BREAKING NEWS: We have long taken a firm stance that RCV does not pass our minimum bar for fair, secure, and viable election reform - for a number of reasons - but when catastrophic fails like this happen, we are as dismayed as anyone. @sfchroniclebit.ly/rcv-botch
🧵
RCV is uniquely complex and uniquely prone to both voter errors and counting errors like this one, discovered by a 3rd party long after the election results were certified in Alameda County, CA. This kind of catastrophic error undermines the voting reform movement in general.
RCV is tallied using an unnecessarily complex algorithm with dozens of counterintuitive details and potential tabulation pitfalls. It is completely different from #STARVoting, #Approval, and other systems that are counted (and audited) with basic addition like the current system.
In this Alameda County RCV election, ballots which had skipped ranks were accidentally discarded instead of the the next ranking being counted. This voter error compounded with a tech error resulted in the wrong winner being certified. The elections board didn't catch the error.
Even more concerning, this happened in a jurisdiction that has been using RCV for 12 years, and the elections vendor and the certification body didn't catch the mistake either. The coding error applied to all the races, but was only sizable enough to flip the result in one race.
This comes one year after an even larger catastrophic RCV tabulation fail, where in the 2021 NYC mayoral election, a candidate discovered an error where the election board had accidentally added 135k "test ballots" to the published election results.
Fortunately for NYC, candidate Eric Adams had the integrity to report the discrepancy discovered, even though the fake test ballots which had been counted favored him. Fortunately for Adams, he went on to win anyways. Still, this error undermined the integrity of the election.
In the wake of the January 6th uprising, errors like these not only undermine RCV; they undermine our election officials, our candidates, and our democracy in general, threatening our Nation's integrity as a whole. It's absolutely unacceptable, and we can do better.
We support fair, simple, auditable, and secure voting methods including STAR Voting, Approval Voting, Ranked Robin, and others.
Not all electoral reforms are created equally. Not all reforms are worth it. We owe it to voters to get this right. equal.vote
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Utah is currently running a pilot program that allows cities to opt-in to using RCV. In 2021, 23 wanted to use RCV, and 21 did so. For the Nov 2023 elections, only 11 of those will use RCV.
1/10
10 cities decided not to use RCV again:
Bluffdale
Cottonwood Heights
Draper
Elk Ridge
Moab
Newton
Nibley
River Heights
Sandy
Springville
Goshen and Riverton didn't have enough candidates to need RCV before and are now quitting the pilot. Kearns is the only new RCV city.
2/10
These repeals are indicative of a trending backlash against Ranked Choice Voting, from voters to election officials. RCV is often sold as a simple, cheap upgrade to our current Choose One Voting that solves many of its ills. However...
Choose-One voting has one thing going for it - It's transparent, so results are easy to tally and audit. This forms the foundation for a government of and by the people.
As we fight to upgrade our voting method we remain committed to voting methods that uphold that standard.
🧵
#StarVoting, #RankedRobin, and #ApprovalVoting can all be tallied with addition. Stacks of ballots can be tallied at the local level as they come in, and our current protocols for chain-of-custody, partial hand counts, or risk-limiting-audits can all continue as before.
In contrast, #RankedChoiceVoting, which we do not support, requires centralized tabulation and is fundamentally incompatible with many of our election security protocols due to the fact that many of the rankings voters put down are never counted.
After 11 failed attempts to elect a #SpeakerOfTheHouse, it's clear that a true majority winner does not exist. That said, a better voting method could end the stalemate and find a representative, majority preferred winner. Let's review 2 options: #RankedChoice and #STARVoting.
🧵
A common claim about Ranked Choice Voting (#RCV) is that it always elects majority winners. This claim is objectively false. No voting method can guarantee a majority in an election with more than 2 candidates because a true majority may not always exist.
This is demonstrated clearly in the current #HouseSpeakerVote. With 3+ polarized factions, no faction has a true majority, and as we can see, the Republican factions are unwilling or unable to coalition around one candidate.