Pierce County Washington could save $600,000 next year if the county ditches Instant Runoff Voting, says Auditor. 63% of Pierce County Voters polled said they did not like IRV, and the County Council voted to amend the county charter to repeal the mandate for RCV. The voters will make the final decision in November.
Why is instant runoff voting so costly? See June 27, 2009
San Francisco's Chamber of Commerce discussed Instant Runoff Voting. At issue - whether the members should support an effort to ditch IRV. After 5 years of use, IRV has tied the city to a complicated election process requiring the use of expensive uncertified voting machines, and annual costs have gone up, not down.
Time Redmond of the San Francisco Bay Guardian reports
Interesting meeting at the Chamber of Commerce office yesterday.
... Among the topics: A campaign to repeal the city's Ranked-Choice Voting system. Downtown has never liked RCV, also known as Instant Runoff Voting. ...the Chamber had polled this year on both district elections and IRV...
And while support for IRV was also strong, the voters, according to the Chamber poll, would be willing to consider direct runoffs between the top two finishers if the voting were all done by mail....
At his blog on the Huffington Post, RR complains that it is business groups want to ditch IRV, and that a poll shows that voters are agreeable:
The Chamber's representative was revealing in explaining his opposition to IRV. "The Chamber has always been in favor of direct runoffs" because "it allows the top two candidates to directly address their differences on the issues."
Well, the Chamber's reasoning makes sense, considering that with IRV voters have to choose from a slew of mostly vanity candidates. Narrowing the field and forcing candidates to stand behind their issues is a great value to the voters, and it doesn't happen with IRV.
In fact, since the implementation of IRV, San Francisco's voter turnout has dropped drastically. Where is the enthusiasm of the voters that was experienced in the the 2003 Newsom/Gonzalez runoff?In the 2007 mayoral/municipal election, turnout was only 35.61%, with 100,000 fewer voters than in the mayoral runoff in 2003 where 54% of the voters turned out to vote:
Lets compare the results for the Mayoral Contest in 2007, with Newsome verses "progressive" Mecke to the 2003 Mayoral Contest between Newsom and Gonzalez (Green):
"Voters also questioned the value of ranked-choice voting."
"There are a lot of people who only mark one [candidate] or the same person three times,"
"I don't want to vote for a second one, I want this one."
Instant runoff voting is not working in San Francisco. It has not improved the pollitical climate, candidates are not cooperating, nasty politics and whispering campaigns continue, election costs are increasing, and the city is tied to an unreliable voting system solely to accommodate IRV. The Chamber of Commerce SHOULD help the taxpayers and the voters get rid of this not so instant runoff voting mess.
Election integrity watchdog Brad Friedman has an important warning about Instant Runoff Voting to folks who value democracy and honest elections. We can't even count votes the plain old vanilla way yet, but we are told we should adopt IRV and make elections more complicated. Brad has some sharp words.
Joins 'Internet Voting' and 'Vote-by-Mail' schemes as the latest bad ideas poised to further cripple American democracy
PLUS: IRV count fails in Aspen's first instant runoff election......
As Logan, chief election official of the nation's largest voting jurisdiction (larger than 43 states combined) has had more thanenoughproblems with the current voting system which can't even add one plus one plus one accurately, such that it is virtually impossible for anybody to verify the accuracy of results, the last thing this county needs is to complicate the math even further by confusing matters with IRV's complicate scheme of ranked choice voting where voters are asked to select a first and second place choices, etc.
For that matter, unless, and until, we can simplify our election procedures such that any and all citizens are able to oversee and verify the accuracy of their election results, no jurisdiction in this country should employ schemes like IRV, no matter how well-meaning supporters of it may be in hoping to allow a broader range of candidates and parties to have a shot at winning an election.
Along with the emerging nightmares of Internet Voting and Vote-by-Mail, IRV is yet another one of the horrible wack-a-mole schemes being endlessly advanced by advocates and profiteers who put winning elections and making money off them, over the idea of transparent, verifiable, secure democracy and self-governance expressed of the people, by the people and for the people....
more at the link, including Aspen's recent instant runoff election meltdown...please stop by and post a thank you to Brad in the comments section of the article.