Instant Runoff Comments

I haven't come to a final opinion about the instant runoff voting procedure NC has used to fill Judge Wynn's former seat on the Court of Appeals, but I have some interim thoughts. And I also want to share some thoughts about comments received from a genuine expert on voting matters: Joyce McCloy.

The "instant" part of the procedure clearly refers to the voting, not the counting. The "runoff" part of the name is misleading. We don't have runoff primaries in judicial elections. IRV in this context provides an accelerated procedure to avoid the expense of a special election.

An ordinary judicial election with more than two candidates (thirteen sought this Court of Appeals seat) is held in two stages. The first stage is the primary, the purpose of which is to reduce the number of candidates to two for the general election. The two candidates then meet head to head. In this case, by definition, the winner will take more than fifty percent of the votes cast at the general election. But at the primary election, there is no requirement for any candidate to receive a majority of the votes cast in order to advance to the general election. It could therefore be said that the appearance of winning a majority of the votes is an illusion.

The same can be said of non judicial elections with many candidates from two or more parties for a single office. That is, the winner may actually enjoy the support of only a minority of the voters.

Ms. McCloy comments quite rightly that McCullough's vote amounts to only 27.99% of the total votes cast for this office, and Thigpen received only 27.65% of the votes. A true comparison with other judicial elections, though, would require counting total votes received at the general and dividing that by the total votes cast both at the primary and the general elections. I expect that would reveal that judicial candidates often are elected with a plurality rather than a majority of the vote.

Another way to compare would be to divide the votes received by each candidate by the total ballots cast in the state (2,003,130) instead of ballots cast for the office (1,943,771). That results in a vote percentage for each candidate of about 20%, give or take.

Counting the votes accurately in an IRV election presents special challenges because our machines are not programmed for such a count. The state board did a marvelous job of developing "work around" procedures. I'm just glad that Pamlico County uses the iVotronics machines. Our paper ballots (absentee by mail, curbside and provisional) had many more errors than the direct record equipment would allow. I'm confident in our count. Next week's recount is occasioned by the closeness of the result, not by the fact that it was an instant runoff.

If this procedure is to continue in the future, the state should make sure that replacement equipment is programmed to count IRV elections.

Another way to avoid the expense of runoff primaries, as I previously suggested here is to abolish the runoff. We don't need it. Most states don't use it. Despite its name, though, the purpose of IRV in judicial elections is not to avoid a runoff, but to avoid a special election. There are other ways to do this. For example, if the judicial opening comes too late to hold a primary at the regular time, just let the gubernatorial appointment to last until the next election cycle.

A more pointed question might be, "why do we elect judges, anyhow?"

That's the subject of another post.

Recount!

The North Carolina Board of Elections reports that it has received the timely request for a mandatory recount from The Honorable Cressie Thigpen, Court of Appeals, for the Instant Runoff Election.

The State Board has ordered County Boards to schedule the recount beginning Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, to be completed by Friday, December 17th.

Stay tuned.

Instant Runoff Vote, Round Three?

This Tuesday, December 7th, the County Board of Elections held the canvass of the second round of counting of the instant runoff vote for a NC Court of Appeals seat. After round one in Pamlico County, Cressie Thigpen led, 667 to 593. After the second round, Doug McCullough leads Pamlico County 1137 to 863.

Unofficial statewide results for 99 counties (excluding Warren County) have McCullough leading Thigpen 541,861 to 535,396, a margin of 0.6% of the vote. This may require a recount.

Instant Runoff Vote, Round Two

Next Monday, November 29th, county and municipal boards of elections all across North Carolina will gather to begin Round Two of the Instant Runoff Vote.

In Pamlico County, we will count eligible second and third place votes for a vacancy on the NC Court of Appeals. After the votes are counted and uploaded to the State Board, we will do an audit of selected precincts, with a hand to eye count.

We don't know how long it will take. Maybe we'll be done by close of business Wednesday. Then again, maybe not. We'll see.

At least we don't have to open all ten polling places for another primary or special election.

US and Korea

There seem to be no really good options with Korea.

How long has the US been wrestling with Korean issues? At least 139 years.

June 10 to 12th, 1871 a US Naval force commanded by Commander (later Rear Admiral) Kimberly attacked and captured five forts in retaliation for the Korean murder of the American crew of the schooner General Sherman, the destruction of the ship, and for firing on American small boats taking soundings on the Salee River. The force captured Korean cannon and took them back to Mare Island Naval Shipyard in San Francisco Bay.

At the time, Korea was known as "The Hermit Kingdom."

Here is an account of the action.

Both Commander Kimberly and his Executive Officer, Lieutenant Commander Schley, were eventually promoted to Rear Admiral.

Civilization and the Discontented

I've been rummaging around in the web site of the Pew Center, hoping to become enlightened about public opinion. Instead, I came upon the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and a very interesting conversation between Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter on the issue of "Can Civilization Survive Without God?" Mingled in with the conversation are some illuminating observations about current world developments.

Even though the Hitchens brothers have very different views on the question, it is a very civilized conversation. Worth reading here.

Voter Turnout 2010

2010 General Election Turnout	County		State
Below voting age	2,183		2,216,736
Voting Age Population (VAP)	10,655		7,165,873
Registered Voters	9,169		6,192,004
Registered Voters as Percent VAP	86%		86%
Votes Cast Nov 2 2010	4,735		2,702,342
Turnout Percentage VAP	44.44%		37.71%
Turnout Percentage Registered	51.64%		43.64%

Is there Merit to a Meritocracy?

For the past couple of weeks, I've been trying to digest the meaning of the November 2 election.

One question is, what does the election portend for the future. It may not bode well. I fear for the future of our grandchildren. That's the subject for a future post.

A more immediate question is, what does it say about today's America?

Noam Scheiber, writing in The New Republic, analyzes the appeal of leading Tea Party figures such as Sarah Palin and Rand Paul as stemming from a politics of resentment - resentment at being led by snobs who think that governing requires expertise. Or who labor under the illusion that knowledge is better than ignorance.

To some extent, this is nothing new in American politics. We have, as David Hackett Fischer details in Albion's Seed, his cultural history of the United States, always been dominated by identity politics. We have also had examples of politicians who became successful by attacking intellectuals and other so-called elites. The example of George Wallace comes to mind. Himself a well-educated man, he attracted a following by attacking "pointy-headed intellectuals."

What seems new is the degree to which the poor and elderly have allowed themselves to be persuaded to vote against their own economic interests.

Americans once believed that the way to free the country from the grip of an aristocracy was to replace the self-appointed and self-perpetuating institutions of those with wealth and power with a meritocracy. The idea was that it is more democratic to be governed by those who achieved their positions by hard work and demonstrated excellence, rather than by family connections.

Not surprisingly, the wealthy and connected have fought back.

This phenomenon was examined a few years ago by Thomas Frank in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas? Frank highlighted what appeared to be effective use of explosive social issues to redirect the anger of those in economic distress away from the wealthy and powerful who caused the distress toward "liberal elites." When the book appeared, some pollsters disputed Frank's analysis.

This year, however, the Washington Post has taken a detailed look at congressional districts where Republicans gained enough seats to change the party in power. "The Republican Party's big gains in the House," the Post reports, "came largely from districts that were older, less diverse and less educated than the nation as a whole. Democrats kept their big majorities in the cities." This seems to confirm Frank's analysis.

A new feature is the extent to which a particular media conglomerate has lent its voice to supporting the interests of the wealthy and connected by whipping up anger against those with knowledge and expertise. See Paul Krugman's recent comment.

Experts may not always be right about what needs to be done. Still, when planning for the future, knowledge provides a better basis for planning than ignorance. Judgment is important, but judgment at variance with facts is fraught with peril. There is still merit to a meritocracy.

"...wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness.
The wise have eyes in their heads, while the fool walks in the darkness...."

Ecclesiastes 2:13-14