Member since Nov 19, 2009



Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Did Ignacio Try to Kill Instant Runoffs for a Price?

Oakland voters will be paying $1.5 million for what turns out to be a very expensive fish bicycle - instant runoff voting. And that is just the beginning. There's never enough voter education as you don't reach all of the voters in the first place, and then you also have a continuous turnover in voters.

And your city will have to get the money somewhere. But hey, you were told it would save money. Can't you say no based on the fact that you were misled?

I guess not. After all, in St Paul Minnesota, the group promoting IRV was caught sending out deceptive campaign mailers just prior to a vote on whether to adopt IRV. Its quite likely that these deceptive mailers influenced the vote to adopt IRV, but the most a judge could do is fine the St Paul "Better Ballots" Campaign $5,000. A mere slap on the wrist, but that was the highest penalty.

Pro-IRV group fined $5,000 for violating campaign law
By Paul Schmelzer 12/1/09
St. Paul’s Better Ballot Campaign was fined $5,000 for violating campaign laws after a panel of administrative law judges ruled the group made false claims in endorsements of Instant Runoff Voting, which was approved by St. Paul voters on election day.…



IRV has produced a plurality result in 2 out of 3 contests in Pierce Co WA,Out of 20 RCV elections that have been held since the referendum establishing it passed, when IRV was used, it elected a plurality winner.


THERE’S NEVER ENOUGH VOTER EDUCATION:After 4 years of IRV and a fortune spent each year in San Francisco, a Grand Jury Report: said that poll workers and voters do not understand instant runoff.

Posted by joycemccloy on 01/12/2010 at 7:34 PM

Re: “Ranked Choice Voting May Cost Oakland $947,000

How much does democracy cost?

Citizens of Burlington Vt have signed a petition that now forces an up or down vote in March 2010 to ditch IRV.

One major reason they want to ditch IRV - because they want debate between the candidates and they believe they didn't have that with IRV. You can see a video of the press conference at this link

Posted by joycemccloy on 01/04/2010 at 1:14 PM

Re: “BREAKING NEWS: Instant Runoff Voting Coming to Oakland

San Francisco-The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S.
If only they had instant runoff voting. Oh wait they DO

Posted by joycemccloy on 12/20/2009 at 4:00 PM

Re: “BREAKING NEWS: Instant Runoff Voting Coming to Oakland

Joyce McCloy here. Since Rob Richie has misrepresented my position, let me clear it up.

Here's my view on how IRV is a threat to democracy, posted on the home page of my website:

"IRV violates core principles of election integrity, whether using optical scan voting systems or Direct Record/Touchscreen machines. IRV increases reliance on more complex technology, making audits and recounts more prohibitive, further eroding election transparency. Because IRV is not additive, no matter what voting system is used, the ballots, (electronic or optical scan) have to be hauled away from where they are cast to a central location to be counted. This increases the chance of fraud or lost votes. The tallying software utilizes a complex algorithm that makes the process even more opaque."

I'm not alone.

Liberal Blogger Brad Friedman calls Instant runoff voting a Virus. On his blog he says: "Joins 'Internet Voting' and 'Vote-by-Mail' schemes as the latest bad ideas poised to further cripple American democracy"

My organization worked to get a paper ballot law passed, improved election audits, and eliminated the "no match no vote" rule that was blocking eligable voters from casting ballots. I also won the NC ACLU 2006 award. We continue to work to protect and increase the voter franchise.

Posted by joycemccloy on 12/06/2009 at 9:21 PM

Re: “BREAKING NEWS: Instant Runoff Voting Coming to Oakland

The first thing Oakland will need to do is rename "instant runoff voting" and call it "ranked choice voting".

Minneapolis MN just certified the results of their first "instant runoff voting held on Nov 3. So it took a month to make the count officials. After all of that work, Minneapolis had the lowest voter turnout in OVER 100 YEARS.
Yep, thats right, over 100 years.

Posted by joycemccloy on 12/04/2009 at 6:14 PM

Re: “Manipulating the Vote

Oakland may end up implementing IRV if your city is willing to use "conditionally" certified voting software. Thats what other jurisdictions have had to do when forced to implement IRV.

IRV helps the incumbent. If you prefer the incumbents then you must implement IRV to make sure that they are protected.

IRV is difficult and expensive to implement. That is why so few places that adopted IRV have actually used it. San Francisco has certainly had its ups and downs with the specialized voting software needed for this voting method.

Has Alameda County done a professional fiscal analysis?
Do you know how much it will cost or are you just guessing?
Eliminating an election saves one cost, but implementing IRV creates new ones.

Pierce Co Washington spent $2 million to implement an uncertified IRV voting system for 375,589 votes – or $5.33 per registered voter, and this Nov 3 voted to ditch the system.

Many places that adopt IRV end up ditching it anyway, once they find out first hand that IRV does not work as implemented.

At least allocate a few million $ to eduate the voters from all different segments of the population, so that fewer are disenfranchised.

Posted by joycemccloy on 11/19/2009 at 6:05 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation