Sorry, I seem to have deleted whole words from my own email, but I'm sure you can understand what it says nonetheless. Sane persons who truly want democratic representation may stop promoting IRV/STV after seeing this wild NC IRV outcome. It would take extreme time and dedication and nonexistent cooperation of all NC county election officials to truly investigate this in detail. It looks like the NC State Board of Elections is trying to keep this quiet by being stingy about sharing the data file I got a hold of.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Kathy Dopp <kathy.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > In North Carolina, Doug McCullough won the IRV judicial election even though: > > 1. McCullough had *fewer* first place votes than Cressie Thigpen; > 2. McCullough had *fewer* first + second place votes than Cressie Thigpen; > and > 3. McCullough had *fewer* first + second + third place votes than Thigpen. > > Here is the data obtained by a journalist directly from NC State Board > Elections that was denied directly to the public (election advocates) > who asked for it. > > 1. Total number of 1st place votes for McCullough 295,619 > Total # 1st place votes for Thigpen 395.220 > > > 2. Total # 1st + 2nd place votes for McCullough 452,929 > Total # 1st + 2nd place votes for Thigpen 558,015 > > > 3. Total # 1st + 2nd + 3rd place votes for McCullough 618,731 > Total # 1st + 2nd + 3rd place votes for Thigpen 718,042 > > > If this a FAIR election outcome? It would be extremely difficult to a > case that this result is fair, but it is expected, given IRV/STV's > method of counting 2nd and 3rd rank choices of some, but all, voters. > > Did NC election officials count the IRV contest incorrectly in NC or > this simply one of the typically unfair outcomes that IRV counting > produce? > > We will never know the answers to these questions unless we are able > to obtain the detailed list of all voters' in NC for this contest. I > doubt that even the NC State Board Elections will be able to obtain > that information from NC counties in any usable format. > > This NC election not only demonstrates how IRV eviscerates election > but seems to demonstrate how fundamentally unfair the outcomes of an > IRV often are. > > The good news is that North Carolina may be safe from the scourge of > IRV/STV counting methods for a few generations. NC at least will not > be IRV again, according to state election officials. > > If anyone would like a copy of the original data I obtained that comes > the NC Board of Elections listing the sums of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd votes > for each candidate by county and by precinct, please let know. > > The email below was forwarded to me and prompted me to investigate for > and determine the number of total 1st and 2nd choice votes for > candidates. > > Kathy Dopp, LWV, NYS > -------------------------------------------- > > The odd IRV numbers > Posted by Doug Clark on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 10:30 am > > "I think we've seen the last of IRV voting in North Carolina," State > of Elections Executive Director Gary Bartlett told me this week. > > I hope so. And I'm going to beat the dying horse a little more just > good measure. > > IRV — Instant Runoff Voting — was used in a special election for a of > Appeals seat in November. You might remember there was a > field of 13 candidates and you voted for your first, second and third > > Bartlett drew his opinion not because elections officials mishandled > special election and its complex, confusing procedures but it was > unpopular. Leading legislators and the governor didn't it, and there's > a good chance they'll drop the flirtation with odd brand of voting. > > The outcome sure was strange. > > The result on election night was that Cressie Thigpen led with 395.220 > choice votes, or 20 percent of the total. > > Doug McCullough was second with 295,619 votes, or 15 percent. > > Because Thigpen didn't win a majority, he and McCullough advanced to > "instant runoff." This was neither instant nor a runoff. Rather, meant > that second- and third-choice votes would be added to their to decide > the ultimate winner. > > About seven weeks later, that was determined to be McCullough with 980 > votes, edging Thigpen, who had 537,325. > > McCullough had turned a deficit of nearly 100,000 votes into a winning > of 6,655 votes. > > But here's a funny thing. Bartlett sent me raw vote totals last week: > the numbers of 1, 2 and 3 votes for all 13 candidates in all 100 When > I got around to adding them up, I found that Thigpen had the most > votes by nearly 100,000: > > 718,042 for Thigpen > > 618,431 for McCullough. > > How was that? > > The raw vote totals include about a quarter-million votes that were > out in the second round of counting. > > Some of those were multiple votes for one candidate. For example, if > used his first, second and third votes for Thigpen, all three votes > are included in the raw total but only one would count in the tally. > > Also, voters whose first choice was Thigpen or McCullough had their > discarded at that point. For example, if someone voted for as first > choice and McCullough as second choice, the vote for was not counted > in the second round of counting. The idea that this voter should not > have his second-choice vote cancel his choice vote. > > So, for one reason or the other, Thigpen lost 180,717 votes; > McCullough lost only 74,451 votes — a huge difference that might > suggest was improbable. > > Thigpen must have had more people who voted for him multiple times did > McCullough. And more of McCullough's first-choice voters must given > their second- or third-choice votes to Thigpen than the way around. > Either way, the math worked out very badly for > > Analyzing exactly what happened — an exercise the legislature's > evaluation division should undertake — would require examining ballots > and finding out exactly how people voted. > > My conclusion is it [IRV] was convoluted, delivering a result that is > hard understand. It will be better to put this horse out to pasture. > > http://www.news-record.com/blog/54431/entry/108551 > > -- > > Kathy Dopp > http://electionmathematics.org > Town of Colonie, NY 12304 > "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the > discussion with true facts." > > Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections > http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174 > > Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting > http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf > > View some of my research on my SSRN Author page: > http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 > -- Kathy Dopp http://electionmathematics.org Town of Colonie, NY 12304 "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the discussion with true facts." Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174 Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf View some of my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
