Oops... I had pasted in Kathy Dopp's post to respond to it, then left it there! My last one was supposed to end at "and so on"!

Just to clarity on Kathy Dopp's post:

- She supports alternative systems where in an election for one seats voters will have votes counting for two different active candidates at the same time. That approach creates all kinds of strategic conflicts for voters.

- Any system that eliminates candidates (such as Hoboken's current runoffs) can have the exact effect she suggests is particular to IRV. All it amounts to is saying that your favorite candidate might have a better chance to defeat one candidate in the runoff than another candidate. In that situation, if you know your candidate is safely going to make the runoff, you can vote for the "easier opponent" in the first round. But with IRV, it's HARDER to do that because you cant change your first choice.

- IRV can be counted by hand, as it does for national elections in countries like Ireland and Australia. It can be counted on all optical scan ballots without changing hardware. When replacing runoffs, it typically will save money.

And so on....

There is truly not a more costly, less fair, voting method being used anywhere.

IRV/STV are a bigger threat to the integrity and fairness of elections than even e-ballot voting machines, and the only benefactors will be voting machine vendors because IRV requires an all-new round of high-cost voting machines.

For more information on the truth about IRV/STV (not the false claims of the well-funded, misnomered "Fair" Vote) read this lengthy, but easy-to-read report:

http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

IRV does *not* elect majority winners because many voters' ballots are excluded before the final IRV counting round. In fact IRV often elects majority-opposed winners.

Ranking a candidate first may cause your candidate to *lose* as happened recently in the Aspen, CO STV election, whereas if you vote for less favored candidates, it may cause your favorite to *win*!

If you like gambling and want to eviscerate election transparency and fairness, then STV/IRV is a good idea.

Anyone else find the posters on here not the usual Hoboken residents? All the more reason think this is extremely fishy. The devil you know is always better than the devil you don't! ;)

The misnomered "Instant Runoff Voting" (IRV) method and the "Single Transferable Voting" (STV) method of counting votes is a fundamentally unfair method of counting votes where only some voters' 2nd and lower choices are counted in a timely fashion when it could help those candidates to win. A large group of voters' never has their 2nd choice considered even though their first choice loses.

There is truly not a more costly, less fair, voting method being used anywhere.

IRV/STV are a bigger threat to the integrity and fairness of elections than even e-ballot voting machines, and the only benefactors will be voting machine vendors because IRV requires an all-new round of high-cost voting machines.

For more information on the truth about IRV/STV (not the false claims of the well-funded, misnomered "Fair" Vote) read this lengthy, but easy-to-read report:

http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

IRV does *not* elect majority winners because many voters' ballots are excluded before the final IRV counting round. In fact IRV often elects majority-opposed winners.

Ranking a candidate first may cause your candidate to *lose* as happened recently in the Aspen, CO STV election, whereas if you vote for less favored candidates, it may cause your favorite to *win*!

If you like gambling and want to eviscerate election transparency and fairness, then STV/IRV is a good idea.

Chris Telesca with Wake Verified Voting is a passionate opponent of instant runoff voting. That's his right, of course, although note that he and his NC ally Jocye McCloy are behind all but one of the websites listed in his email. They at least initially opposed IRV out of a mistaken belief it would lead to touchscreen voting, which is not true.

Instant runoff voting IIRV) has a lot going for it no matter what some passionate opponents may say. The biggest factor in deciding whether to support it is whether a jurisdiction likes two round of voting for the extra time it gives for voters to consider their choices. The fact is that many of our key elections do not have two rounds of voting, and runoffs have their downsides, such as unequal turnout between rounds, almost double the cost of running for office and more costs for running elections.

IRV is very common among private associations in the United States, many of which have large numbers of voters and hotly contested races. You can see the latest list here:

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1964

It also is getting established in a growing number of U.S. elections. They're definitely are transition issues to handle involving getting the count done securely, but voters time and again are showing they handle it very well. You can see a review of exit poll surveys done on voters reaction to their new system and the history of ballot measures successes here:

http://www.instantrunoff.com/exitpoll.php

http://www.instantrunoff.com/campaigns.php

You can also see current debate in the United Kingdom, where many of the leaders of the current government are proposing that IRV be established for Britain's next general election:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/britain-may-adopt-instant_b_209549.html

Good luck with this discussion in Hoboken.

Andynboken - you mention that you have gotten 20 flyers asking you to vote for IRV. And I read in the article that there is a website promoting IRV.

Can you send me a scan of the flyers or at least tell me who they are coming from, and send a link to the IRV websites to me at wakestvco@earthlink.net

Thanks!

Voting for our elected leaders is not like buying cornflakes, or picking the winner in a chili eating contest.

IRV is hardly a new voting method. It's been used in many places around the country, and it doesn't deliver on it's promises. In Cary (NC), Aspen (CO), Burlington (VT) and Pierce County (WA), IRV has failed to deliver a majority winner as promised, failed to save money, and was complicated as hell to administer. Several communities that recently voted to adopt IRV are voting to get rid of it.

Don't make the same mistake they did - don't vote to adopt IRV. Check out the following websites:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7198

http://noirvnc.blogspot.com/

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/

http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/

http://irvbad4nc.blogspot.com/

http://rangevoting.org/Irvtalk.html

There you will see information on the many problems IRV has and see why you shouldn't use it.

It's not confusing at all. Say you go to the grocery store to buy corn flakes. But they're out of corn flakes, so you tell the clerk you want Wheaties instead. Instant runoff voting works on the same principle -- if your first choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice instead. As a result, you get a majority winner in a single election without the cost of a separate runoff. Runoffs are costly for city, for the candidates, and (most important to me) for the voters. Everywhere IRV has replaced separate runoffs, turnout goes up because you are eliminating a low-turnout election day.

I like the process as it is. I have learned a lot more about the during the runoff period and feel i can make a more informed decision.

Run a better campaign from day 1. Then you can win the first go around. Lazy politicians should not game the system or make it more complicated. Increase debates so we as the voters can make more informed decisions. Stop spamming us w/ your fliers in the mail. Its annoying to get 20 odd fliers that all say the exact same thing. Lastly, stop w/ the package deals w/ the council candidates. If I'm voting for you I may not necessarily want to vote for your council. We've had too many Mayors w/ rubber stamp city councils. Just by 0.02