We have a BIG problem here, folks.

[Amaryllis]

Check out this post, and read the last update (Thanks, Tom, for this post):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380830

We have David Cobb and Howard Dean promoting IRV. I completely agree with the idea behind IRV. However, the people at Voters Unite say their are major problems with software security issues, and that IRV would make audits to detect fraud extremely difficult.

The folks at Fairvote are considered the gurus of IRV and proportional representation; they are the ones to whom I keep getting referred when I ask questions about software security and IRV. This from their website:

From the Fairvote site: http://www.fairvote.org/irv/?page=371
"In general, all new voting equipment, especially optical scanners and electronic voting systems, provide extremely rapid and reliable results."

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/?page=186
"Why don’t more places use IRV? Prior to the advent of modern vote counting equipment, IRV required a time-consuming and costly hand count. Some jurisdictions that used IRV in statewide primaries found that they rarely had plurality (less than majority) winners, so IRV seemed unnecessary. With today’s diversity and proliferation of parties and candidates, low plurality winners are more common, and hand counts are unnecessary."

Anyone see a problem here?

Chuck Herrin on IRV:

Instant Runoff Voting (By Hand, of Course. It CAN Be Done):

I think that IRV is a fabulous goal, long term. It stands to greatly reduce runoff costs and other problems once we have systems that can reliably handle it. The problem right now is that our electronic voting systems cannot reliably count straight races, and even the DRE manufacturers have said that they are not ready for IRV. Complicating things, IRV introduces a more confusing system in terms of auditability and security, since the ballots are more complex and normal indicators such as exit polls will not be able to easily reflect IRV results. Tracing back the will of the voter in the event of problems or fraud would be more difficult with IRV until a reliable procedure and design is in place, and any abuses are much less likely to be detected since the whole point of the IRV system is avoiding recounts. That's not to say that it can't be done, just that it is extremely important to get it right the first time, with proper design and certification.

Instant Runoff Voting is a great goal for us to work toward, but if we need to get a system in place for 2006 and 2008, IRV is not logistically viable. For IRV to work, we need systems that are trustworthy and reliable, and that takes more time and money than we have available before the next election.

An analogy I use for IRV is the flying car - definitely possible, and a great idea, but right now we won't get there by strapping a missile to a Yugo. Would it fly? Sure - but I don't think it's what we want to rely on for safe and reliable transportation.

I would be happy to work with you towards IRV as a long-term goal, as I think it has merit as a long-term solution when properly designed and tested.
(Note - NC Resident Mark Ortiz has a very promising idea for hand-counted IRV. Looks great!)

http://www.chuckherrin.com/sinceyouasked.htm

[BattyDem]

1. Why do the Dems REFUSE to accept the idea of ...

rigged machines? Secret software on insecure, electronic machines made by companies owned by Republicans (including one who promised to "deliver" Ohio for Bush in 2004), no paper ballots or paper trails of any kind, and exit polls that don't match the results of the election. And the Dems don't think that election fraud is a possibility???? :eyes: :grr: :banghead:

Hey Dems, forget IRV for now ... fix the machines!!!!!!!!

[goclark]

2. Is that like the Ready Teller At My Bank?

I want to enter my code and then I get a RECEIPT that tells me exactly who I voted for...
I also want to be able to go with all my friends so they can compare the final vote with the receipt that we have.


Why can't they have a PAPER TRAIL!!!

[waynew706]

3. And a Democratic candidate that threw in...

the towel way to early without a major fight... Damn, if your running for President and you see some of the the above mentioned shit going down, you stand up and fight, not give up.

[tommcintyre]

4. I think IRV/PR is a non-issue right now.

Cobb only quickly mentioned it at the end of his interview, but in no way implied he expected it to be done quickly. I supplied the links and references (as I often do) since I realized that many people reading the post would have no idea what IRV or PR really are. I in no way advocated it, or suggested a timetable for it's implementation either. (For the record: I DO like both of the ideas; but it is certainly NOT a priority, considering the evoting fraud issue.)

Right now, the "movement" for either IRV or PR is relatively small, so it is (relatively) a non-issue for now. Although Dean commented positively on it, this is NOT a major issue/priority for EITHER the Dems or GOP. And fairvote.org is hardly the only group advocating for these issues (try Googling for it).

So, where exactly IS the "BIG problem" (re: IRV or PR)?

[Amaryllis]

5. Tom, I hope I didn't imply that I was in any way criticizing your post.

As always, I appreciate your posts. They are intelligent and thoughtful.

I think IRV is a much bigger issue than people realize. Or maybe just where I live; we have a huge population of Greens here and they are pushing it. It is being pushed in a number of areas here and in other states as well. I also support the concept behind it, BUT only if it can be done in a way that doesn't further compromise security. I was at a meeting Friday where IRV was being pushed. There was a bill to pass it here this legislative session. A small town here is on the edge of getting it passed. I am getting more and more emails about it, and seeing it mentioned more frequently.

The problem I am seeing is that the Fairvote people, who are as I said apparently considered the IRV gurus, seem to think that e-voting is terrific, as you can see from the quotes in my post. I have been told by three different people in the past two weeks to talk to them about security issues and IRV; that they are the ones in the know. It has come up enough times that I decided it was time to check it out.

The other problem is that the people who are pushing IRV seem oblivious to the problems; even though many of them know about e-voting fraud, they don't understand the complexity of security and IRV, and they are touting Fairvote as the experts on this, and Fairvote's view is
"In general, all new voting equipment, especially optical scanners and electronic voting systems, provide extremely rapid and reliable results." They are working to get vendors to make thier software compatible with IRV. I see this as completely misdirected effort for anyone concerned about fraud.

I completely support the concept, but the question needs to be, "How do we get proportional representation without compromising security?"

[tommcintyre]

7. Actually, your Herrin information is a helpful addition...

to better understand the whole issue. Sorry to hear it's a problem in your state.

[KoKo]

6. Instant Runoff Vote advocates are not working with those of us who

want "Verified Paper Ballots" here in my State. And this issue has cost us the unified support we needed to get a bill through our legislature. The IRV folks and the folks worried about Disabled Voters (who advocate the "touch screens" hoping they can be modified) have not really worked with us.

Says to me something is very wrong here. Why shouldn't the FIRST Priority be VPB's? Instead we are not split.

I agree with Chuck Herren who spoke at a forum here in NC. But, getting our legislators and the other "voting groups" on board with the VPB has been like "pulling teeth." We feel sabotaged from all sides. :shrug:

[tommcintyre]

8. That, is really a drag :(

I know the disabilities lobbying group really hurt the anti-DRE/pro-VVPB push for HAVA - pre-2004 election. And, the last C/B Hearing had that disabilities lobbyist testifying. Fortunately, IVR has not made much of an impact on the national level, as to interfere with what we are doing. Sorry to hear you're being "sabotaged from all sides".

[GuvWurld]

9. These things are not mutually exclusive

There is a parallel between this thread and this thread where I'm suggesting that election reform and media reform should not be thought of as separate. Likewise, we need to get rid of these machines AND we need IRV/PR and it is not a choice between the two. To think we have to choose small corrections to an utterly useless system so that we pave the way for subsequent bigger corrections is to insist on continuing to use a useless system in need of corrections.

THERE IS A DIFFERENT FRAME.

Currently our elections are held under conditions that ensure inconclusive outcomes. Under these conditions we will never have an election with unanimous agreement about the results. No one single correction will ensure conclusive results. We should not accept the results of any further elections until an entirely new system is put in place, along the lines of the reform platform in the http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-resolution.html">Voter Confidence Resolution. Also see the companion Guide to the Voter Confidence Resolution for more on the strategy and talking points.

[Amaryllis]

10. I think you and I are on the same page here. As I said, I believe the

question is, "How do we achieve proportional representation WITHOUT further compromising security?"

We need it to break the hold of the two party system, and for a number of other reasons.

But when Fairvote, appparently considered to be the experts in this area, see their main task as working to get vendors to make thier software compatible with IRV, THIS is a problem and is definitely at odds with our goals.

Check out this site for the Australian Electoral Commission.
http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/voting/index.htm
Scroll down and read the sections on e-voting. They have preferential voting and hand counting.

[GuvWurld]

11. No disrespect to Fairvote, but they don't have any power

I understand your presenting their position as "off-message" with what I recommend. I mean no disrespect to Fairvote and indeed hope they can be a valuable ally...once they have adopted the macro frame I described in the other thread.

The reality is that Fairvote currently has no power and (as far as I can tell) little means of obtaining any power. I'm not gloating. I don't have any power right now either. Inherent in what I am proposing is that the development of power only comes through building local bridges and speaking with one community voice to make a stand, in this case refusing to accept election results until conditions ensure conclusive outcomes. If we start to see the Voter Confidence Resolution pass in town after town then this power will begin welling up among the allied communities. Fairvote cannot achieve this (they don't seem to be aiming to) and will be a red herring until they get behind this position.