Instant Runoff Voting Debate Question -about Disenfranchisement of voters. Vermont

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Run time: 02:41 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KUs-6YbcU   Posted on YouTube: February 22, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 23, 2010 By DU Member: WillYourVoteBCounted Views on DU: 688

 
The last thing Democrats should do is make voting more complex for voters.

This video is part of the Instant runoff voting debate in Vermont. Bianca Slota of XCAX challenges instant runoff voting support based on the studies showing voter disenfranchisement with IRV. Supporter denies.

This is a case of sticking to talking points even when evidence and several studies refute those pro instant runoff voting talking points.

There's a reason that instant runoff voting has been around for decades yet it is very rare in the US. Jurisdictions adopt IRV based on the talking points, then they ditch it when they find out that it doesn't work as advertised and makes voting more complex.

[kag]

1. What on earth is so complicated...

about ranking the candidates in the order in which you would like to see them win the election? I suspect that IF it is, in fact, more complicated for voters it's because those who implemented it MADE it complicated. Possibly even on purpose in order to sabotage the effort.

I think IRV is the best way to make voting more fair. As it is, voting is drastically UNfair, and causes us to end up with idiots like Bush for eight years.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. IRV not understood by voters and poll workers says San Francisco Grand Jury report

Instant runoff not understood by voters and poll workers says San Francisco Grand Jury report issued July 3

July 3, 2008. San Francisco.

After four years of instant runoff elections, some of San Francisco's poll workers and voters still do not understand IRV according to a recent Grand Jury report. Further, San Francisco's new IRV voting machines are not yet certified by the state so a back up plan is needed for the November election. The city also must provide more voter outreach. Disaster was averted in the Nov 2007 election since there was no need for an "instant runoff".



The 2007-2008 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury review of five elections for the city/county of San Francisco

The report says that some voters and poll workers do not understand IRV, and that a back up plan is needed in case the new Sequoia system is not certified.

Excerpts of the Grand Jury Report

The 2007-2008 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury reviewed the materials provided by the Department of Elections for the November 2007 and February 2008 elections


Ranked-Choice Voting and Absentee (Vote By Mail) BallotsRCV ballots were used in the November 2007 election for the offices of Mayor, DistrictAttorney, and Sheriff. Some pollworkers and voters told the Jury that they did not understand how to vote for candidates where RCV ballots were used. In the November 2008 election, RCV ballots will be used for some local offices. Aditional education and outreach need to be provided to the voters to clarify the RCV process so that the ballots accurately reflect the intentions of the voters.

Findings:11. Some pollworkers and voters do not understand the procedures for voting for candidates where Ranked-Choice ballots are used.Findings14. While the DOE does meet these legal requirements, additional outreach efforts areneeded on voter registration requirements and deadlines, the Ranked-Choice Voting process and the requirements for submitting a valid Absentee Ballot.V Recommendations3. The DOE should publicly establish a date certain by which Sequoia must receive the Secretary of State's certification regarding the counting of RCV ballots. This date should be no later than September 15, 2008.

Response required: Department of Elections; Elections Commission

4. TO prepare for the possibility that Sequoia fails to obtain the required certification, DOEmust develop a contingency plan for counting RCV ballots, which should be in final form by October 6, 2008.

Response required: Department of Elections; Elections Commission

8. The DOE's outreach program needs to improve voter instructions on the Ranked-ChoiceVoting process and the use of Absentee Ballots.

Response required: Department of Elections; Elections Commission

9. In addition to established communication approaches, the DOE should explore enhance
techniques to communicate information on the less understood aspects of voting such as
partisan primary elections, Ranked-Choice Voting and Absentee Ballots.

Final Report and Certification of Election Results and Canvass Procedures - The
Secretary of State's certification of the Edge II machines requires the DOE to manually count all voter Verified Paper Audit Trails and compare those results to the machines electronic records.

http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/2008/07/instant-runoff-not-understood-by-voters.html

[Billsmile]

6. IRV is the way to go

Perhaps IRV could be made simpler & easier to understand, but it should be everywhere.

Americans are often choosing their elected officials via the "lesser of two evils" method which serves the two major parties just fine because they're the only game in town. This is also a great deal for the wealthy corporations & rich folks because they only have two outlets to spread their $$$ influence.

IRV helps diffuse the power of the wealthy by allowing more than two parties to compete for the vote and at the same time it respects the will of the voters.

Voting for third parties is no longer "throwing your vote away" if IRV is used. Voters can feel confident that their votes will not produce the election of their least favorite candidate.

Voters vote based upon their principles and IRV allows them to prioritize their principles. The current all or nothing way of voting is the "lesser of two evils" show forever.

If IRV were common practice, then maybe or probably probably, people would actually become more involved in politics. With their values, rather than the two party power structure, getting attention it seems like REAL DEMOCRACY is more likely to be served.

Naturally this isn't popular with those in power who wish to preserve their strength. They want IRV to vanish & never be heard from again.

But IRV does serve the people. It does produce the will of the people and enables small "d" democracy.

[salib]

2. "This is a case of sticking to talking points ..."

Your whole argument sounds like talking points.

According to the OP, "They ditch it when they find out that it doesn't work as advertised and makes voting more complex". Again, "as advertised" is generic enough to be justified in any manner and "more complex" is the usual right-wing boogie man.

You know, as I said in a response to another video post that was against IRV, the "it is confusing" argument is used all the time to justify "simple" (and generally VERY unequal) existing arrangements.

Remember, a "flat" tax is called "simple", less "regulation" and "Government" is called "simple". For that matter, nearly all conservative arguments are made on the premise that they "just make sense" and are "simple" and "straightforward".

No reich-wing Repugnican talking points needed here.

I suspect people can rattle off (fairly accurately, and sometimes embarrassingly incorrectly) very complex lottery rules, sports team elimination procedures, etc., etc. We are not stupid, just dis-empowered and ill-informed, sometimes.

Sounds like the complaints by the global warming deniers. Complexity is not are reason to "repeal" (remember, that means "just get rid of") something that is better than what we had before.

Instead, one continues to progress. Remember, as in Progressive?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. IF you watch the video, you will see the reports based on exit polls

The studies of San Francisco and Burlington IRV elections show that minorities and also lower socio-economic groups were disproportionately and negatively impacted by IRV.

By your comment I can see that either you didn't watch the video or you don't care about the actual
studies of exit poll data.

Instant Runoff Voting does not work as advertised, and has unintended consequences . IRV does not save money, does not reduce negative campaigning, does not simplify elections, does not increase turnout and does not provide a majority outcome in most elections. In fact, IRV usually provides a plurality result. There are other ways to improve elections or help third parties without the drawbacks of IRV. Read more in this report .

What are the problems with Instant Runoff Voting? IRV is not "as easy as 1-2-3" and hurts third parties by entrenching the two-party political system wherever it has been tried. See how Instant runoff voting has impacted San Francisco, the largest jurisdiction in the US to use it. Implementation of IRV corresponded with a drastic drop in voter turnout in San Francisco's mayoral contests; IRV consistantly suffers from majority failure and several states' fiscal analysis show that IRV creates new and high costs in elections.
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/

[bejamin wood]

5. Wait a second

Why choose or rank people you do not want in office? I would not want to put a "2", "B", etc. by any candidate I do not support. That is a false positive, and very bad when determining the will of the people.

[sulphurdunn]

7. Why not use colored stones

of equal weight with maybe red for the Republican and blue for the Democrat. Independents and third party folks could pick their own colors. Put giant buckets on mechanical scales with the accuracy of the scales and the stones publicly certified by experts on film election morning. Then just pick the colored rock of your choice and chuck it in the right bucket. The heaviest bucket wins. If two or more buckets weigh exactly the same, do it again and keep doing it until one bucket is heavier than the others. That candidate wins. Voila!
:toast: