Telling the US Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) what we see wrong in their current guidelines regarding Ranked Choice Voting

As FairVoteAZ and other groups proceed in our efforts for greater democracy by better representation using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), implementation has always been a concern to me. Not implementation by ‘We the Voters’ (that’s as simple as 1-2-3) but how we get machines to help in the count. Now some folks don’t want machines part of the system at all and that is a different matter, not one I am addressing here. Most people think we must use machines to help us count votes. I personally have no opinion on which way we turn, except that whichever way it is has to be secure and accurate. But just making the change to RCV can be difficult as the vendors have been dragging their feet in keeping up with the times (and the wishes of the voters). I am not anticipating a problem without precedent. Other areas have had difficulties and so may our own elections departments. As I write this on Feb 25 2008, I believe that today was the deadline to make comments to the US Elections Assistance Commission about technical guidelines. Rob Richie from FairVote (in Washington DC) submitted the following comments. If you are interested in the details of this issue of machinery and how it effects RCV please take a look at these well-stated comments.

Barbara Klein

Chairman FairVoteAZ

########
As executive director of the non-partisan, non-profit, pro-democracy organization, FairVote, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on these standards. I am writing today to make a general point — one that I hope is appropriate on this section, as it points out that your key goal is to have the VVSG serve “as a very important, foundational tool for ensuring that the voting systems used in U.S. elections will be secure, reliable, and easier for all voters to use accurately.”

Unfortunately, there is a gaping hole in these guidelines. Across the United States, communities have been adopting ranked voting methods, such as instant runoff voting. Even the United States’ two presidential frontrunners this year, John McCain and Barack Obama, have been active proponents of instant runoff voting. As it is, however, your standards do not meet your key goal of serving “as a very important, foundational tool for ensuring that the voting systems used in U.S. elections will be secure, reliable, and easier for all voters to use accurately.” The problems is that, under your direction, equipment manufacturers will not need to prepare for the possibility of communities and states adopting ranked voting methods such as instant runoff voting. The result will be that many communities will delay or indefinitely postpone popularly or legislatively adopted election reforms, due to the inability of voting equipment vendors to implement the changes. They may make easily preventable mistakes in implementation, as indeed happened in San Francisco in 2007.

Growing Number of U.S. Jurisdictions Using Ranked Choice Voting Methods: Moving to ranked voting is not a theoretical issue. In 2006, for example, four cities with a combined population of more than 1.5 million people voted collectively by landslide to adopt ranked voting methods. A number of major cities use or shortly will use ranked voting systems, including Minneapolis (MN), Oakland (CA), Pierce County (WA) and San Francisco (CA). States like Arkansas, South Carolina and Louisiana now have many long-distance absentee voters use ranked ballots in elections with runoffs, while Vermont and North Carolina are among states seriously debating statewide use of ranked systems in the near future. More nations now use ranked voting than ever – for example, every single voter in Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Malta, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London now can vote in a ranked voting governmental election.

Persistent Problems Caused by a Lack of Ranked Voting Equipment Standards: Preparing for ranked voting methods’ adoption in communities and states only makes sense. The general failure of our election administration leadership and voting equipment manufacturers to prepare has caused severe strains and costs on communities adopting systems. San Francisco was forced to violate its charter in failing to use instant runoff voting in its 2003 mayoral elections, fending off a lawsuit simply because the exasperated judge admitted he couldn’t force the city to run elections it hadn’t taken the necessary steps to do, in large part because of its vendor not being prepared for ranked voting elections. 695 of Oakland voters supported instant runoff voting in 2006, but will not use it this year because its voting equipment vendor does not yet have certified equipment ready to run ranked voting elections. Minneapolis voted 65% for ranked voting in 2006, but may not have a system ready for its next elections in November 2009, fully three years later.

Follow Minnesota Model: Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s Solution: Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has created an advisory committee to establish clear standards for how to run ranked voting elections. So should the EAC, rather than punting the issue until the next round of guidelines and throwing potentially millions of voters into the potential limbo of passing laws that lack of preparation makes their government unable to execute. This process does not involve re-inventing the wheel. Good standards have been developed in Minnesota (ones I can make available if you contact us at 301-270-4616) and proposed in various other states and cities. It will simply take a focused effort on your part to get this done.

The Need for an EAC Advisory Committee on Ranked Ballot Standards & Ballot Image Capture Requirements:  I request that you form a special advisory committee to develop these standards for ranked ballots. I also urge you to establish very clearly that all optical scan equipment must capture an electronic ballot image of every ballot. This redundancy provides further security to elections and also is the basic requirement that machines must have to be able to run ranked voting elections.

Rob Richie
Executive Director

FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org rr@fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616