Washblog

Also on the agenda was Pierce County Auditor Pat McCarthy with her take on RCV.  

POWER POINT

Auditor McCarthy spoke first.  With a power-point presentation, she gave an overview of the responsibilities and duties of her job.  She did research into RCV and contacted her respective colleagues in San Francisco CA and Burlington VT about their recent experiences with RCV.  

She contrasted the pre-RCV situation in CA and VT with what is going on currently in Pierce.  

Prior to RCV in San Francisco, if no candidate received a majority in the November election, a December runoff was held between the top two candidates.  Obviously, an election in the middle of the holidays effected turnout and the subsequent cost issues also made consolidation a practical consideration.  San Francisco holds non-partisan elections and has over 400,000 voters.  Their RCV elections are on separate ballots than state, federal and initiatives.  Unlike Washington, all ballots must be in possession on election-day.

With 25,000 voters, Burlington VT is very much smaller than Pierce County with 389,847 voters.  Most voting is done in person and absentee ballots must be in on election-day.

Ms. McCarthy stated what she perceived as the challenges to implement RCV in Pierce County.  There is no state or federal certified voting system.  No money allocated for voter education.  There are development and implementation costs.  And ballots come in through to certification day, which is 21 days after the election.  She also claimed that RCV races would take up a lot of space on a ballot.

Indirectly, Ms. McCarthy dispelled two big myths regarding RCV.  First, she explained the process for a manual recount.  And this point alone addressed the fallacy that RCV cannot be done without computers,  (A version of RCV was first used in 1840.)

RCV is coming.   Auditor McCarthy must sense this.  She is an affable and competent public servant.  She stated that if the voters of Pierce County want RCV, her office will be the best in the nation to administer it.  And I have no doubts about this.  

But in the end, she punted to Clark County, (which actually passed a charter amendment for RCV but has failed to implement it), suggesting to, "let them try it first".  

In closing she quoted Ellen Glasgow, "All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward."

CALEB KLEPPNER

Mr. Kleppner, was hired by the city of Burlington VT to design their RCV voter education program, to train poll workers about RCV, and to train city staff on the software used to tally the RCV election results.  He also assisted their Director of Elections with the design and evaluation of the pre-election logic and accuracy testing of Burlington's voting equipment.

Mr. Kleppner worked for FairVote for five years when he was living in San Francisco.  In that capacity, he drafted the RCV legislation adopted by voters in March 2002 and worked with city and state officials in the development, testing and deployment of the optical scan voting equipment used to conduct IRV elections in 2004 and 2005 in San Francisco.

Mr. Kleppner intended to talk about how RCV is very simple for voters to understand.  But that was addressed in the prior testimony and not an issue.  Voters get the system.  And voters are very happy with it.  He shared how some were worried that certain ethnic or economic groups would not "get" RCV.  But after studying the results in San Francisco and Burlington this was not an issue at all.  

He stated that contrary to popular belief, RCV is not electing minor or third parties.  In Burlington, the Progressive Party, (who won the election) is a long established force in local parties.  That candidate won a plurality in the first choice count and went on to win a majority in the subsequent choice transfers.  

Mr. Kleppner said that a "second choice" candidate could come out to win the election but this would only happen once in ten elections.

He also projected on screen the Burlington ballot that featured both the RCV and traditional elections on the same page.

In Washington, with mail in ballots coming in after election-day, administrators in Pierce County could re-tabulate all the RCV ballots and release new totals.  In San Francisco, officials projected obvious winners even before all ballots were counted.  So having ballots come in during the 21 days to certification is not an issue.

There was a motion for a break and we took a ten minute recess.

IF IT'S BROKEN, IT'S NOT BROKEN.

After the break, the chair decided that there was not enough time for Caleb Kleppner to Q&A.

Representatives of the political parties were on the agenda to comment on the proposal.

First up was Deryl McCarty chairman of the Pierce County GOP.  He said that Washington state has a plurality not majority voting system and that RCV is a new concept.  After the 2004 governors race there is a lack of trust issue in voting.  And so-called "gadfly" voters could play mischief with their first choices to send a message.  Finally, he laid on the old adage, "If it's not broken, don't fix it".

Representing the local Democrats was Charter Commissioner Audrey Chase.  All she said was that the Pierce County Democrats had voted against a RCV resolution and said, "HELL NO!"  Dr. Richard Anderson-Connolly, the author of that resolution, said that its margin of failure was not as severe as Com. Chase made it out to be.

A representative of the Libertarians spoke for about 15 seconds.

The meeting then went on to other business.

IF IT'S BROKEN - FIX IT!

Regardless of clichés, things are broken.  Too many public elections in Washington state are uncontested.  Too many voters are not participating.  In the September 2005 primary, turnout was around 36%.  Participation is political organizations is seen as futile to many.

Lack of trust in our elections is tangible but there is also a sense of futility.  Nowhere was this more pronounced than with the Pick-a-Party primary ballots.  In 2004, the overwhelming majority of races were uncontested for all three major parties.

Com. Haughton's proposal is careful not include the "self identification" feature that doomed both the old Blanket Primary and I-872.  In reference to partisan candidates, the proposed amendment states; "The county central committee of each major party shall determine which candidates may use their party label for each county level office."

Even after Mr. Haughton read this to the Commission, a couple of his colleagues condescendingly trotted out the worn line; Washington voters don't understand that their old system was unconstitutional.  One commissioner, who proclaimed she was a transplant from back east, told of how they registered party affiliation in her former state.  Somehow, we're fortunate that we don't have to do this Washington.

Washingtonians understand that registering party affiliation is a mockery of the secret ballot.  That's why we have the Montana version of the Pick-a-Party primary system.

The two dominant parties have every reason to feel like the system is working just fine.  And it must seem like it's "not broken" because taxpayers are financing the internal functions of these private organizations.  

Washington voters know this too.  That's why they voted for I-872 - and that's why they will vote for a non-partisan blanket primary* if given the opportunity.

RCV IS GOOD FOR POLITICAL PARTIES

Under Com. Haughton's proposal, political parties could hold nominating conventions.  A distinct feature of RCV is party members could nominate multiple candidates for the same office.

Auditor McCarthy, in her presentation, mentioned foreign language and script mandates.  She said the Korean American community almost met the threshold to qualify the printing of Korean language ballots.

Under RCV, a local party Chair could recruit a candidate from within the Korean Community.  They would encourage people from that community to participate in the nominating process.  The RCV ballot could feature this candidate along with another from the same party - in the same race. Party supporters could faithfully rank each of their two candidates as a 1st and 2nd choice.  More choices would bring a larger swath of that party's supporters out to the polls.

Pick-a-Party ballots are notorious for being filled with line after line of uncontested races.  Talk about using up space on the ballot!  You don't need to read Korean, Cyrillic, Japanese or any other non-Latin script to recognize the futility of uncontested races.

This September, when all of the meaningless and expensive Pick-a-Party ballots are forced on Washington voters, the seeds will be sown for Son of I-872, the non-partisan blanket primary.  

A poll done by the Secretary of State revealed that only 21% of voters liked the Pick-a-Party primary.  Sec. Reed himself endorsed I-872.  It passed with over 62% of the vote in Pierce County.

Ironically, it's the Pick-a-Party ballots that threaten partisan elections, not RCV.

The redundant, standalone Pick-a-Party primary squanders time, ballot space and money.  And compared to the Pick-a-Party primary, RCV is a better value for voters.

"THE BEST RCV IN THE NATION"

Ranked Choice Voting will work in Pierce County and it will work statewide.

RCV can be administered capably and Pat McCarthy's presentation proves it.

Research on the recent RCV elections shows that voters are very enthusiastic about this revolutionary voting system.

Washington has a path out its primary election woes.  We can build a voting experience that welcomes participation.  The Pierce County Charter Review Commission needs to put Ranked Choice Voting on the ballot.

FOOTNOTE
*      http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-401.ZO.html
Justice Scalia on the non-partisan blanket primary:  Finally, we may observe that even if all these state interests were compelling ones, Proposition 198 is not a narrowly tailored means of furthering them. Respondents could protect them all by resorting to a nonpartisan blanket primary. Generally speaking, under such a system, the State determines what qualifications it requires for a candidate to have a place on the primary ballot-which may include nomination by established parties and voter-petition requirements for independent candidates. Each voter, regardless of party affiliation, may then vote for any candidate, and the top two vote getters (or however many the State prescribes) then move on to the general election. This system has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party's nominee. Under a nonpartisan blanket primary, a State may ensure more choice, greater participation, increased "privacy," and a sense of "fairness"-all without severely burdening a political party's First Amendment right of association.