Thank you Senator Higgins for the clarification on the purchase of new voting machines with HAVA funds. As I understand it, based on a discussion with David Maeda from the Hennepin County elections office, the new electronic machines (manufactured by ES&S, which makes the current optical scanning machines) would sit on top of the existing optical scanning system. The new machines would look and feel like a DRE, but would merely be a marking device. They would be used primarily by those with sight or other disability that makes the current method of voting difficult. The electronic machines would read the exiting ballot; the voter would make a choice on the screen, which would then be marked on the ballot. The screen would verify the voter's choice, then spit the ballot back out to be verified on paper, and then it would be submitted into the regular optical scanning machine like all other ballots.
The premise underlying the decision for these marking device machines is that MN has a good system of optical scan machines that do not need to be replaced wholesale by DRE machines. The expense of putting one marking device machines in place per voting site is much less than converting the entire optical scanning system requiring a DRE machine for each booth. So then, what about the ability of converting current optical scanning machines into IRV ready machines. According to David Maeda, this can be easily done with a change in "firm" ware in the system. Supposedly, that cost would not be so great. He noted that changes in firmware have cost $500 - $1000 per machine. The greater cost would be in educating voters on how the system works, a very worthwhile investment in my judgment - for a significant improvement in the democratic voting system. Any new cost in converting to an IRV system would be balanced by the elimination of the cost of primaries. The biggest value of moving to an IRV method of voting is in knowing that the candidate who wins truly gets the majority of support. It is a shift away from a winner-takes-all (where the winner gets a plurality of the vote) to a majority approval method. It eliminates the temptation to vote for the candidate considered likely to win, thereby increasing the viability of candidates and parties outside of the dominant two party system. It enhances, not undermines, the quality of decision-making at the booth as a voter is more likely to vote for the candidate of choice without spoiling the chances of other acceptable candidates with a better prospect of winning. Equally importantly, it makes clear the share of voters in favor of platforms of alternative parties or candidates, which often get buried under the rug after (and often before) elections take place. It is a much more democratic approach than winner takes all and allows for greater diversity in the pool of candidates. In response to the question about how it would work locally, IRV would eliminate the primary election for city races, and voters would rank their choices among all the candidates, in order of preference, at the November general election. Contrary to the image that IRV is difficult to understand, it's fairly straight forward to grasp once explained and any well made public educational materials could make IRV easy-to-understand. If San Francisco can do it, so can we. See http://www.fairvote.org/sf/ for news of a successful implementation of the IRV system on Nov. 2nd in San Francisco. The site also references LOTS of articles about San Francisco's IRV initiative. I found the following summary from Minneapolis' effort to put IRV on the ballot (see http://mapnp.geeks.org/pipermail/mpls/2001-March/001027.html). Ranked Ballots Amendment (Summary of proposed Minneapolis City Charter amendment) The Minneapolis city primary shall be eliminated, and all city elections conducted according to the Instant Runoff Voting system: Voters rank candidates in order of preference. To be assured election, each candidate must exceed a threshold of votes, equal to the total number of valid ballots cast divided by one more than the total number of positions to be filled (e.g. 50% in a mayoral or City Council race.) 1) Top choice votes are tabulated. 2) Candidates who exceed the threshold are elected, and the proportion of each vote in their favor that was superfluous to their election is transferred. 3) All candidates with less than 0.5% of votes are eliminated, and their votes transferred. 4) The remaining candidate with the fewest votes is defeated, and his or her votes transferred. 5) These steps are repeated until the number of elected candidates or the number of undefeated candidates matches the number of open seats. Votes are always transferred to the top-listed candidate who has not been elected or defeated. If several such candidates are listed equally, the vote is split between them. In case of a tie for fewest votes at step 4, the most recent count in which the currently tied candidates were not tied rules. If candidates were tied at the bottom of all previous counts, the tie is decided by the casting of lots. Any vacancy of an elected city official is filled by recounting the ballots from his or her election, with that official removed from the race. The previously unelected candidate who after this recount exceeds the threshold set in the original election fills the vacancy. If no previously unelected candidate exceeds the original threshold, the vacancy is filled according to existing law. This amendment to the charter didn't make it to the ballot due to insufficient signatures. I don't believe this reflects lack of interest on the part of the public; I think more work needs to go into educating the public and organizing a stronger effort to promote the idea. Fairvote Minnesota and local advocates continue to work on this issue. Interested list members, please contact me off-list. Jeanne Massey Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
