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

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.

Too bad for the taxpayers; too bad for the Port

Today I will sit down with my ballot for the Tuesday primary. It has a single race on it, for Port of Tacoma commissioner.

The only function of my vote is to eliminate one of the three candidates (Bernardo Tuma, Connie Bacon, or Bill Casper) so that voters will have only two candidates on their ballots in November.

More than 130,000 voters around the county are in the same position. Most of them are likely to decide this is not worth the effort or the stamp.

Printing and postage for these 130,000 ballots is not cheap. In addition, the Pierce County Elections Department has hired poll workers and will open polling locations Tuesday for all of the precincts, including those 146 precincts where only the port race is on the ballot. Some precincts will likely experience less than 10 percent turnout.

Is there a better way? Yes. We can see the better way here in Pierce County this November.

To read more, see here.

Opportunity to Save Hundreds of Thousands in Elections Costs

Deryl McCarty, Deputy Pierce County Auditor, has identified a method for saving Pierce County hundreds of thousands of budget dollars in the November election alone. McCarty has determined that a majority of ballots can have just one ballot card rather than the budgeted two ballot cards thus saving hundreds of thousands of dollars as compared to the budget.

In setting the budget, it was observed it was likely not all of the November races would fit onto one ballot card for some precincts. The budget was then set to use two ballot cards for ALL precincts. Through careful analysis, McCarty and others within the Elections Department determined that not all precincts would require the two ballot cards. Using only one ballot card for some precincts will save money on printing and postage for the ballots. This taking the initiative to save costs is welcomed by the taxpayers of the county and the county budgetmasters.

There is still work to be done to implement this cost savings. The Elections Department will need to keep on task to be able to implement this cost savings, but the county government needs to be focused on cost savings this year especially given the budget crunch. At a later date, we hope to report McCarty and crew have succeeded in implementing this cost savings measure.

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.

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.

Will King County learn from Pierce County's experience?

Hint: Aspen, Colorado did.

King County has the opportunity to move its county level elections to Ranked Choice Voting, and, if done efficiently, saving money for the taxpayers. To do this, King County must learn from the experiences in Pierce County, Washington and Aspen, Colorado. The potential for savings in odd-numbered years is in the millions of dollars. How can King County accomplish this?

In November, 2008, Pierce County held its first ever Ranked Choice Voting election with races for County Executive, County Assessor-Treasurer, and County Sheriff and County Council. The Elections Department chose to implement Ranked Choice Voting through buying the software from their existing election systems vendor. The software was expensive and required a second ballot card with the associated printing and postage costs.

In May, 2009, Aspen, Colorado chose to employ a specialist firm who used the existing hardware and software for the standard elections and a combination of off-the-shelf optical scanners plus open source software to generate the Ranked Choice Voting results. This off-the-shelf solution does not require a second ballot card and the associated expenses.

Both in Pierce County and in Aspen, the systems provided ballot image files of the voters' choices and reporting of the rounds of RCV results. These reports represent a significant step forward in openness and transparency in elections. This publishing of results and ballot images is a model for all elections.

In Aspen, the vendor charged $7,500 plus expenses of getting there. These expenses were obviously less than the savings from eliminating a run-off election. Thus, Aspen saved money on a net basis as compared to their old system.

If King County were to move to RCV to elect its county level officials, it would save $1+ million in each odd-numbered year by folding the primary for those positions into the general election. The additional expense would be associated with getting state certification of the cheaper outside vendor plus a nominal sum for consulting and expenses. On a net basis, there would significant savings by the county.

Of course, if entities such as the Port of Seattle were to follow King County's lead, the expense savings would increase since there are significant economies of scale in using elections systems. The Port would likely save as much money as the County in moving to RCV, but is not likely to be able to do so unless the County makes the first move.

The King County Citizens' Elections Oversight Committee should recommend to the County Council and the voters of King County the implementation of RCV for King County's county level officials. RCV will encourage voter choice and save money for the county.

Voter Education at the University of Washington

The Associated Students of the University of Washington use Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for their student body elections. The students' IRV is the same system we call Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Pierce County.

The linked content on the web is the majority of the voter education used at the University. It is substantially more content than provided by the Pierce County Auditor's Office in November 2008 at lower cost than the Pierce County content. In particular, the content discusses right up front why voters are using IRV as well as the best approaches to voting in the new system.

To our knowledge, students are not confused about the system. Perhaps this is due to more positive educational content about the system to voters.

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.

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.

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

Cost Savings in Elections Department

To Pierce County Auditor Jan Shabro

It was exciting to talk about ways to save money versus the budget for the Elections Department in 2009. Right now, the budget for the special Ranked Choice Voting election is about the same as it would be for a special Top 2 election. With one or more of the cost savings measures discussed below, the Elections Department can save money as compared to a Top 2 election.

Since the special election for the Pierce County Auditor position will be a RCV election, there will be no primary and the county will save about $300,000 in the cost allocation from the primary as compared to a Top 2 election. This is already baked into the budget.

If we can get the November election on one ballot card, there will be a significant savings in print, paper and postage costs versus the budget. This represents a challenge, but the potential savings are in the neighborhood of $300,000 as well. National experts on RCV ballot design are willing to help us with the effort. This potential savings deserves a can-do approach to solving the problem.

As you know, the state legislature is considering a bill to close the polls in Pierce County. Closing the polls would save money as well, but would not be popular with some voters.

If the polls remain open, there are cost savings available by getting the poll vote counting machines certified by the Secretary of State. The equipment vendor is on the hook for providing such an improvement. The Auditor's department should be able to get this approval done in time for the November elections.

The current budget allocation for the November elections for the county is roughly the same as it would have been for a Top 2 election. With any of the cost savings measures discussed above, the RCV election will be less expensive than a Top 2 election would have been. This is due to the cost savings associated with folding the primary into the general election. In this time of tight budgets, the Auditor's office should be working hard to reduce these costs.

Voter Participation in Pierce County

Total voter turnout in Pierce County was very high in 2008 due to the presence of Barack Obama on the ballot. Partisan races had higher voter participation than non-partisan races. Contested races had higher voter participation than uncontested races. Since there were no uncontested Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) races, voter participation in partisan county level races increased from 2004 to 2008.

Partisan versus non-partisan races

In Pierce County, every statewide partisan race had higher voter participation than every statewide non-partisan race. At the county level, every partisan race had higher voter participation than every non-partisan race. This was particularly evident in the Assessor-Treasurer race which shifted from being partisan to non-partisan between 2004 and 2008. In the 2008 Assessor-Treasurer race, voter participation fell to a level between the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the judicial races.

It appears as if there are voters who will vote for a candidate simply based on the partisan affliation and who skip non-partisan races where they don't know the candidates.

Number of Candidates

In November 2004, there were five State Representative elections and two County Council elections in Pierce County which had just one candidate on the ballot. In November 2008, all of these races had two or three candidates on the November ballot. All of these races experienced significant increases in voter participation. This is not surprising since many voters skip uncontested races with just one candidate on the ballot.

In the 26th State Legislative District, there were three candidates on the ballot in each State Representative race in 2004. In 2008, there were only two candidates on the November ballot. Undervotes increased in these races.

In most of the statewide races, we saw an increase in undervotes from 2004 to 2008. We also saw most statewide and countywide races increase turnout as measured by percent of registered voters, but decrease as a percent of the presidential vote. One reason for this is the significant number of voters who just voted for President in 2008.

Another reason is the move to the Top 2 which restricts the numbers of candidates on the ballot in November. In 2004, there were at least three candidates on the ballot in most races. This appears to have allowed more voters to express their views.

Since there were no uncontested partisan RCV races, on average those partisan county level races moving to RCV experienced an increase in voter participation.

Conclusion

Voter participation is heavily driven by the excitement of a Presidential race. Down ballot partisan races experience higher voter participation than down ballot non-partisan races. Uncontested races generally do not experience high voter turnout. RCV generally has more candidates and fewer uncontested races. Eliminating the partisan/non-partisan and uncontested race effects, there was little difference in voter turnout between Top 2 and RCV elections in 2008.

RCV Cost Less than Top 2 in 2009

In 2009, Pierce County will hold a special election to fill out the remainder of the Auditor's term. The election will be a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) election. This RCV election will cost less than electing the Auditor using the Top 2 system.

Why? RCV folds the primary and general election in one election and a redundant Top 2primary would cost the county $250,000-300,000. The Top 2 system requires a separate primary and the county would bear these costs. The costs of the separate election will be borne by the local jurisdictions who are being forced to use the old system of electing their officials.

Former Pierce County Auditor Pat McCarthy has talked widely about the start-up costs associated with RCV. No one has talked about the long term benefits of this investment.

Pierce County will no longer have to pay for separate primaries. The software keeps running. Procedures will be improved as the staff gains experience with the system. Voters end up with a more open and transparent system due to the publishing of the ballot image file on the web.

In some ways, the expenses of the RCV software are similar to the expenses of implementing the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The voting experience is improved in the long term as a result of an upfront investment in equipment and software.

Let's learn from Ranked Choice Voting in Pierce County

By Sen. Eric Oemig (D-Kirkland)

Elections in Washington state tend to serve up a good dose of rancor, confusion and frustration. And not just from the candidates. The way we vote usually stirs commotion all by itself.

Remember February's nearly worthless presidential primary? If you voted for a Democrat your vote counted for zilch because the party ignored the primary in its nominating process. And Republicans used the primary to allocate only half of their delegates to their convention.

Our state's primary system has long been a source of controversy. Here's a fun fact. Only a quarter of the legislative races on this year's "top two" primary ballot even fielded more than two names to begin with. It makes you wonder why we spend millions staging a primary in the first place.

And that's why it's worth taking a closer look at Pierce County's first crack at using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in its general election county races. In these few races there was no primary. Each candidate's name appeared on an RCV ballot at the general election and voters ranked them by preference to produce a winner.

No doubt, there are legitimate questions to be asked about why it cost so much to implement. And, more importantly, changes must be made to simplify the RCV ballot. For instance, if there is only one candidate, you should not be required to rank him three times. (That foolish source of confusion was an artifact of using an out-of-state vendor who was unwilling to print a better ballot. For instance, if fewer than three candidates are on the ballot, a standard ballot card should be used.)

But let's remember that change — even good change — can be uncomfortable at first. Moreover, these growing pains are no cause for scrapping Ranked Choice Voting after just one election.

Let's remember why it was tried in Pierce County to begin with — because voters asked for.

And though some voters have expressed frustration, the RCV election was well executed. RCV is not slower to tabulate than standard voting. In close elections, with mail-in ballots, the lead will switch back and forth, and sometimes the winner will take days or weeks to determine. Pierce County Auditor Pat McCarthy recently testified before the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee and called the election "an amazing success."

Why? Because overwhelmingly, voters understood their RCV ballot and the processes to run the election worked as designed. What's more, voters had more meaningful choices, candidates waged more positive campaigns and the cost to taxpayers was the same as the top two primary. Those are benefits worth keeping.

RCV version one was a success worth building upon. A study of the Pierce County experience is being conducted by the University of Washington and Western Washington University and we'll know the results soon.

We need to keep and improve on Ranked Choice Voting if we are to hone in on the best system for voters and democracy.

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.