<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:tahoma,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"> It would/will be great if any student of statistics will do a statistical regression on these two bay-area elections, to prove that higher voter turnout in CA's IRV-modernized cities made the difference for Kamala Harris and Jerry McNerney.<br><br>This letter is in this week's east bay Express:<br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/letters-for-december-8/Content?oid=2258889&storyPage=2">http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/letters-for-december-8/Content?oid=2258889&storyPage=2</a></span><br><p class="contentSubhead"><b>Ranked-Choice Voting Will Help Democrats</b></p>
<p>Kamala Harris and Jerry McNerney won BECAUSE we modernized to
RANKED-CHOICE VOTING. Because of IRV/RCV, the higher turnout in Oakland
and San Leandro, mostly Democrats, tipped the balance for Rep. McNerney.
McNerney should acknowledge this and be an advocate for IRV
modernization nationwide.Kamala Harris also owes her victory to higher
turnouts in SF, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro because we are still
the first cities in the state to modernize to IRV elections. What this
demonstrates is that the cities that use RCV in 2012 will also have a
disproportionate/greater effect in statewide/regional elections because
of higher voter turnout. Alameda County was a leader for RCV-capable
voting equipment, so hopefully every city in the county will allow IRV
modernization before 2012. Hopefully Debra Bowen, Jerry Brown, and
McNerney will fund RCV machines state-/nationwide so that other cities
will not have to wait four-plus years like we had to. The more
progressive cities will probably modernize first, boosting Democrats on a
much wider scale in 2012.</p><p>_____________________(end) <br></p><p> By my estimate, it seems most likely that Neither NcNerney or Harris would have won except for the extra-large voter turnout in bay area districts using IRV.</p><p><br></p><p> The most basic calculation is of how many votes were needed from IRV-induced voters.<br></p><br> T0 do that, we need to know how many voters on average turn out in the IRV-using areas vs how many usually turn out in the non-IRV areas. This is easy for Kaplan, but for McNerney we need to learn what percentage of his district is included in Oakland and San Leandro.<br><br> With this research and calculations, authors will be able to say, "Luckily for Harris and McNerney, turn-out was especially high in certain bay area cities that used Ranked Choice Voting.<br><br> Depending on how much research it done, a study of this could make for a dr. thesis in statistics. The
challenge is to determine logistical regressions for how much of the higher voter turnout was because of RCV, and how much of the observed higher turnout was needed in the cities that supported them most.<br><br> Since I have not researched hardly any of these figures, my estimate is that if IRV increased turnout by 5%, McNerney may have lost without it. I haven't even tried to calculate for Harris.<br>Thanks,<br>-s<br> <br></div></body></html>