Earlier this year California Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have given more California communities access to instant runoff voting (see this post for background). Apparently municipalities in that state must be "chartered" (essentially a home rule definition) to change the way their residents choose their local governments, and the vetoed bill would have given access to IRV all communities chartered or no.

So what happens when a successful venture in instant runoff voting runs into a governor's veto?

Read more »

Springfield, Ill absolutely has instant runoff voting albeit on a limited scale. Like Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina, Springfield has instituted IRV for absentee balloting only. Springfield's absentee instant runoff voting, however, is even more restrictive in that it specifically applies only to those "who are eligible to vote as provided in the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, set forth in the United States Code, Title 42, Section 1973ff et seq" (see here for the proposition's wording.), whereas the three above mentioned states use it for all absentee voting foreign and domestic.

I got a chance to talk to several folks from Illinois about Springfield specifically and statewide attempts at instituting IRV more broadly. Here's what I found out ...

Read more »

I know, this isn't quite in line with my last two posts looking into whether Arkansas; South Carolina; Louisiana; and Springfield, Illinois really do or don't have instant runoff elections, but I'll get back to that tomorrow ... or the next day.

Today is about Oregon and what happened to IRV there earlier this year. For a brief background see this post and this post from IRV Oregon.

I had a chance to talk with Oregon Representative Peter Buckley who sponsored HB 2761, a bill to implement IRV. Here's what I was told.

Read more »

Like South Carolina, Arkansas does a two piece absentee instant runoff ballot. (More info on SC's IRV voting here.) Arkansas law refers to the second ballot as a "special absentee ballot", however, whereas South Carolina calls theirs an "instant runoff ballot".

Those who qualify for absentee voting in Arkansas receive a primary (not as in primary election, but as in main) ballot to be used as normal, and at the same time they will get another ballot to rank the candidates in case of a runoff. Both ballots are returned at the same time in separate envelopes and opened as needed (AK statutes Title 7, Chapter 5, Subchapter 4).

This is done for primary as well as general elections.

Read more »

I want to thank Bob Richard from Marin Ranked Voting for some really great input and additional information (see the comments in this post for more).

Among the points he raised was

The Arkansas, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Springfield, IL, laws in your list are IRV only by stretching the definition further than I'd like.

. . .

In each of these four places, the election itself is a standard two-round runoff. The ballots for the runoff election can't be prepared and mailed until the results of the preliminary round are known. So at least some overseas voters wouldn't receive their runoff ballots and return them in time to be counted. The rules effectively disenfranchise some overseas voters.

So, being what I am, I went looking for more information, and what I found was regarding South Carolina technically he is correct ... but regarding South Carolina technically Bob is incorrect.

Read more »

Hendersonville, NC used instant runoff voting recently to elect two at large city council seats, and we have some survey results to explore (see here and here).

There was a difference this time around; Hendersonville used IRV to select 2 at large seats from a field of 5. Up to now we've seen instant runoff voting used for single seat elections only. I encourage you to read yesterday's post (here) as it explains how that worked. The important point to carry forward is that Hendersonville voters only had to deal with choosing two first choices and then ranking the remaining three candidates. Only the poll workers needed to know the ins and outs of vote counting.

So how did it work out?

Hendersonville voters say instant run-off voting (IRV) is easy to understand and that they prefer ranking candidates to determine a winner on a single ballot rather than voting for two candidates where a second run-off election might be necessary.

(here)

Read more »

(Here are links to the reports referred to below: San Francisco, CA, 2004, Burlington, VT, 2006, and Cary, NC, 2007. For detailed questions regarding the Cary, NC results please contact Dr. Michael Cobb - contact info at the above link.)

Okay then, it's time to get back to "Do folks like instant runoff voting? Do they understand IRV? Do people make use of it?" (original post here) Previously I've discussed the like question (link), and the issue of understanding IRV (here, here and here).

We now know folks like and understand instant runoff voting, so now it's time to explore the question of whether or not people make use of IRV when it's offered.

In San Francisco 73% of those polled reported ranking 2 or 3 candidates with a solid 59% exercising their ability to use all three rankings. In Burlington 81% said they ranked 2 or more, and 48% ranked 3 or more. Cary saw 69% of the survey respondents ranking 2 or more candidates.

Read more »

Editor's note: Apparently I was putting out numbers before the Cary, NC authors wanted them released. Because of that I have removed specific numbers not presented in their original press release, and I have changed the link for the Cary study to point to that press release. I can say, however, all the information I provide below is accurate.

(Here are links to the reports referred to below: San Francisco, CA, 2004, Burlington, VT, 2006, and Cary, NC, 2007. For detailed questions regarding the Cary, NC results please contact Dr. Michael Cobb - contact info at the above link.)

An overwhelming 96% percent of more than 1,600 Cary, North Carolina voters surveyed after their October, 2007 municipal elections said instant runoff voting was either "very easy to understand" (82%) or "somewhat easy to understand" (14%).

Because a very small percentage of this survey reported educational levels at high school or less, we'll have some problems on extending yesterday's extrapolations regarding education and understanding (link here). There are, however, enough numbers for us to look for a pattern or two.

Read more »