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.

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.

The First Amendment and Scrapping the Top 2

The new Top 2 election system in the state of Washington violates the freedom of association rights of the political parties. The Top 2 should be scrapped by the state of Washington. The political parties should have the right to determine who appears on the ballot with their label.

With the Top 2, any one can sign up to run as a Democrat, a Republican or a Libertarian. For example, in the 36th State Legislative District, the Democratic Party endorsed John Burbank for State Representative. In addition to Burbank, Reuven Carlyle filed to run as a Democrat. Carlyle used the Democrat label to win the election.

In Pierce County, for county level elections, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) was used. Candidates who wanted to run as Democrats or Republicans were required to obtain an approval from the relevant county party. The Democrats and Republicans each developed their own set of rules concerning who could use their labels. This is consistent with the freedom of association rights of the political parties implied in the First Amendment.

The RCV rules provide a safety valve for candidates who are unable to use the Democrat or Republican labels. Independent and third party candidates have the same ability to get on the ballot as Democrats and Republicans. In the County Executive election, Mike Lonergan tried to run as a Republican, but was unable to get enough votes at the Pierce County Republican Party convention. Lonergan, then, started the Executive Excellence Party and filed to run. Lonergan was on the ballot in November and had a very respectable showing.

The Top 2 rules allow any candidate to use any label. Karl Marx could run as a Republican. George Bush could run as a Democrat. Parties are formed to express particular political points of view. The Top 2 violates their freedom of association rights. The Top 2 should be scrapped in favor of a system which allows political parties to nominate whomever they like.

PS In November, the voters of Oregon rejected a ballot measure to implement the Top 2 by a margin of 34% to 66%.

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.

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.

Washington State Youth Legislature passes RCV

My name’s Phil Gardner, and I’m the newly elected Governor of the Washington YMCA Youth and Government program. Youth and Government is a statewide organization of more than 400 high school teens that every May come down to Olympia and simulate our State Legislature. We have a House, Senate, press, lobbyist corp, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and of course, Governor.

Every May we elect our major officers (Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, Secretary of State) by popular vote and then those elected serve in their positions the next May. Throughout Youth and Government history we have used a simple first-past-the-post system whereby the candidate that receives the most votes is declared elected.

This has lead to a major problem in the program. In order to become a candidate for statewide office, you must first win the nomination of one of the five districts. What this leads to is a situation whereby those candidates from larger districts know more voters before the statewide event in May occurs, and thus candidates from smaller districts are at an automatic disadvantage. Also, because of the large number of candidates, it’s very difficult for any candidate to receive a majority of the vote.

This year I ran on a platform of instituting Ranked Choice Voting for our major officer elections as a remedy to this problem. The bill to institute this system passed the Youth House unanimously and the Youth Senate with only one Nay vote. Under this new system, we are now able to elect consensus and unity candidates for and from all of Washington State.

During my four years in this program I’ve talked about Ranked Choice Voting with hundreds of teens, and have rarely found one opposed. The youth of Washington State are fully behind this more democratic system, and the future looks bright for RCV.

Mr. Gardner is finishing his junior year in high school and lives in University Place in Pierce County.

Democrats and Libertarians Weigh in on Top 2 (and RCV)

In 2008, the voters of the state of Washington will see change in the November ballot. Aside from the Presidential race which has its own set of rules, voters will see at most two candidates for all statewide races, Congressional races and state legislative races. Yes, the voters have voted to limit themselves to at most two choices in November. State Democratic Party Chair, Dwight Pelz, has issued a statement lamenting this fact.

The Chair of the Libertarian Party of Washington, Scott Lindsley, has issued a statement saying the Libertarians like Pierce County's Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) better than the top 2. Voters in Pierce County are likely to see more than two candidates in the county level RCV races. One race already has four announced candidates and another has three. All of these candidates will appear on the general election ballot. There will be more voter choice in Pierce County in November than anywhere else in the state.

It makes sense that the Libertarians want more choice on the ballot in November because they are likely to be excluded from being on the November ballot in top 2 elections. It is interesting that the Democrats are voicing concern about limiting the choices to just two in November. It makes one wonder if the Democrats would prefer RCV to the top 2.

These two statements also leave us to wonder what the Republicans are thinking. The top 2 causes them to lose control of their party label. Both the Democrats and Republicans participated in the lawsuit against the top 2. RCV in Pierce County gives the parties control of their party label at the expense of allowing independents and minor parties a level playing field. The Democrats have said they believe there should be more choice in November. Still so far, we are left to wonder if the Democrats and Republicans would prefer top 2 or RCV.

If the Democrats are sincere about lamenting the lack of choice in November, the state legislature can put statewide RCV on the ballot for voters to consider in 2009. Will they do it?

State Libertarians Like RCV

The Libertarian Party of Washington held its annual convention yesterday in Tacoma. After the convention passed a resolution endorsing Ranked Choice Voting as superior to the top 2, State Chair Scott Lindsley issued this statement:

Election Law and Libertarians

Tacoma - The Libertarian Party of Washington State prefers the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) election system being used in Pierce County starting this year to either the pick-a-party primary system or the top-2 system. RCV provides voters with more choices in November, the election which counts. RCV allows voters to more completely express their opinions about candidates.

In November, Pierce County voters will have county level races with more than two candidates on the ballot. No other voters in the state will have this choice. For the County Executive race, there will be two Democrats, one Republican and one independent, at least, on the November ballot. For one of the County Council races, there will be two Democrats and one Republican. The Libertarian Party is recruiting candidates to join these races. Plus there is still the possibility for more independents joining the races.

In the RCV races, voters will be allowed to mark their first choice, second choice and third choice in each race. This allows voters to more fully express their opinions about the candidate set. No more wasted votes. More choices. Less voting for the lesser of two evils.

The top 2 system in place for the other elections around the state will limit choice in November. In 2000, there were 60 Libertarians on the November ballot around the state. This multitude of candidates enriched the debate. The top 2 discourages this debate.

The top 2 system encourages negative campaigning in November. The top 2 system will result in voters doing calculations about how to defeat the biggest evil, not maximizing the probability of the best candidate winning. The top 2 system will not be good for voters.

The Libertarian Party has consistently looked for ways to improve the political process and the election system here in the state of Washington. The Libertarian Party believes that RCV is superior for voters to the top 2 system and to the pick-a-party primary. The voters deserve better than the top 2 or the pick-a-party primary. The voters deserve RCV.

State Democrats Don't Like Top 2 --- Next Stop RCV??

Statement on Sam Reed's "Eliminate Choice" Ballot

SEATTLE – In response to Secretary of State Sam Reed's release of rules regarding I-872, Washington State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz issued the following statement:

"Today, Sam Reed made it official that Washington state has outlawed minor parties. The Libertarian, Green, Independent, and Progressive parties can sell their office furniture and computers, because they will never again see their names on a meaningful ballot in our state. Dishonestly framed under the auspices of promoting choice, Sam Reed's Top Two annihilates voters' right to choose among a wide range of candidates and the ideas they represent.
"In 2006 there were five parties to choose from in the US Senate race – Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Independent. If that election were held today, under Sam Reed's Eliminate Choice rules, you would be free to choose between Mike McGavick and Maria Cantwell. If you are a Libertarian or Green or Independent you no longer have any choice. Reed describes his ballot as a blow to the Democratic and Republican parties, when in fact it insures they will be the only two parties considered in Washington.

"Part of our political heritage in America has been the right to cast a protest vote. That right no longer exists in Washington state. Moreover, Sam Reed is also now promoting the same system that nominated David Duke in a Louisiana governor's race, with no opportunity or ability for the Republican Party to clarify the former Klansman isn't a Republican.

"Starting today, under Sam Reed's Eliminate Choice rules, a Republican in Seattle will be free to choose between two Democratic candidates for the legislature, while a Democrat in Ritzville will be free to choose one of two Republican choices for the legislature.

--
Kelly Steele
206.992.9922

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.

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.

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.

Massachusetts finds Top 2 wanting

Massachusetts uses a Top-2 election system to fill vacancies in Congress. In Massachusetts, Congressional districts are generally one-party districts, so the winner of the election has a job for life, similar to Jim McDermott in the state of Washington.

Since this is a lifetime job, there will be many people signing up to run for this position. In the case of a Democratic district, there will be many Democrats signing up to run.

Ryan O'Donnell writes in the Boston Globe,

"In the current case, too, because of the sheer quantity of candidates, someone could win the Democratic primary with a low percentage of the vote. With a large field, it's conceivable that as many as 70 percent of primary voters could cast ballots for someone other than the winner. If turnout is low, the number of people who cast a meaningful vote is even lower. That just isn't good for democracy.

There are a couple of ways to prevent mass fragmentation of the vote. The first would be to limit the number of candidates, but that is as anti democratic as a non majority winner. The second would be to hold a runoff between the top two voter getters, but that would cost a pretty penny and see even worse turnout in the second round.

The best way is to fill the vacancy, and all future vacancies, using a method that is increasingly popular all over the country. Instant-runoff voting, adopted in cities from Burlington, Vt., to Minneapolis to San Francisco, allows voters to rank their candidates in order of choice. If one candidate gets a majority of first choices, the race is over. If not, the lowest vote-getter is knocked off, and ballots cast for that candidate are added to the totals of the candidate ranked next on each ballot. The process repeats until a majority winner emerges. Just like a traditional runoff."

Of course, we are working on putting in place a similar system in Pierce County.

Arkansas Extends Use of IRV

In the state of Arkansas, military voters who are stationed overseas are sent one instant runoff ballot so that they can participate in both the general election and any runoff. This allows these military voters to vote without slowing down the process for elections officials in Arkansas.

Recently, the Arkansas state legislature passed HB 1509 which extends the use of instant runoff voting to all overseas voters. Arkansas Secretary of State Charlie Daniels issued a press release praising the state legislature for passing HB 1509 since it allows more voters to vote in a timely way and relieves the time pressure on elections officials.

"Act 261 (HB 1509) sponsored by Representatives Horace Hardwick and Jeff Wood, and Senator Ed Wilkinson will allow all overseas citizens to cast an instant runoff ballot at the same time as his or her regular ballot. This protects overseas citizens’ right to vote in a runoff when the absentee ballot turnaround time is often tight. Rep. Hardwick sponsored similar legislation in 2005 providing instant runoff voting to active duty military personnel stationed overseas."

No one in Arkansas voiced concerns about military voters being confused by the ballots. No one in Arkansas voiced concerns about the other overseas voters being confused either. It seems like state officials in Arkansas believe in their voters. Some elections officials in the state of Washington seem to believe the voters of Washington are not as smart as the voters of Arkansas.

League of Women Voters in Vermont

Catherine Rader, President of the League of Women Voters in Vermont, has come out in favor of using IRV to elect Vermont's single representative in Congress. After watching the success in Burlington for the Mayor's race, she is convinced that this is the best way to hold their Congressional election.

Secretary of State's office's testimony on Senate Bill 6000

Below is a transcription of Katie Blinn's testimony before the Senate Government Operations Committee on Senate Bill 6000 on February 26, 2007. Blinn was representing the Secretary of State's office on this matter.

In addition, there were some questions of Blinn by the committee members. These questions and her answers will be covered in a separate posting.

Within Blinn's testimony, there are links to comments on her testimony in a separate posting.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. I am Katie Blinn from the Secretary of State's office. I will try to be brief. IRV or Ranked Choice Voting has historically been promoted as a way to make sure candidates are elected with a majority. Current law already allows that for nonpartisan offices because only two candidates go on to the general election. So if there are only two on the ballot, one of them does get a majority.

One of the other reasons why this bill is being promoted is because it relieves jurisdictions from having to pay for a primary, but again current law already allows that when only one or two people has filed for office; (in this situation) there is no primary and just the one or two candidates goes on to the general election, so the jurisdiction does not have to pay for a primary.

We are very concerned about the amount of voter confusion that is going to occur in Pierce County in 2008. Voters there will be voting three different ways during the 2008 election season. They will be voting the traditional method for nonpartisan offices and ballot measures. They will be voting the pick-a-party primary for state and federal partisan offices. And now voting IRV for local partisan offices. And you have heard quite a bit this year about how much voter confusion we already have for the pick-a-party primary.

One of the other concerns is for districts that cross county lines. There are a number of districts that cross county lines into either King County or Thurston County and actually there is a place where Pierce and Lewis actually touch up in the mountains. And, then finally, just logistically a number of sections which seem outside the title.

But, I am sorry, I did not finish my thought with regards districts that cross county lines. In districts, like a school district, part in King and part in Pierce, the voters in King will be voting the traditional way and have a primary and the voters in Pierce will not and that seems a little odd for within the same jurisdiction.

That is all I have.

Senator Fairley won't allow vote on SB 6000

At the last meeting of the Senate Government Operations Committee, SB 6000's prime sponsor Senator Swecker asked the Chair of the Committee for an executive session and a vote on the bill. Senator Fairley adjourned the Committee meeting without a vote. This is unfortunate since it appeared that Senator Swecker had the votes to pass the bill out of committee.

As a result of this SB 6000 is dead for this session of the legislature. We will have a chance to revive the bill in the 2008 session if we desire to do so.

Hearing on Senate Bill 6000

On Monday, February 26, the Senate Government Operations Committee held a hearing Senator Swecker's Senate Bill 6000. In addition to Senator Swecker, Kelly Haughton, Toni McKinley, Susan Eidenschink , and Melvin Mackey spoke on behalf of allowing cities and other local taxing entities in Pierce County to use ranked choice voting.

Katie Blinn of the Secretary of State's office spoke against the bill. She seemed most concerned that entities which crossed county lines would use ranked choice voting in one part of the entity and standard voting in the other. I rather doubt this would happen, but that was her main concern. Senator Oemig asked her a couple of questions which indicated he understood the issues pretty well.

Pierce County Council support of SB 6000 and HB 2202

Yesterday, the Pierce County Council held a study session on Senate Bill 6000. Councilman Muri reports a consensus was reached to tell their lobbyist to support SB 6000 (and its companion bill HB 2202) in the state legislature.