Instant runoff groups irvfactcheck blog bizarre, misleading on North Carolina

FairVote director Rob Richie's ironically named irvfactcheck blog is bizarre. I was looking at Terry Bouricius May 19 post entitled "North Carolina FAQ on Instant Runoff Voting.Bouricius, highlights a link to FairVote spin off, NCVotes123.com . Here's where it gets bizarre. Next to the link, Bouricius has in bold the date April 2010. As if that was on the original site. But when you go to NCVotes123, that date is not on the site (at least not today) and the most recent blog post is dated June 27, 2009.

Bouricius is a "senior policy analyst for FairVote, but he's from Vermont, and he is no expert on North Carolina's situation. And apparently we can't rely on his NC IRV FAQs. I am from North Carolina, and lead the NC Coalition for Verified Voting. I've been an election transparency and voter advocate in North Carolina since Sept 2003. The threat of IRV to our elections led me to research IRV and then try to stop its spread in my state.

Lets start with the lame attempt to try to make FairVote's NC affiliate blog NCVotes123 appear as if it is current.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010
North Carolina FAQ on Instant Runoff Voting

What is this, an April Fools joke?

Was www.NCVotes123.com REALLY updated on April 2010? Really?

It isn't on their website on any of the pages. Checked them all.

Oops, it looks like just more misleading propaganda on the part of FairVote's irvfactcheck blog.

Here's a screen capture of the most recent blog post over at the actual www.NCVotes123.com

Yes readers, look at the actual date on the post, that is June 17, 2009 NOT April 2010.

That was 11+ months ago. But FairVote's IRV Fact Check blog has super imposed a much more

current date.

Does FairVote think that North Carolinians are just a bunch of ignorant hillbillies?

Think we are fools?

But then again, Diane Russell, IRV America Director admitted to faking a southern accent while serving in conflicting rolls of voter education and exit polling of Cary North Carolina voters in the 2007 IRV pilot. Perhaps she thought a fake accent would fool the dumb old southerners?

More deception. Ms Russell made a video interview of Cary voters that is very flattering to IRV. In that video you can see Ms. Russell's arm holding the microphone as she is "incognito" and pretends to be a "southerner". The respondents in the video were the ones FairVote selected because of the positive attitude. Ms. Russell told the maineIRV group that at the end there were negative responses, but none of those made it into the video -- which makes the video misleading.

More on deceptive claims by pro IRV groups, that pesky fine for making false claims to voters in St Paul, Minnesota:

Pro-IRV group fined $5,000 for violating campaign law

By PAUL SCHMELZER 12/1/09 1:01 PM

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.

Here's some information I've posted at www.NCVOTER.net about IRV impact on North Carolina elections:

Don't be mis-led: Instant runoff voting is not feasible for statewide elections.

"There are no provisions on ES&S equipment to tabulate IRV." ~ Keith Long , Voting System Project Manager for the North Carolina State Board of Elections Jan 7, 2008

"We can use November 2007 as a pilot and not use IRV in May 2008 because it poses too much of a risk. May request change in legislation for retesting IRV with certified upgrades in 2009." ~ NC State Board of Elections March 6, 2007

North Carolina procedures for counting IRV elections error prone and risky

7 Ways Instant Runoff Voting Undermines North Carolina Verified Voting law

Tallying Instant runoff voting in NC. Complex, not transparent, error prone

"When our town agreed to IRV in 2007, it was kind of rush job..There was a lot of pushback, the public wasn’t involved … I do not like instant runoff voting and have given my reasons as to why many times. I'll take in elections over funny math and 30% voter confusion any day." ~ Don Frantz Cary City Council member.

"No instant-runoff capable equipment meets North Carolina's standards -- so will we gut those standards? Lawmakers and citizens understand that we need our verified voting law, and we need to implement it correctly. Our standards for voting systems, software and vendors are key to protecting North Carolina voters from harm caused by uncertified software or unscrupulous vendors. We ignore those at our peril." ~ Joyce McCloy, Director, NC Coalition for Verified Voting

Instant Runoff Voting Not So Good Polls: Cary NC, Hendersonville NC, Pierce Co WA, and San Francisco 22.0% of Cary voters did not understand IRV at all

1. NC voting systems can not handle IRV, there is no software, it was too complex for Cary NC to count by hand, to complex esp for statewide elections
2. IRV would cost more than regular elections, new procedures, more laborious, more ballots printed, more complex programming, and is not auditable.
3. IRV provided plurality results for Cary NC election, and Hendersonville never used IRV votes, didn't count or report them.
4. Why make elections more complex for the voter, and eliminate election transparency only to get plurality results?

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 - email Join the NC Coalition for Verified Voting website www.ncvoter.net