The 2009 Burlington, VT election proves "vote your conscience, no spoiler effect," is a myth. ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"I think we had a hard-fought campaign and we need to accept the results and say let's move forward," said Rep. Jason Lorber, of the 50 Percent Matters campaign .
Here's the turnout by ward for 2005:
Mar 2, 2010 IRV REPEALED because democracy matters in Burlington VT! Twitter: #btvirv Facebook: Repeal IRV
Burlington elected the wrong candidate.
Article in the Christian Science Monitor:
Why do you say that IRV nevertheless elected the “wrong” candidate?
In a head-to-head race, the votes suggest that the Democrat would have beaten the Progressive by a margin of 46% to 39%. Subject to the same caveat that voter and candidate behavior might have been different, the votes thus suggest that voters preferred the Democrat to both the Progressive and the Republican. Yet the Democrat finished third in the IRV results.
Computer Voting Machines VS Hand Count
The questions of whether hand count should rely on re-tabulation by machine, and whether computer security is adequate for voting (good enough for banking, why not voting?) have been discussed in Burlington lately.
Recount of primary democrat gubernatorial election allowed machine retab, apparently because time was of essence and Racine was looking for big clerical errors and overlooked ballots, not scattered ballots misread by the machines. However, hand recount is a superior system for many reasons, and if you can't hand count with original ballots, you can't recount reliably.
This leads to the issue of voting online. We transact personal business online with more and more confidence, and some think if we can bank online securely, we should be able to vote online as well. Actually the principle is the same, with opposite import: banks control transactions, cities/towns control voting.
Banks can track transaction to source, then confirm, and reverse transaction if necessary; ballots are anonymous. Tallies at polls prevent ballot bag stuffing in City Hall after hours, which is a major reason why IRV created distrust and was finally abandoned. Ballot bags from one city ward were opened several times, after hours, in city hall with no panel of observers present.
Another City skeptical of IRV
The Rules and Open Gov. Committee of San Jose City Council voted unanimously to put off any more discussion of IRV/RCV until Q1 2011 when a report from the City Clerk can be made on Costs and recent results from the elections in Nov.
Fact check on pro-IRV testimony: http://tinyurl.com/IRVSJRules .
This YouTube video is hilarious. The President of Californians for Proportional Representation actually testifies that the city needs IRV because campaigns are so hard on candidates.
Independent IRV Fact-Check Website
Like most of the hype around IRV, FairVote's so-called FACTS are promotional advertising. IRV's fast food run-off vote and it's reconstituted majority might as well be called "The McVote."
If you wanted the facts about the nutritional value of fast food, would go to the corporate website, or to an independent research lab?
FairVote's paid mission is to promote IRV. In contrast, the IRV Fact Check Fact Check Blog is an un-funded effort by election transparency expert Joyce McCloy and other researchers who for many years have cataloged reports, studies and news articles about instant runoff voting and its unintended consequences at http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/
Nothing is more critical to democracy than a free, honest and verifiable voting system.
NC being sold a pig in a poke
Several people commenting on an article about IRV in an NC newspaper know quite a bit about Burlington VT. They throw around names like Kurt Wright, Vince Dober and Ward 7 runoff election with obvious familiarity. Check it out... http://wake.mync.com/site/wake/news/story/51610/
San Francisco voters challenge IRV
San Francisco voters challenge IRV, claiming they have a right to vote in all rounds after their first choice candidate is eliminated. Judge inclined to rule quickly so both sides can move forward with appeals. Basically, people who vote want to vote in every round, and think over each choice anew in subsequent rounds.
http://tiny.cc/irvsf
http://tiny.cc/irvsf
NEVIS: North End Voters InSpired
April 17, 10am, Miller Center.
Ward 4 and 7: Voters, Ward Clerks, election officials, candidates, ward caucus party leadership, and NPA steering committee members gather to discuss ways to inSpire voter turnout in the North End.
In spite of praise from the mayor (ahem!) for our strong voter turnout, for us it was low and there were many voter information and polling location problems that could have suppressed the vote. People at the polls in Ward 7 reported cars turning away when they saw the confusion and congestion at the narrow entrance to the Miller Center. Councilor Dober did a survey of Ward 7 voters, and 85% of respondents rejected the Miller Ctr as a polling place. In Ward 4, lack of signage and false report of moving the polling place similarly could have suppressed the vote in that ward.
Interested parties gather to review the snags, and plan ways to welcome and inspire voters in future elections. A task force will work on this between now and the next election.
Notes posted here.
Ward 4 and 7: Voters, Ward Clerks, election officials, candidates, ward caucus party leadership, and NPA steering committee members gather to discuss ways to inSpire voter turnout in the North End.
In spite of praise from the mayor (ahem!) for our strong voter turnout, for us it was low and there were many voter information and polling location problems that could have suppressed the vote. People at the polls in Ward 7 reported cars turning away when they saw the confusion and congestion at the narrow entrance to the Miller Center. Councilor Dober did a survey of Ward 7 voters, and 85% of respondents rejected the Miller Ctr as a polling place. In Ward 4, lack of signage and false report of moving the polling place similarly could have suppressed the vote in that ward.
Interested parties gather to review the snags, and plan ways to welcome and inspire voters in future elections. A task force will work on this between now and the next election.
Notes posted here.
IRV debunked
As shown in [the 2009 Burlington mayoral] election, IRV does not "solve the spoiler problem," does not "allow voters to vote their true preference without fear of inadvertently electing a candidate they cannot stand," and it does not elect candidates "actually preferred by a majority."
These and other pathologies are not rare. IRV in this election did not serve as a "bulwark of democracy" – rather the opposite.
We shall show by considering Burlingon's 2009 mayoral election that all the claims by Bouricius and FairVote are false.
http://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html
"I think we had a hard-fought campaign and we need to accept the results and say let's move forward," said Rep. Jason Lorber, of the 50 Percent Matters campaign .
2005/2010 Voter disapproval of IRV increased in every ward in the city.
Ward 1
2005: 180 votes NO IRV
2010: 264 votes for REPEAL
% increase = 47%
Ward 2
2005: 150 NO
2010: 185 REPEAL
% increase = 24%
Ward 3
2005: 210 NO
2010: 292 REPEAL
% increase = 39%
Ward 4
2005: 721 NO
2010: 1203 REPEAL
% increase = 67%
Ward 5
2005: 395 NO
2010: 545 REPEAL
% increase = 38%
Ward 6
2005: 329 NO
2010: 477 REPEAL
% increase = 45%
Ward 7
2005: 630 NO
2010: 1006 REPEAL
% increase = 60%
2005: 180 votes NO IRV
2010: 264 votes for REPEAL
% increase = 47%
Ward 2
2005: 150 NO
2010: 185 REPEAL
% increase = 24%
Ward 3
2005: 210 NO
2010: 292 REPEAL
% increase = 39%
Ward 4
2005: 721 NO
2010: 1203 REPEAL
% increase = 67%
Ward 5
2005: 395 NO
2010: 545 REPEAL
% increase = 38%
Ward 6
2005: 329 NO
2010: 477 REPEAL
% increase = 45%
Ward 7
2005: 630 NO
2010: 1006 REPEAL
% increase = 60%
And 2010:
http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/ct/elections/results/20100302/
More people voted in 2010, same voter distribution across the wards!
2005 -- 7,550, 42% of the total vote was in Wards 4&7, 58% in other wards.
2010 -- 7.695, exactly the same distribution, 42% in wards 4&7.
More people voted in 2010, same voter distribution across the wards!
2005 -- 7,550, 42% of the total vote was in Wards 4&7, 58% in other wards.
2010 -- 7.695, exactly the same distribution, 42% in wards 4&7.
TRACK H.773, Repeal IRV
The Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System
Read the bill, follow schedule of public hearings.
For more information: Rep.Kurt Wright, mailto:kwright@leg.state.vt.us.
Read the bill, follow schedule of public hearings.
For more information: Rep.Kurt Wright, mailto:kwright@leg.state.vt.us.
Legislators Sponsor H.773 to Repeal IRV
| Wright, Kurt |
| Aswad, William |
| Atkins, Kenneth |
| Bissonnette, Clement |
| Donovan, Johannah |
| Larson, Mark |
| Lorber, Jason |
| Ram, Kesha |
| Weston, Rachel |
| Wizowaty, Susan |
| Zuckerman, David |
Mar 11, 2010 Original certified IRV Repeal docs delivered by overnight Fed-Ex to State Archivist.
Repeal IRV RRT is watching very closely. Chittenden County Reps asked to sponsor the Charter Change bill that will repeal IRV. Expect that all will sponsor since they customarily respect the will of the people.
H.0773 An act relating to approval of amendments to the charter of the city of Burlington
H.0773 An act relating to approval of amendments to the charter of the city of Burlington
The next step -- charter change goes to the legislature for approval
IRV REALITY BITES
Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf
Checking election outcome accuracy
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf
http://electionmathematics.
Checking election outcome accuracy
http://electionmathematics.
Burlington IRV on YouTube
Here's how the IRV vote broke down by ward
Ward 1: 405 keep, 264 repeal
Ward 2: 428 keep, 185 repeal
Ward 3: 510 keep, 292 repeal
Ward 4: 1203 repeal, 606 keep
Ward 5: 793 keep, 545 repeal
Ward 6: 490 keep, 477 repeal
Ward 7: 1006 repeal, 437 keep
Listen to real Burlingtonians, from all wards!
Burlington Voters Speak out about Instant Runoff Voting
after election
Instant Runoff Voting Interviews - after debate
after election
Instant Runoff Voting Interviews - after debate
Follow Twitter #btvirv and facebook Repeal IRV
TWITTER:
Lea44 @BradleyHolt Try the adult version of IRV video @ http://tr.im/P7vm City mayoral election instead of jellybeans and skim milk #btvirv #btv
thicker Saw about 200 anti-IRV signs today - 2 pro-IRV #btvirv
Lea44 @joshsled #btvirv runoff NOT the same as real runoff where voters re-evaluate top candidates' qualifications, weigh pros/cons & new info.
FACEBOOK: Repeal IRV
Lea44 @BradleyHolt Try the adult version of IRV video @ http://tr.im/P7vm City mayoral election instead of jellybeans and skim milk #btvirv #btv
thicker Saw about 200 anti-IRV signs today - 2 pro-IRV #btvirv
Lea44 @joshsled #btvirv runoff NOT the same as real runoff where voters re-evaluate top candidates' qualifications, weigh pros/cons & new info.
FACEBOOK: Repeal IRV
2006 Exit Poll -- Perverse Outcomes and Elitism
Exit Poll data and analysis identifies perverse outcome and elitism. For those who are intrigued by, or concerned about, these issues, here is the data and the report. Ideologues will dismiss it, but for people who want to make up their own mind, here's the link:
Note: In the 2009 election, voter participation dropped another 10% (from 37% to 27%).
Ask yourself, why is IRV more popular with politicians than with voters? Perhaps because it sidelines minor candidates, lets people vote for them in a meaningless way, and then major candidates capture 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc place votes to create a false IRV majority that they can call a mandate.
Note: In the 2009 election, voter participation dropped another 10% (from 37% to 27%).
Ask yourself, why is IRV more popular with politicians than with voters? Perhaps because it sidelines minor candidates, lets people vote for them in a meaningless way, and then major candidates capture 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc place votes to create a false IRV majority that they can call a mandate.
Featured video:
Burlington Voter #'s decline after IRV experiment begins
BURLINGTON ELECTION TOTALS
Elections highlighted in red are similar. IRV election years shows clear decline in voter participation.
~1993: 10269, BROWNELL WINS
~1995: 11756, CLAVELLE WINS
~1997: 5518, CLAVELLE WINS, NO MAJOR CANDIDATE
~1999: 9941, CLAVELLE WINS
~2001: 6208, POOR WEATHER 26” SNOW
~2003: 5959, CLAVELLE WINS, NO MAJOR CANDIDATE
~2006: 9865, IRV 37% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
~2009: 9013, IRV 27% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Vote March 2, YES on #5 to Repeal IRV
Tues, Feb 23 - Vandals trashed a lot of signs on North Ave last night.
Wed, Feb 24 - Signs will be battered by snow and plowing if not pulled until after the storm.
Signs are the good spirit of election season, bringing color and energy to end-of-winter landscape. Celebrate democracy!
Wed, Feb 24 - Signs will be battered by snow and plowing if not pulled until after the storm.
Signs are the good spirit of election season, bringing color and energy to end-of-winter landscape. Celebrate democracy!
12 comments:
"The 2009 Burlington, VT election proves 'vote your conscience, no spoiler effect,' is a myth"
...for those that don't know what the simple definition of "spoiler" (HINT: It's not the guy who comes in second!) or "myth" is...ugh...
"1997: 5518, CLAVELLE WINS, NO MAJOR CANDIDATE
1999: 9941, CLAVELLE WINS
2001: 6208, POOR WEATHER 26” SNOW
2003: 5959, CLAVELLE WINS, NO MAJOR CANDIDATE
2006: 9865, IRV 37% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
2009: 9013, IRV 27% OF REGISTERED VOTERS"
Let's address the nonsense from above that keeps popping up now & again. Here are some numbers direct from the VT Secretary of State's website:
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/townmeetingturnout.html
For the 2001-2009 mayoral elections, the numbers of registered voters on the Burlington "checklist" has varied quite a bit...29577, 31917, 25101, and 33261. This is a FACT that the anti-IRV people would simply like to ignore.
For the 2001-2009 mayoral elections, the percentage of voter turnout is actually UP overall since 2000 & since IRV...21.3%, 18.7% (which is a number that I can't personally confirm), 39.3%, and 27%.
For recent mayoral elections, raw voter turnout numbers are basically UP since the late 1990s, 5518, 9941, 6300, 5959 (which is a number that I can't personally confirm), 9865, and 8984.
There has been ZERO, sustained negative effect on voter turnout since the inception of IRV in Burlington, period.
If the political system was simple I would say that keeping voting simple makes sense. But it's not.
This blog makes it seem like we can't handle the complex and intricate political system by having a more complex voting system. I graduated high school and can figure it out - I bet most of the people who vote can too.
I'm confused by commenter #1. I think they're being sarcastic? Because the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington DOES show that "IRV means no spoilers!" is a myth.
The simple definition of a spoiler is: "a candidate who does not win but, if they had not been on the ballot, there would have been a different winner." Is there any disagreement over that definition? I hope not.
If that definition is accepted, then the Republican candidate was a spoiler. An overwhelming majority of voters who placed him first also placed the Democratic candidate second; had it only been Progressive v. Democrat, the Democrat would have won handily, but because IRV eliminated the Democrat first, making the final round Progressive v. Republican, the Progressive candidate won.
That the Republicans had more first-place votes than either the Progressive or Democrat is irrelevant. That the Progressives are generally considered a "third party" is irrelevant. All that matters is, had there been no Republican on the ballot, than the winner would have been the Democrat rather than the Progressive.
Buy the simple definition of spoiler, the 2009 election proves that IRV is spoiler prone.
Yes, I'm simple. I'd like to be sure that the one vote I have goes to that candidate who best represents me.
Has to do with that 'representative form of government'.
It's supposed to be an election, not a craps shoot.
Hmm, I like that. In other words, I guess I'd like to be sure, have that choice, that the one vote I have goes to that person who best represents me, no matter which 'round' or 'runoff' is involved.
Even the Minnesota Supreme Court admits IRV has big problems:
"All experts agree that IRV could lead to a situation in which a voter's vote for a particular candidate harms, rather than helps, that candidate"!!
A vote for your candidate harms them? Isn't it always better to vote for your candidate? The experts and the Minnesota Supreme Court agree "voting for" your candidate in IRV can "harm them".
Let's end this experiment.
Dale S, i think the most accepted definition of "spoiler" is a candidate who has no chance of winning and whose presence in a race changes who the winner is (by drawing votes from the otherwise winner). Kurt Wright certainly had a reasonable chance to win, but nonetheless he was an "irrelevant alternative": a loser who, if added or removed from the race, would change who the winner is.
Minnesota Supreme Court admits IRV has big problems:
"All experts agree that IRV could lead to a situation in which a voter's vote for a particular candidate harms, rather than helps, that candidate"
this is clearly wrong if it's saying that ranking your favorite candidate as number 1 reduces that candidate's means to be elected. but, with IRV, it is possible for one's first-pick vote will help their last-pick choice win the election and that happened in Burlington in 2009.
RBJ what are you going to do when 5 passes? Circulate a petition for Condorcet? Nah I didn't think so.
"Because the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington DOES show that 'IRV means no spoilers!' is a myth."
Once again, calling the guy that came in SECOND a "spoiler" is NOT a valid argument.
"All that matters is, had there been no Republican on the ballot, than the winner would have been the Democrat rather than the Progressive."
Spoken like a true outsider. Anyone that thinks that there was ANY chance whatsoever for Kurt Wright to drop out of a race for mayor, which is a position that he's wanted for many, many years now, is just kidding themselves. Again, imaginary elections that never took place are irrelevant!
---------------------------------
"Yes, I'm simple. I'd like to be sure that the one vote I have goes to that candidate who best represents me"
"In other words, I guess I'd like to be sure, have that choice, that the one vote I have goes to that person who best represents me, no matter which 'round' or 'runoff' is involved"
...which is EXACTLY what IRV allows you to do.
----------------------------
"Even the Minnesota Supreme Court admits IRV has big problems"
IRV has already survived incorrect claims that it was "unConstitutional".
----------------------
"with IRV, it is possible for one's first-pick vote will help their last-pick choice win the election and that happened in Burlington in 2009."
Nonsense.
-----------------------
"Circulate a petition for Condorcet?"
He's already tried to do that, moron.
Post a Comment