newsobserver.com projects - primary runoffs - Comments

Re: The Dome's FAQs machine

fuzzybunny — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:22:07 -0400

The McCrory fundraising post has been up for a while, but it still hasn't shown up in my Google Reader. Is the RSS feed designed to lag, or am I doing something wrong? Thanks!

how he leaves the house

Isaac136 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:38:08 -0400

Well, we're not sure that he *does* leave the house, are we?

I suspect that more than one person is responsible for posts we see under FCC or FFC or whatever. Sometimes -- like every eleventh post -- a coherent statement is made that bears no resemblance in tone or style to the usual hacking, spastic burst of drivel that we've all come to regard with such affection.

It's somewhat of a relief to think that he has moments of relative peace that account for the difference in tone. But on the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion that the saner postings are actually entered by a day nurse while our friend is napping.

Re: The Dome's FAQs machine

dahedgehog — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:20:41 -0400

How does FCC1304 leave the house in the morning?

How can I get my press release printed here?

Re: The Dome's FAQs machine

FFC1304 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:26:40 -0400

Need to include the #1 question:

HOW did NC democrackkks EVER get to be SOooo CORRUPT?

Answer: 100+ years of power domination that has ruined our once great state!

Re: Hall: Instant runoffs could have saved N.C.

telephotonc — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:59:44 -0400

Something isn't more democratic just because you repeatedly say it is. Why would IRV be more democratic than a traditional runoff election? Bob Hall knows if you don't that the SBOE didn't want to use IRV in the May primary election for county elections because it posed a risk. So there is no way it could have been used in the May 2008 primary for any statewide elections.

We have no software to tabulate IRV, so we'd have to tabulate it by hand like they did in Cary in October 2007. If you go by the ballot tabulation rate set the first time the Wake BOE counted the IRV votes, it would take you 7.5 weeks to process 150,000 Wake County Democratic ballots - until the middle of July. And then you would have to go back and tabulate them again to check your work before declaring a winner. And God Forbid we would have had more than one statewide runoff race - we might not know who the runoff winners were until after the November election!

Before considering this risky and expensive voting method, our state legislators should hold public meetings not only about IRV in general but how the State Board of Elections conducted the 2007 pilot program. Non-profit groups like DemocracyNC and FairVote had way too much influence in the planning of the pilot and implementation of the voter education and exit survey effort. There is evidence that the volunteers who did the voter education and exit surveys had some pro-IRV bias. Other interested groups like the political parties and verified voting groups were shut out of the process.

And even if IRV supporters have conned people here into thinking that IRV is cheap, there is ample evidence that IRV is much more costly than traditional elections and rarely needed runoffs. Using costs per registered voter from the Maryland State Legislature and multiplying that times the 5.8 million registered NC voters, it would cost $18 million or more to implement IRV in the first year, and $2.8 million each election year after that for voter education. Over 33 years, it would cost NC voters $40 million or more to implement IRV over having traditional elections and rarely needed runoff elections.

Re: Hall: Instant runoffs could have saved N.C.

telephotonc — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:42:51 -0400

This is simply not true - and Bob Hall knows it. Bob knows there is no certified software to tabulate the IRV votes, so they would had to have been tabulated by hand. At the rate the Wake BOE went in October 2007, we'd still be sorting/stacking and counting Wake County's 150K Democratic ballots from the May primary until the middle of July.

That is assuming that IRV didn't cause an election meltdown. Hall's name was on an agenda from a March 6, 2007 State Board of Elections meeting stating they would "...not use IRV in May 2008 because it poses too much of a risk." Something that poses a risk is not safe or solid.

The millions of voters who use it without problems use it overseas in parliamentary elections where they elect the party - not the candidates in our more democratic American-style elections.

IRV did not do well when it was used in Cary. When 25% of votes who show up to vote don't know they are expected to rank their choices - those voters were disenfranchised. And it is certainly not easy to count - the Wake BOE messed up tabulating a little over 3000 IRV ballots. And while IRV advocates claim that IRV ensures a 50% plus one vote majority winner, the winner of the Cary election 1401 votes - less than the 1512 votes that made up 50% plus one vote of the 3022 first-column votes.

IRV is not being used in many other states in statewide elections. IRV does not save money - because the implementation and voter education costs will cost more than what we spend on runoff elections we rarely need. Using costs per registered voter calculated by the Maryland State Legislature when they considered and rejected IRV three times, IRV could cost NC taxpayers $18 million to implement and $2.4 million each subsequent election years for voter education. Over 33 years - IRV could end up costing North Carolina taxpayers $40 million more than paying for runoff elections only when they are needed.

If you want to get other information about IRV from people who are not getting paid to push it - check this out:

Center for Range Voting rangevoting.org/IrvExec.html
Libertarian Reform Caucus reformthelp.org/issues/voting/runoff.php
North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting www.ncvoter.net/irv.html
The Problem with Instant Runoff Voting minguo.info/election_methods/irv

And check out this research paper on IRV: http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

Please sign the Petition to Restore Election Integrity in NC by opposing IRV
http://gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-instant-runoff-voting.html

Re: Hall: Instant runoffs could have saved N.C.

Coop — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:56:24 -0400

As reported in the N&O, the people of Cary felt IRV was a big success. It was recently endorsed by the league of Women Voters and it is already being used in many other states with very good results -- saving millions for municipalities and counties in the process. It's a solid, safe common sense solution and its easy to understand. Millions of voters already use it without confusion and I think North Carolinians are certainly smart enough to do the same. If you want to know more about instant run-off voting, you can find out more for yourself at the following links:

How Cary voters reacted to their IRV election:

Some good general IRV info:
http://fairvote.org/?page=19

How IRV works:
http://ncvotered.com/multimedia/vidcasts/index.html
http://fairvote.org/?page=2153

Exit Polls from the North Carolina IRV pilot programs:
http://news.ncsu.edu/news/2007/10/158-irv-voting-survey.php
http://news.ncsu.edu/news/2007/11/irv-hendersonville.php

Re: Hall: Instant runoffs could have saved N.C.

progressnerd — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:51:09 -0400

WhalerCane is completely wrong. For starters, IRV would be a immensely more democratic. A 2% voter turnout??? That is absurd and could have been remedied with IRV.

Second, it will save the state money. WhalerCane mentions some possible initial investment in voting machines, but that money will be quickly made back by avoiding future runoffs. IRV would be a very wise financial investment in the state's future.

The polls in both Cary and Hendersonville show voters vastly prefer IRV over two-round runoff. They find it cost-effective and easy to use. IRV just makes sense.

Re: Berry supports lowering threshold

ryanteaguebeckwith — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:24:33 -0400

Augh. And I knew that too.

Thanks for pointing that out.

— RTB

Re: Berry supports lowering threshold

lefaim — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:22:21 -0400

The threshold is 40% Ryan. Same mistake in the print version today. You also had some other factual errors, such as saying that Mary Fant Donnan worked for Berry in 2000 even though Berry didnt take office until 2001, having been elected in November of 2000.

Re: Hall: Instant runoffs could have saved state

WhalerCane — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:30:48 -0400

There was nothing succesful about Cary's IRV Pilot.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/753961.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1118100.html

Nor will it save money. In San Fransisco, they have spent millions in one city alone trying to make IRV work, not to mention education costs.

IRV is a well intentioned idea that has unintended consequences. It might make sense if we had a parlimentary system where you vote just once for the party, not for each individual office.

As well as being confusing and violating the KISS principle for elections (keep it simple,) our voting equipement is unable to handle it and it would threaten the integrity of our elections.

Better ways of solving cost problem of low interest runoff include conducting them by mail, changing thresholds, eliminating runoffs, or appointing low interest offices.