King County August 2009 Primary

King County's bill for its share of the August primary costs will likely exceed $1 million again this year. There are even fewer jurisdictions participating in the primary this year than in 2007. Thus, there are fewer jurisdictions over which to spread the cost. By adopting Ranked Choice Voting, King County can eliminate this cost to their taxpayers for years to come. In addition, by having RCV capability in place, this would allow entities such as the Port of Seattle to save money as well.

The August 2009 primary in King County will feature races for county level offices, the Port of Seattle, 15 city councils, 4 school districts and 2 fire districts. (The Port races feature candidates Rob Holland, David Doud, Al Yuen, Juan Paraiso, Max Vekich, Tom Albro, and Robert Walker.) This is a total of 23 jurisdictions as compared to 35 in the 2007 primary.

Since there are fewer entities sharing the costs this year, King County will be getting a higher allocation. However, there may be some cost savings associated with closing the polls down. The resulting costs for the county will still be over $1 million for the primary.

The cost savings of RCV primarily come from eliminating elections. For King County, due to its size plus holding elections in odd-numbered years, the savings over time would be substantial.

Pierce County and the Port of Tacoma

Last week, Pierce County had three candidates (Julie Anderson, Will Baker, and Jan Shabro) file to run for Auditor, but will save the expense of a primary. The Port of Tacoma, a countywide organization, had three candidates (Bernardo Tuma, Connie Bacon and Bill Casper) file to run for one of their Port Commission positions and will receive a bill for having a primary...probably around $350,000.

Pierce County is using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to elect its Auditor. RCV combines the primary and general elections into one election in November. Since the county itself will not participate in the primary, it will not receive a bill for the primary.

The Port of Tacoma has been forced to use a non-partisan Top 2 system to elect its Port Commissioners. Under this system, if more than two candidates file to run for one of the Commissioner positions, the Elections Department will run a primary for the Port and send them a bill for doing so. In 2007, the bill was $327,000. This year it should be slightly more due to fewer jurisdictions sharing the cost of the primary.

The non-partisan Top 2 system penalizes jurisdictions with more candidates and more civic involvement. This is a strange incentive system for political entities. RCV, on average, ends up with more candidates, but does not cost the entity more money for a primary. Using RCV would save the Port significant money which could be used to keep people on the payroll instead of having to lay off as many workers.

Port and Tacoma Schools Should Ask for Cut in Election Expenses

The Port of Tacoma and the Tacoma School District should ask the Pierce County Auditor to use Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to elect their Port Commissioners and School Board members this November and skip the August primary to save money for the workers and the kids. Without a change in elections procedures, the Port will be out about $350,000 and the Tacoma Schools will be billed about $100,000. This is money better spent on workers salaries and supporting kids education.

Pierce County itself will be using RCV to elect its new Auditor. So despite there being three candidates in the Auditor race, there will be no August election for the county. RCV folds the primary and general elections into one election in November. The Port Commissioner Position #1 has three candidates (Bernardo Tuma, Connie Bacon and Bill Casper) and the Tacoma School Board Position #2 has six candidates (Jerry Thorpe, Catherine Ushka-Hall, Connie Rickman, Amy Bates, Chris Van Vechten, and Deb Blakeslee).

Using the current set of rules, these races will require an election in August for these positions and the Port and School District will be sent bills for holding these elections. If the Port and the School District were to change to RCV, they would not participate in the August election and would not receive a bill for that election.

As soon as possible, the Port Commission and the School Board should petition the Auditor's office to use RCV to elect their officials this year. This would save the Port and School Board important dollars in this difficult financial year which has seen lay-offs throughout the county.

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.

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.

Fiscal Analysis of Ranked Choice Voting in Washington

Summary

How Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is implemented and the existing election infrastructure have large impacts on the fiscal efficiency of RCV elections. The primary fiscal advantage of RCV is the elimination of an election for a jurisdiction. The cost of RCV can be divided into two parts: one-time capital expenses associated with acquiring software and hardware to count the votes plus the ongoing costs of running each election.

The capital costs associated with acquiring equipment and software are best defrayed by multiple uses of the software by the same election departments. Multiple uses allows jurisdictions to obtain the savings benefits without incurring additional capital costs. The best implementations will be in situations where multiple jurisdictions can eliminate elections through multiple uses of the capital investments.

Fiscal Advantages

Elections cost money to run. Eliminating an election saves money.

In California, local jurisdictions require run-off elections when no candidate receives a majority of the votes. Before adopting RCV, San Francisco was frequently forced to run runoff elections in December at considerable expense to taxpayers. With adoption of RCV, San Francisco has eliminated the need for runoff elections and consequently saves significant money in each annual election cycle. Los Angeles is contemplating converting for some of the same reasons.

In North Carolina, Cary, a city of more than 100,000, used RCV in 2007, eliminating the need for a runoff. The added voter education and election administration costs for RCV were outweighed by the savings from not holding a runoff by a ratio of more than three-to-one.

In Washington, the Top Two amounts to an "automatic runoff" system -- we always have two rounds of voting no matter how many candidates run, with a preliminary election in August and a November runoff between the top two. Cost savings from RCV comes from the elimination of the preliminary election in August and folding it into the November vote.

In Pierce County in 2008 where RCV was implemented for county level officials, the elimination of the preliminary round for county level officials did not do away with the cost of administering that election since the county must pay for the federal and state level primary elections in even-numbered years -- not fair to the county, perhaps, but a current fact of life. As a result, Pierce County did not receive any taxpayer savings from its implementation in 2008, although it did sharply reduce the costs for candidates running for office.

In 2009, Pierce County will be holding elections for local jurisdictions (e.g. city councils, school boards, port commissions, park commissions, and fire commissions). In addition, it will be holding a RCV election for the Pierce County Auditor position. In odd years such as 2009, local jurisdictions pay for their own elections, not the county. The county only pays for those elections it holds.

In 2007, the Port of Tacoma (a countywide jurisdiction) incurred election expenses of over $325,000 for just the August primary. A primary election for Auditor would cost the county a similar amount of money in 2009. Since Pierce County will be using RCV to elect its Auditor, this will be a 2009 cost savings for the county as compared to standard election procedure.

Several charter counties (e.g. King, Snohomish and Whatcom) in Washington regularly hold their county level elections in odd-numbered years. These counties would get these cost savings every two years if they implemented RCV for their county level officials. Pierce County has charter amendments on the 2009 ballot to shift county level elections to odd years. This would have the impact of saving money on these elections on a regular basis.

One-time Capital Expenses

In 2008, Pierce County invested in upgrades to its elections software and hardware to implement RCV and generally speed up all elections processing. Whenever making an investment in software, the first use is always the most expensive. Subsequent uses and multiple uses at the same time help spread out the costs.

To see how this would work, let us consider a possible scenario in Pierce County for 2009. Suppose in addition to Pierce County using RCV to elect its Auditor, the Port of Tacoma and the Metro Park District of Tacoma used RCV to elect their Commissioners. In 2007, the Port District and the Park District combined to spend over $400,000 on the August primary election. The Port and Park Districts would save this money in this scenario. In the general election, the Elections Department would not need to buy another piece of software or hardware to run these RCV elections. Thus, the benefits of the investment would be spread to a larger group of jurisdictions.

For King, Snohomish and Whatcom counties, they would have this benefit every two years for any local jurisdiction choosing to use RCV. For these counties, using RCV for both county level officials and local level officials would have the cost benefit of eliminating an election by taking advantage of the county's investment.

Expenses in each Election Cycle

While in 2008 in Pierce County the majority of the expenses were one-time investments, there were still some costs which will be incurred each time you run a RCV election. These expenses are almost exclusively tied to the desire of the Secretary of State and the vendor to have the RCV elections on a separate ballot card from other elections. Since in most election cycles, Pierce County has been able to get all of the races and ballot measures on one ballot card, this separate ballot card requirement meant an increase in printing, paper and postage costs for our mail-in ballots.

With only one RCV election on the ballot this November, it is ludicrous to suggest that it should be on a separate ballot when it comes with extra costs. The County Auditor's office has done a poor job in negotiating its contract if it cannot resolve this question.

The Pierce County Elections Department should be pressuring the vendor to eliminate this separate ballot card requirement as a way to save money. Other counties in Washington considering implementing RCV should make sure discuss this issue with their vendor before buying software for RCV.

Still there are ways to save money on this expense. Let's go back to our 2009 scenario where Pierce County is electing its Auditor, and the Port of Tacoma and the Metro Parks District are electing their Commissioners using RCV. All of these races would fit on one RCV ballot card. No additional RCV expenses would need to be incurred. Plus the RCV expenses would be split three ways instead of totally being incurred by the County.

In the scenario above, each entity (County, Port and Park District) would have reduced costs versus the traditional election procedures. This comes about through leveraging the county's investment in software by the Port and Park Districts. This scenario shows what is possible in King, Snohomish and Whatcom Counties if they are to try implementing RCV in their county level elections.

Implementing in environments where an election is eliminated allows one to get the fiscal benefit of RCV. Implementing across multiple races across multiple election cycles allows the county to leverage its investment in software and hardware to benefit multiple jurisdictions. King, Snohomish and Whatcom counties have real potential to implement fiscally efficient RCV elections.

Democrats in Oregon to push Ranked Choice Voting for local elections

Jim Robison of Democrats for IRV reports the Democratic Party of Oregon has adopted Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) (known as Ranked Choice Voting in Washington state) as a legislative agenda item. A bill supporting local option for IRV has already been pre-filed for the next legislative session (starts in January) by the Secretary of State-Elect.

With strong Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature, and the incoming Secretary of State supporting it, it looks very likely that Oregon will pass a bill directing the Secretary of State to draft rules which will allow any
local jurisdiction in Oregon to use IRV.

North Carolina to expand Instant Runoff Voting to more locales

by Jordan Schrader • JSchrade@CITIZEN-TIMES.com • published August 4, 2008 3:00 pm



Raleigh – A law signed this weekend by Gov. Mike Easley will let North Carolina's experiment with instant-runoff voting continue.

The system, also called ranked-choice voting, directs voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Voters choose backup candidates in case their favorites don't win, avoiding the need for a runoff election.



Hendersonville and Cary were the first to try the system. The state may now recruit up to 10 more local governments each year to hold similar elections, as part of an elections law sponsored by Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe, and signed Saturday by Easley.

The pilot programs would end in 2011. The system could later be used statewide.

Jordan Schrader reports from Raleigh on North Carolina government. Call Jordan at 919-821-4749, e-mail JSchrade@CITIZEN-TIMES.com or visit http://www.CITIZEN-TIMES.com/CapitalLetters

Oregon Effort to Give IRV option to cities and counties

Some prominent candidates and elected officials are campaigning to provide Oregon cities and counties with the option to elect their public officials using IRV. We commend these officials for their efforts.

In the state of Washington, Senate Bill 6000 in the last session was voted out of committee, but did not make it through the Rules Committee. Several legislators expressed a desire to see what happens in Pierce County in November before giving cities the authority to use Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to elect their public officials.

Candidates have now filed to run for office in Pierce County and the voters will be treated to more choice in November. There will be partisan and non-partisan RCV elections on the ballot and some of the races promise to be quite competitive.

State legislators in Washington will be called upon to consider a local option in the 2009 session as well.

Local Option RCV bill passes out of Committee

Senate Bill 6000 passed out of the Senate Government Operations Committee today by a 7-0 vote. SB6000 would give Pierce County cities, school districts and port districts the option to use Ranked Choice Voting in electing their council members, board members and commissioners starting in 2009.

This bill would give these local jurisdictions the option to use this new voting system which voters in Pierce County will first use in November this year. Since Pierce County will already have the software and staff required to implement RCV in place, this option will be low cost and in many cases will save the local jurisdictions money.

Low Turnout Elections and Ranked Choice Voting

Low turnout elections are a concern to advocates of democracy and taxpayers.

Americans suffer from election burnout. We ask our voters to vote too often. As a result, in elections such as our August 2007 primary many voters do not participate. In San Francisco, one of the main motivations for implementing ranked choice voting was to consolidate their low turnout runoff and general elections to accomplish the functions of both in one blanket general election. This consolidation has had the positive side effect of saving money as well.

In Pierce County, the Charter Review Commission and the voters wanted to try an alternative to the despised pick-a-party primary system. The voters have chosen to elect county level officials using ranked choice voting. This consolidates the primary for county level officials into the general election, but does not eliminate an election as we continue to elect our federal and state level officials using the pick-a-party primary. With the current implementation of ranked choice voting, Pierce County will have the benefit of a better voting system for only a limited number of races.

Thus, the fixed costs of running ranked choice voting elections will be spread over a limited number of races in 2008. Without state-enabling legislation, we will not be able to spread these costs over more races and will not be able to eliminate any elections. If the state legislature were to pass legislation allowing local Pierce County jurisdictions such as cities, the port district, school districts, etc. to use ranked choice voting to elect their officials, then Pierce County could use its new software more often and eliminate some or all of the low turnout August 2009 primary. This would allow Pierce County to start gaining more of the positive benefits of its investment in ranked choice voting.

Auditor's 2008 budget

The Auditor's budget request for ranked choice voting for 2008 includes several one-time items. The software module, the 400c high speed tabulators, the professional services, and the bulk of the voter education request are all one-time items which would not need to be repeated in 2009, if local jurisdictions were to choose to implement ranked choice voting to elect their officials. The implementation of ranked choice voting for just the port district would have meant many precincts had no August 2007 primary. The consolidation of this low turnout election into the general election would have saved the port district the cost of the primary without spending any additional money on the items above.

We should also recognize that the additional staffing and the high speed tabulators will benefit the speed and efficiency with which ALL elections are counted, not just ranked choice voting elections.

Conclusion

The Council has now passed the Auditor's budget and the work continues for smooth implementation of RCV in Pierce County. To get further benefits of Pierce County's investment in RCV, we will need state enabling legislation to allow usage of the RCV software for local jurisdictions.

California Passes Local Option IRV bill

The California State Assembly has passed local option IRV bill (AB 1294). It has also passed the State Senate now. This bill would allow local jurisdictions such as cities and counties to elect their public officials using IRV.

Ballot Access News writes this is the first time such legislation has passed one of the state houses.

2007 Primary Waste of Money

The August 2007 primary ballot for Gig Harbor residents has one (1) race for Port Commissioner on it. If the Port District was using ranked choice voting to elect its commissioners, the Port and the County could have saved the entire cost of the August primary for the Gig Harbor area and many others. Postage, printing, poll workers, etc. would be saved.



During the 2007 legislative session, the legislature considered SB-6000 which would have allowed local jurisdictions in Pierce County to use Instant Runoff Voting (or Ranked Choice Voting) to elect their officials. My primary ballot is a good example of why the legislature should pass SB-6000 during the 2008 session.

Pierce County is in the process of acquiring the software to run ranked choice voting elections. The more times we use this software, the more cost effective it becomes. This primary gives us an example of the potential cost savings if we extend the usage of ranked choice voting.

More Voter Choice

Another candidate has announced he is going to run for Jack Fabulich's Port Commission seat. This brings the total to four announced candidates. This will result in greater voter choice. As a Pierce County voter, Hooray!

Too bad the Port can't use ranked choice voting so that the November general election voters won't be able to choose from all of the candidates.

Too bad the Port can't use ranked choice voting to eliminate the primary and its associated expenses.

Let's hope the State Legislature passes SB 6000 in their 2008 session.

Election system to cost Tacoma Port District

The Port of Tacoma Commission seat currently held by retiring Jack Fabulich is attracting candidates. Most voters would think of more choice on the ballot as a good thing. However, the Port District is looking at a big bill for an unneccesary election.

With the current system for electing non-partisan officials in the state of Washington, any time a race attracts more than two candidates, the Auditor is required to hold a primary. Primaries cost money. For a district such the Port of Tacoma, the expense is likely to be in excess of $200,000.

How could the Port District save this expense without discouraging candidates from running? With the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting such as being used by county level officials in Pierce County, the Port District could eliminate the primary and save the expense.

Unfortunately, the Port currently does not have this option. It requires enabling state legislation to allow the Port the option to save this money. Let's hope the legislature passes this enabling legislation in its next session.

Voting System Broken; Let's Try Alternatives

We have tried the pick-a-party system. It is a failure with voters. The voters find the system disenfranchising and confusing. The spoilage rates on primary ballots are extremely high. Public officials of all stripes hear nothing but complaints about the system. The Secretary of State's office and the county auditors have tried hard to make it work. It is time to move on and try something different.

In Pierce County, the voters have chosen to try ranked choice voting to elect their county level officials. In places where ranked choice voting has been tried the voters believe it is an improvement over how they voted in the past. In addition, voters are able to vote correctly as evidenced by low spoilage rates. The spoilage rates on ranked choice ballots are an order of magnitude lower than the rates on pick-a-party ballots.

When the Pierce County Charter Amendment passed in November, local government officials such as city council members and park commissioners asked to be able to use ranked choice voting to elect their officials as well. These public officials liked what they heard about this alternative to traditional voting systems and wanted state enabling legislation giving them the option to try the alternative.

As a result, we are promoting Senate Bill 6000 and its companion House Bill 2202 to allow cities and other local taxing entities the option to use ranked choice voting starting in 2009. These bills will allow us to expand the search for alternatives to our current broken system. Please email your State Senator and State Representatives to encourage them to support SB 6000 and HB 2202.

Retirement to cost Port $200,000+

Long-time Port Commissioner Jack Fabulich has announced that he will not be running for re-election in the fall and this will likely cost the Port of Tacoma over $200,000. Why?

In most years, there is limited competition for Port Commissioner jobs at the Port of Tacoma, but with an open seat we are likely to see a crowded field to replace Commissioner Fabulich. It is great to see more choices for the voters, but there are costs.

Under our current system of electing non-partisan officials if more than two candidates sign up to run for a particular office, then the Auditor's office will run a low turnout August primary and reduce the field to two candidates going forward to the general election. This primary costs money. In examining the cost allocations of the September 2005 primary when the County itself was in a similar position, the allocation was $250,000+.

Is there a better way? In the State Legislature, Senate Bill 6000 and its companion bill, House Bill 2202 have been introduced as a solution to this problem. These bills would allow the Port District and other local entities to elect their officials using Ranked Choice Voting in the general election and eliminate the primary.

All candidates would move directly to the general election and voters would be allowed to rank the candidates in order of their preference. The absence of a primary means candidates will only need to run in one election, thus cutting the costs of running for office. This will encourage more voter choice, while saving money for the Port District.

The State Legislature can help the Port District and others by passing SB 6000 and its companion bill, HB 2202.

Vashon/Maury Island Community Council

Citizens of Vashon and Maury Island (in King County) elected their Community Council using ranked choice voting software from the web. This small community in the Puget Sound area showed how it can be done.

It appears as if this is a quasi-government group and not subject to the rules of the state elections law. Fire districts and park districts are subject to the state election laws. With the passage of HB 2202 or SB 6000, fire districts and park districts in Pierce County would be able to follow the lead of Vashon and Maury Island.