[EM] The odd IRV numbers (in NC)

[Kathy Dopp]

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