved it in 2006.

It’s indicative of the sleeper attitude with the issue among election administrators in Pierce and Olympia.

But back to my hunter friends, I never got a chance to tell them about RCV. I was too busy making sure they cut me in when they came back from the butcher! I bet they’d perk up if they knew there was an election system that encourages positive campaigning.

Ranked Choice Voting in Vermont

February 12, 2009
HOW INSTANT RUNOFF'S WORKING IN VERMONT

Terry Bouricius is a former city councilor and state legislator from Vermont

Terry Bouricius, Fair Vote - Here in Burlington, the second mayoral election using instant runoff voting is less than three weeks away. There is a spirited campaign with five candidates, four of whom are seen as having a serious chance of winning.

The incumbent mayor from the Progressive Party, Bob Kiss, is running for re-election. His opponents are the current president of the city council, Republican Kurt Wright, Democratic councilor Andy Montroll (a past city council president), Dan Smith, an independent whose father was a Republican Member of Congress and who is running as a "post-partisan" "entrepreneurial" candidate, and a political novice, Green Party candidate James Simpson.

Under the old city charter, Burlington would likely be looking at a runoff election a few weeks later (with the desperate flurry of campaign fund-raising, mud-slinging, and added tax-payer expense that generally entails). However, with the ranked-choice ballot, Burlington will finish its mayoral election on March 3.

With plurality elections, candidates on the same side of the political spectrum, who appeal to the same slice of the electorate, often seek to demonize each other. Again, this dynamic is absent under IRV.

Because candidates know they may need the second choices from voters who support other candidates as their top pick, the campaigns are remaining civil, and attempting to reach out to a broader constituency, than would be typical in a plurality election. A door-knocker for one of the campaigns recently knocked on our door, and had a conversation with my wife. When told that we were supporting one of the other candidates, this campaign worker said, "I can see that your mind is made up, but I hope you'll look over this leaflet and consider giving my guy your second choice."

Ranked Choice Voting and the 2000 election

In the 2000 elections, the voters of Pierce County voted in three momentous races in which the winner received less than a majority of the votes. These elections changed the course of history, and are viewed by many as unfair outcomes. From this election came an increased drive to reform our election system to be more fair, to be more inclusive and to inspire more debate of the issues. This eventually led to the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting in Pierce County and other places around the US.

In 2000, the Presidential election was very close. The winner was going to be settled by who won the electoral votes of Florida. After an extended period of time, it was determined that George Bush received a few more votes than Al Gore in Florida and Bush won the election.

Ralph Nader received far more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore in Florida. Many Democrats believe Nader cost Gore the election. To many Democrats, Nader was a spoiler and votes for Nader were wasted votes. In subsequent elections, Democrats actively sought to discourage Nader from running.

In 2000, the candidates for the US Senate seat in the state of Washington were Democrat Maria Cantwell, incumbent Republican Slade Gorton and Libertarian Jeff Jared. Cantwell won with 48.7% (less than a majority of the votes). Cantwell became the 50th Democratic Senator and thus affected the balance of power in the US Senate.

Slade Gorton believes Jared's candidacy cost him his job. Many Republicans view the Libertarians as spoilers within the current election system. Republicans actively discourage Libertarians from running in races due to concerns about the spoiler effect.

In 2000, the candidates for the 25 District State Senate seat in the Puyallup area were Democrat Jim Kastama, Republican Joyce McDonald and Libertarian Jerry Christensen. Kastama won with 49.1% of the vote. Kastama became the 25th Democrat in the State Senate and shifted the balance of power to the Democrats in that body.

McDonald was quoted at the time as saying Christensen had cost her the race. She has said if the 2000 race had been Ranked Choice Voting, she probably would have won and still be in the State Senate.

Observing these results, it is easy to conclude that our system of plurality voting is unfair to candidates and voters. We should have a system which leads to majority winners. We should have a system which encourages more rather than fewer candidates. Voters deserve more choice, but without having to be concerned about wasting their vote.

Ranked Choice Voting encourages voters to vote honestly about who their first choice is and to continue telling us about their second and third choices. It allows the Nader voters to tell us who their second choice is. It allows Jared voters to tell us who their second choice is. It allows Christensen voters to tell us who their second choice is. And, if their candidate is eliminated, their second choice can have an impact on the eventual winner. Their vote will not be wasted. Their candidate will not be a spoiler.

In the 2008 Pierce County Executive race, we saw four candidates. Mike Lonergan, the third party candidate, was not considered a spoiler. Most Democrats listed Pat McCarthy and Calvin Goings as their first two choices. The debates were lively and filled with discussion of the issues.

While several of the RCV races were easy to call on election night (e.g. Sheriff), the County Executive race was too close to call. However, we have an Executive winner long before the yet-to-be-determined US Senate race in Minnesota, where the winner will have about 42% of the vote. The US Senate race in Minnesota is a good example of the problems of our current system and why we need to keep Ranked Choice Voting in Pierce County.

I urge you to vote No on the repeal of RCV in Pierce County. This election reform leads to a healthier democracy.

Vetting and Party Labels

At last night's League of Women Voters' forum on Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) at the University of Puget Sound, there were comments made about the vetting of candidates by the parties and the value of such vetting. Some people seemed confused about what rights the parties have under the various elections systems we have.

In a partisan RCV race, the parties have the right to determine which candidates can use the party name on the ballot. In a partisan Top 2 race, the parties have no control over which candidates use their name on the ballot.

In the 2008 partisan RCV Pierce County Executive race, Pat McCarthy and Calvin Goings received permission from the Pierce County Democrats to run as Democrats. No other candidates appeared on the ballot as Democrats.

Shawn Bunney received permission to run as a Republican, but Mike Lonergan who also sought to run as a Republican was turned down at the County Convention. Bunney was the only candidate labelled a Republican on the ballot. This was the Republican vetting of the candidates. Now, Lonergan was able to run as a third party candidate, but he was not able to use the Republican label.

If the race had been a partisan Top 2 race, then Lonergan could have simply filed as "prefers Republican" and the Republican Party would have had no opportunity to vet him.

In a Top 2 race for State Legislature (36th District, Position 1), John Burbank was nominated by the Democratic Party, but Reuven Carlyle ran as "prefers Democratic Party." Carlyle won the race. If Carlyle leaves office before the end of his term, the Democrats do not even have the right to replace him since he was not their nominee.

Bottom line: If you want the parties to be able to vet the candidates, then RCV works and the Top 2 does not.

Andrew Bacon Letter to Pierce County Council

Greetings to my friends on the Pierce County Council, and think you for all your hard work and service to our county.



I'm writing today in support of Ranked Choice Voting. I support Ranked Choice Voting for the following reasons:



· Ranked Choice Voting more accurately reflects the will of the voting citizens of the county.

· Ranked Choice Voting allows for a wider variety of candidates, since no one candidate can be considered a "spoiler".

· Ranked Choice Voting eliminates the need for a separate runoff election, should a plurality not be sufficient for the particular office at question, now or in the future.

· Ranked Choice Voting achieves the same goal as holding runoff elections, while eliminating the additional costs associated with repeated balloting.

· Ranked Choice Voting has twice been approved by the citizens of Pierce County.



I very much appreciate your consideration, and of course am available to any council or council staff member who might wish to discuss the matter. Please feel free to contact me using the information below at your convenience.



Thank you,



Andrew Bacon

CEO . General Manager

The Information Technology Consultancy

Election Results: Top 2 vs. Ranked Choice Voting

Now that the 2008 elections have been certified by the various elections departments around the state, we can examine the process of releasing results with a broader perspective. There were slight differences between the Top 2 races and the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) races in the release of preliminary results in Pierce County. There were no differences between the two systems in when the results became official.

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 was a two phase process. In the first phase, the Elections Department released 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 Pastor 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 Top 2 race for state legislature in Snohomish County, the News Tribune reports on December 12 (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.

Pierce County Democrats and the 2008 Elections

By Professor Richard Anderson-Connolly
University of Puget Sound
Member - 27th District Democrats

This is an open letter to Democrats in Pierce County


Democrats in Pierce County generally did worse than Democrats nationwide and around the state of Washington. Rather than beginning an honest discussion about the way to prevent a similar performance in the future, Party Chair Nathe Lawver is looking to switch the subject and scapegoat the electoral reform of Ranked Choice Voting.


Let’s consider the performance of Democrats locally:

In a Top-2 race current Democratic County Executive John Ladenburg lost his home county by 16% in the contest for state Attorney General. Ladenburg had a better showing in Klickitat County.

In a Top-2 race for the 8th Congressional seat Democrat Darcy Burner lost in Pierce County by 17%.

In a Top-2 race Democratic State Senator Marilyn Rasmussen (2nd Dist.) lost her seat to Republican challenger Randi Becker because she lost Pierce County. Rasmussen won in Thurston. This was the only seat in the state the Republicans took from the Democrats in the State Senate.

In a Top-2 race the Republicans picked up a house seat (26th Dist.) in the position left open by retiring Democrat Pat Lantz. The Democrat Kim Abel lost Pierce by 10% but Kitsap by only 3%.

In a Top-2 race for Commissioner of Public Lands Republican Doug Sutherland carried Pierce County by 9% even though he lost the statewide race to Democrat Peter Goldmark.

Tim Eyman’s initiative passed in exactly one county in the entire state – Pierce.


Yet what message does the Pierce County Democratic Party leadership want to us to take from these terrible results? Even though none of these was an RCV race we are told that RCV is the biggest problem for the party in the county. This is an embarrassingly obvious attempt to distract attention from the real issues with the local party.


Without some critical self-reflection by the party, 2010 and 2012 have the potential to be bad years for the Democrats locally. The next gubernatorial race may come down to Pierce County and we can’t simply rely on the Obama effect. I’m certain there are some nervous folks in Olympia who have made the same assessment of Pierce County. Clearly the Democratic Party does not have a winning message for Pierce County voters or else it is too poorly organized to get that message across.


In his post-election email Calvin Goings wrote that “it appears that because of Ranked Choice Voting, Pierce County will be a red mark on a blue state.” It’s unfortunate that Goings, as the most progressive candidate on many issues, didn’t have a better showing. But blaming the refs is not a progressive value. Almost certainly under a Top-2 system Goings would have been eliminated in August and his issues would have received less attention. If you have to lose, it’s better to lose in November.


And Lawver, when asked about the RCV election, described it as “rather cumbersome.” It’s disappointing that a chair of the Democratic Party actually can call a more democratic voting system “cumbersome.” I can think of many elements of our democracy that are cumbersome but fortunately many Democrats value outcomes like choice, transparency, and high voter participation.


In any case the “cumbersome” parts of this election were delays caused by the auditor’s office. The system was not tested at full volume and it was discovered only on election night that the computer needed more memory. Polling places were consolidated and the office was not prepared for the high volume. Still, these were minor issues, certainly compared to the delays with mail voting. For the most part Pat McCarthy did a decent job with the county’s first RCV election and a few simple improvements will make it run even better next time. (If the council appoints an auditor who actually supports RCV the improvements will almost certainly be done.)


Lawver, Goings, and McCarthy are all good people who have done good work as Democrats but they shouldn’t represent the party on the issue of RCV. Outside of Pierce County, the Democratic Party is typically the party of electoral reform. Barack Obama was the prime sponsor of RCV legislation when he was a State Senator in Illinois. Howard Dean, the chair of the National Democratic Party, supports RCV. So does Dennis Kucinich. And Jesse Jackson, Jr., who introduced federal RCV legislation. Al Franken supports RCV and would likely be a Senator now if Minnesota used it. The Democratically-controlled legislature of Vermont passed a bill to use RCV for federal offices but the bill was vetoed – by a Republican. The state parties of California, Colorado, Minneapolis, and Maine endorsed RCV. The local Democratic parties in San Francisco, Oakland, and Minneapolis – all cities that have passed RCV initiatives – supported it. And just this week our neighbors to the south – the Democratic Party of Oregon – made passage of a local option RCV bill a legislative priority. Every year more and more Democrats get behind RCV. (Of course Democrats don’t have a monopoly on electoral reform – John McCain also supported RCV.)


Let’s recognize that a fight against RCV comes with an opportunity cost: Truly progressive issues – like jobs and wages, civil liberties, the environment – must necessarily receive less time, energy, and money. Furthermore many new and young voters came into the Democratic Party because it promised progressive change, including issues like electoral reform. If many new Democrats had to pick between Obama, a supporter of RCV, and most local Democratic leaders, I don’t think it would be a close contest. Fighting RCV is a terrible way to keep the newly-energized progressive youth movement excited about the Democratic Party. Within a year the party will be nothing more than the same people repeating the same ideas that brought the county to its current state.


In the News Tribune, Peter Callaghan called it for what it is: The county party leaders are looking for a scapegoat, something to distract attention from their own poor performance. What he didn’t emphasize is that this is largely a problem for just one of the two parties – the Democrats. The Republicans have been far more reasonable. I have heard few complaints about the system from Bunney supporters. They knew the rules, fought the good fight, and lost a close one.


I hope that rank-and-file Democrats, the progressive base that does most of the work for the leadership, will refuse to go along with the scapegoating of RCV. Instead of blaming the system – an explanation that doesn’t fit the facts – Democrats need to engage in a deeper debate about the best way to recruit and build strong candidates.

Let’s focus on issues like health care, civil liberties, peace, full employment, and, yes, progressive electoral reforms. If we can offer Pierce County citizens policies that represent their values and interests then we will get our share of victories using a democratic voting system like RCV. If we ignore the important issues to spend our time fighting electoral reforms then we can count on the local party’s continuing decline even as the rest of the state and indeed the country become more Democratic.

Georgia Mess Points Out the Need for Ranked Choice Voting

The Georgia US Senate race is showing the problems with their election system. The voters and taxpayers of Georgia are going to have a run-off election since no candidate received a majority of the votes in November.

James Wiseman writes:

"The U.S. Senate race in Georgia is going to a runoff Dec. 2, because the Libertarian candidate, Allen Buckley, got just enough votes to prevent either the Republican Saxby Chambliss or the Democrat Jim Martin from getting a majority.

Georgia voters, many of whom waited in line for hours to cast their ballots, will have to go back to vote again. The runoff is an extra expense for a state government that is already in a budget crisis, and a serious inconvenience for every voter who will have to somehow find the time for another trip to the polling place. Many will be unable or unwilling to vote again, which means that the results will reflect the desires of a smaller proportion of the original voting population.

The problem with our voting system is obvious. On Nov. 4, each voter was asked for his or her first choice for senator. Why make us come back a month later to ask us again? Why not ask us for our first and second choices on Election Day? In the Senate race in Georgia, no one got a majority. Since Buckley came in last, he would be eliminated, and each of Buckley’s voters’ ballots would be switched to their second choices. It is exactly what happens in a runoff, except that it is done immediately, without forcing us to hold another election."

The situation in Georgia shows one of the reasons why many people throughout the country are considering a system such as the ranked choice voting system in Pierce County, Washington.

Minnesota Senate Race Shows Benefits of Ranked Choice Voting

The US Senate race in Minnesota is a mess. This mess is in no small part due to the plurality voting system used in electing Senators in Minnesota and elsewhere around the country. Ranked Choice Voting (or as it is known in Minnesota Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)) would have improved the Senate race in Minnesota.

David Durenberger writes in the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"We all were hoping that the bruising and expensive race for the U.S. Senate seat would end on Election Day.

Instead, the $40 million-plus campaign continues to permeate our headlines and limit our forward momentum. The Coleman-Franken race is now in a contentious recount and is almost certainly headed to the courts from there. The recount and its aftermath will be a protracted and high-priced affair, and no matter the outcome, most voters will be left wondering if there is not a better way to express our preferences.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) would have produced an entirely different election."

Minnesotans would have been better off. Residents of Pierce County have had the benefit of adopting such a system for county level elections. This year's set of RCV elections went well and many voters are hoping this positive election reform will spread throughout the states of Washington and Minnesota.