05.25.09
HI tries public campaign financing
The Aloha state’s first publicly funded elections will be tested on the Big Island next year. Hawaii will join jurisdictions throughout the U.S. that are instituting the public financing option.
Candidates for city council will need to make a decision by February 1, 2010 if they wish to participate. Meanwhile, there is a lot of work to do in developing rules and procedures. http://www.pddnet.com/news-ap-big-island-testing-publicly-funding-elections-052409/
The state Campaign Spending Commission must comply with the law by hiring and training new staff, creating an online filing system, creating a candidate’s guide, providing training classes and developing an independent and nonpartisan review committee for the funding program.
“We have a long way to go,” said commission Executive Director Barbara Wong. “There’s a lot of questions that need to be asked as we’ve gone through the law.” Read the rest of this entry »
05.24.09
Welcoming Texas to the 21st century?
With the speed of a Texas drawl, the Texas legislature finally got around to ratifying the 24th Amendment. Footdraggingly they acted 45 years after the amendment was ratified by sufficient states to become the law of the land. Read the rest of this entry »
05.17.09
IRV in Aspen — a tale of spoiled ballots, voter confusion and corners cut
It makes you scratch your head and wonder whether backers of IRV are living in a parallel universe when proponents of IRV like Rob Richie of FairVote.org make statements like this one
A successful IRV election was held in Aspen, Colorado last week (the city’s first IRV election), in which incumbent mayor Mick Ireland defeated three challengers in a contest with a record-breaking turnout; 45% versus the usual 37-38%. Analysis of the election by TrueBallot showed that every single vote cast for mayor was valid, meaning 100% of those who opted to vote for mayor had their vote count. There were more voter errors in the novel use of IRV to elect two at-large city council seats, but still less than 1% of those at the polls.
And then you read the account of the same election in the local Aspen newspaper that tells a completely different story. http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20090505/NEWS/905059933/1077&ParentProfile=1058
Aspen chose a mayor and two City Council members Tuesday in an election that left plenty of voters confused at the polls and equally mystified as the ballots were tallied in televised proceedings late into the evening.The city’s first use of instant runoff voting, which eliminated the need for a June runoff election, got mixed reviews at the polls. And the whirlwind runoffs after three hours of tallying votes left plenty of observers at a loss to explain exactly how the results were tabulated… Read the rest of this entry »
Cary NC tries IRV, then says ‘no more’
Cary NC is one of a handful of jurisdictions across the US that have experimented with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). It has often been touted by IRV proponents a a huge success story.
But Cary NC is no longer an IRV jurisdiction and IRV supporters just don’t talk about it any more — because the Cary City Council voted recently against continuing with the pilot program that had seen put in place for the 2007 election cycle.
So just what is IRV? How does it differ from 50%+1 elections used in the majority of jurisdictions in the US? Wikipedia describes IRV as
a voting system used for single-winner elections, in which voters rank candidates in an order of preference. If no candidate is the first preference of a majority of voters, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and that candidate’s ballots are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates according to the next ranking on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated.
If it sounds complicated it is because IRV adds complexity to the voting process and non-transparency to the counting process. Many voters come into the voting booth with only one strong preference and don’t want any of the other candidates to have a chance. IRV forces these voters to vote for their preferred candidate only and eliminate participation in later counting rounds — or try to vote strategically for the other candidates in such a way as to ensure their preferred candidate’s victory. Not necessarily intuitive or easy since the way the second and third round votes count is dependent on the elimination of some candidates in the first round, which will not be apparent at the time the voter is marking his ballot. Voting then becomes a guessing game. In a traditional runoff election the voter at least knows which candidates are still in the mix and can cast a ballot accordingly. Read the rest of this entry »
05.13.09
Will the VRA survive the Supremes?
There are members of the current U.S. Supreme who have an almost visceral dislike of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This antipathy became clear during recent oral arguments about a Texas case (Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (“NAMUDNO“). Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were the most vocal in questioning whether the landmark legislation is still needed. Read the rest of this entry »
