Public Hearing on Cary's Election Method

[dhyatt]

CARY TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CHANGING ELECTION METHOD

CARY, NC – Cary citizens are invited to share their opinions on a proposal to change Cary’s method of electing Council members from the non-partisan election and runoff method to the non-partisan plurality method at a public hearing on Wednesday, April 15, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. during the Council’s regular meeting; the meeting will be held at the Cary Town Hall Council Chambers, 316 N. Academy St. The public hearing follows the Town Council’s adoption of a resolution of intent on March 26, 2009, to change Cary’s method of election. The issue of Instant Runoff Voting is not a topic for this public hearing.

Under the proposed non-partisan plurality method, a single election would be held in November, and the candidate who receives the highest number of votes for a particular seat would be declared the winner. The Town used this method of election until November 9, 2000, at which time the Council moved to the current election and runoff method.

With the current election and runoff method, Cary citizens hold regular elections for Council four weeks before the General Election. The candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast wins. A majority is defined as half plus at least one of the votes cast. If no candidate takes a majority of the votes cast for his/her seat, the candidate winning the most votes is declared the winner unless the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes requests a runoff. Then, a runoff is held on the same day as the General Election, and the winner of the runoff wins the seat.

To change the election method, North Carolina Law (NCGS 160A-102), requires the Cary Town Council to adopt an ordinance amending the Town’s charter not earlier than the next regular meeting after the public hearing and not later than 60 days after the public hearing. The Council is expected to discuss the matter again at its April 30, 2009 meeting.

More information about elections methods and the proposed changes is available in the staff report from the March 12, 2009 Council meeting at http://www.townofcary.org/agenda/councilmin09/cm031209e.htm .


###

PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sue Rowland, Town Clerk, (919) 460-4941
April Raphiou, Deputy Public Information Officer (919) 481-5091
Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951

[Don]

Really???? I hadn't heard? :-)

[chaboard]

Really???? I hadn't heard? :-)

Ha!

So am I reading correctly...if the Council wants to choose plurality are they limited by law to November? Will they have to choose between plurality and their earlier indicated desires to keep the Council elections with the School Board elections in October?

That could make for some interesting entertainment as all of the "throw the bums out" school board people become sudden converts to the IRV pilot!

[CatherineE]

I -- for one -- would like to see more people who actually live in Cary speak out on the Instant Runoff voting method than those who simply have an axe to grind against IRV being less than 100% perfect AND who do not live in Cary.

I hope our Cary Town Council members will weight the public input more heavily from Cary residents than political individuals who have philosophical arguments to make. Striving for a "perfect" form of election means we'll see a return to rejecting the unfamiliar in favor of the familiar. So much for change we can believe in.

[DarylB]

I -- for one -- would like to see more people who actually live in Cary speak out on the Instant Runoff voting method than those who simply have an axe to grind against IRV being less than 100% perfect AND who do not live in Cary.

I hope our Cary Town Council members will weight the public input more heavily from Cary residents than political individuals who have philosophical arguments to make. Striving for a "perfect" form of election means we'll see a return to rejecting the unfamiliar in favor of the familiar. So much for change we can believe in.

Speaking only for myself, I have lived in this area for about 20 years, both inside and outside Cary. Presently, Cary borders my property, and I have received notice that they will at some point overrun it, that is to say involuntarily annex it. I am affected. I am also affected by everything Cary says, does, or thinks. You just recently took a large chunk of my property for your sewer line. So this voting method doesn't just affect Cary, it affects the neighborhood of Cary as well. New Hill is perhaps the latest best example of Cary affecting its neighbors, while objecting to any say in the government of it. I hope that Council will take into consideration the reach of Cary, and the impact that this decision has on all of us. I for one believe, and have written about the lack of a vote when Cary includes us in its reach, but not in the decision process. I guess these are the very same people who complain that we "County" folks use Cary streets in our daily travels?

As for my objection to IRV, call it philosophical if you must, but I object to it from the standpoint, as I've stated before, that it removes the opportunity to fully vest the candidates in a head to head campaign. The effects of not knowing who or what you're getting in the election of public officials should be a major concern, especially in view of the buyers remorse we're beginning to feel from this latest election. The closer to home, the more the impact of our government.

So I say, this is not just a philosophical battle for me. I am very much involved in Cary, have been for many years, and Cary affects me as well. I have just as much at stake in this decision as does anyone who is actually enfranchised, and I would ask that my temporary disenfranchisement is not held against me in taking my opposition into account.

[CatherineE]

So I say, this is not just a philosophical battle for me. I am very much involved in Cary, have been for many years, and Cary affects me as well. I have just as much at stake in this decision as does anyone who is actually enfranchised, and I would ask that my temporary disenfranchisement is not held against me in taking my opposition into account.

Daryl, you're right. I apologize for overlooking those people who live outside Cary Proper but who are affected and impacted by Cary's local government. I'd like to amend my earlier statement so as to not disenfranchise anyone. I would hope that those people who are governed by Cary's Town Council now -- and in the future -- be given priority to speak first and allow those from other towns to speak should time be available.

[chaboard]

So am I reading correctly...if the Council wants to choose plurality are they limited by law to November? Will they have to choose between plurality and their earlier indicated desires to keep the Council elections with the School Board elections in October?

Anyone able to answer his one? Don?

[Don]

So am I reading correctly...if the Council wants to choose plurality are they limited by law to November? Will they have to choose between plurality and their earlier indicated desires to keep the Council elections with the School Board elections in October?

Anyone able to answer his one? Don?

Yes, if Cary chooses to utilize plurality elections they, by law must be held in November.

[chaboard]

So am I reading correctly...if the Council wants to choose plurality are they limited by law to November? Will they have to choose between plurality and their earlier indicated desires to keep the Council elections with the School Board elections in October?

Anyone able to answer his one? Don?

Yes, if Cary chooses to utilize plurality elections they, by law must be held in November.

Interesting.

Is that rushing sound I just heard the sound of three anti-school board PACS and the Wake County Republicans suddenly out of the blue becoming very interested in the potential benefits of IRV? ;)

[Don]

Maybe,
But given it is the school board elections - not the council races - this year that will bring folks to the polls I don't know if they are worried about it much.

[chaboard]

Maybe,
But given it is the school board elections - not the council races - this year that will bring folks to the polls I don't know if they are worried about it much.

Maybe. But if they're not worried about it much I'd bet it has more to do with Cary being one of the their strongholds anyway.

[Don]

Regardless, you won't see me base my decision/argument on IRV on how it may or may not affect the school board election outcome. I do however have concerns about council races being IRV while school board elections will be traditional on the same ballot. Another layer of confusion?

[DarylB]

Regardless, you won't see me base my decision/argument on IRV on how it may or may not affect the school board election outcome. I do however have concerns about council races being IRV while school board elections will be traditional on the same ballot. Another layer of confusion?

I'd suspect that could be a bigtime problem, especially since we've been discussing multiple counts of ballots on multiple machines, and/or multiple handlings of these ballots, as well as the necessary transporting of ballots outside the polling place, which clearly violates the rules in play for the County elections. My other objections still remain my chief objections, but these new difficulties are also legitimate concerns. Confusing? absolutely, and it could lead to multiple markings for school board candidates when voters try to rank their choices there, or to not marking multiple choices following the normal voting method of the school board race. And what is the savings if, following the general election, there is a runoff for school board seats, and you short circuited the council decision when you flipped a coin for council when the runoff would be on the same ballot anyway?

[chaboard]

Regardless, you won't see me base my decision/argument on IRV on how it may or may not affect the school board election outcome. I do however have concerns about council races being IRV while school board elections will be traditional on the same ballot. Another layer of confusion?

Perhaps.

On the other hand....if you choose plurality now you are forcing your constituents to go to the polls twice instead of once. Considering that most of them *liked* IRV I'm not sure how well "you have to vote twice because I don't" is gonna go over. ;)

Oh, AND you are DOUBLING the cost of the elections this year if you require all of the polls in all of the precincts to open in both October and November. You are incurring the worst fiscal case runoff scenario - having to open the polls for a traditional runoff ....EVEN IF THERE IS NO RUNOFF!! You're locking in the absolute worst financial possibility. Is that kind of extravagant expenditure defensible in the current fiscal environment?

Just some more for for thought, Mr. Councilman. ;)

[Don]

Regardless, you won't see me base my decision/argument on IRV on how it may or may not affect the school board election outcome. I do however have concerns about council races being IRV while school board elections will be traditional on the same ballot. Another layer of confusion?

Perhaps.

On the other hand....if you choose plurality now you are forcing your constituents to go to the polls twice instead of once. Considering that most of them *liked* IRV I'm not sure how well "you have to vote twice because I don't" is gonna go over. ;)

Oh, AND you are DOUBLING the cost of the elections this year if you require all of the polls in all of the precincts to open in both October and November. You are incurring the worst fiscal case runoff scenario - having to open the polls for a traditional runoff ....EVEN IF THERE IS NO RUNOFF!! You're locking in the absolute worst financial possibility. Is that kind of extravagant expenditure defensible in the current fiscal environment?

Just some more for for thought, Mr. Councilman. ;)

Why do you have to open the polls for a traditional runoff if there is no runoff?

Again, I prefer traditional runoff elections. Hopefully by our next meeting so do 3 others.

[chaboard]

Why do you have to open the polls for a traditional runoff if there is no runoff?


You misread me - I was saying that IF you adopt plurality (and thus have both October and November elections) THEN you are forcing the polls to open twice and doubling the cost even if there is no runoff just as you would IF you adopted traditional runoff and there happened to be a runoff (ie polls opening both October and November).



Again, I prefer traditional runoff elections. Hopefully by our next meeting so do 3 others.

So is it fair to interpret that comment as indication that you are shifting your support away from plurality and towards a traditional runoff?

I guess the more interesting question is what do you do if there aren't 3 other votes for it.....if the choice comes down to doubling the cost and voter imposition with plurality or going with IRV, where will you vote?

[WhalerCane]

So am I reading correctly...if the Council wants to choose plurality are they limited by law to November? Will they have to choose between plurality and their earlier indicated desires to keep the Council elections with the School Board elections in October?

Anyone able to answer his one? Don?

Yes, if Cary chooses to utilize plurality elections they, by law must be held in November.

Interesting.

Is that rushing sound I just heard the sound of three anti-school board PACS and the Wake County Republicans suddenly out of the blue becoming very interested in the potential benefits of IRV? ;)
IRV contests would be held in November too.

[Don]

Why do you have to open the polls for a traditional runoff if there is no runoff?


You misread me - I was saying that IF you adopt plurality (and thus have both October and November elections) THEN you are forcing the polls to open twice and doubling the cost even if there is no runoff just as you would IF you adopted traditional runoff and there happened to be a runoff (ie polls opening both October and November).

no, you mis-spoke. :-)



So is it fair to interpret that comment as indication that you are shifting your support away from plurality and towards a traditional runoff?

I have always supported traditional runoff. I have concerns regarding IRV. I was interested in plurality and wanted to explore it's use further and solicit public input. Unfortunately only a couple citizens have chosen to comment on plurality. The majority I have heard have been for and against arguments regarding IRV from special interest groups and politicos.


I guess the more interesting question is what do you do if there aren't 3 other votes for it.....if the choice comes down to doubling the cost and voter imposition with plurality or going with IRV, where will you vote?

You'll have to wait and see. :-)

[Don]

IRV contests would be held in November too.


IRV can be used either in October or November.

[chaboard]

IRV contests would be held in November too.


Where'd you get that from Perry? They were held in October in 2007, weren't they?

My impression was that they if the Council chooses ANY runoff method (as opposed to
plurality) that he general election would be in October along with the School Board
elections.

[WhalerCane]

IRV contests would be held in November too.


IRV can be used either in October or November.

I'm not sure about that Don, in the new pilot law this was changed for communities that adopted IRV pilot, Election would be run in November since there is one election. That was certainly the intention to change pilots to be run in Novemenber. Previous pilot in Cary was in October. It is possible that a choice does exist however, so I will have to go back and read law. That may actually be a WBOE call. Thanks for your efforts, as a politico, I appreciate involvement. Even though I am a politico, I do hope you find I sincerely have a concern and interests in this issue beyord my own personal politics. Thanks again,

Perry

[WhalerCane]

IRV contests would be held in November too.


Where'd you get that from Perry? They were held in October in 2007, weren't they?

My impression was that they if the Council chooses ANY runoff method (as opposed to
plurality) that he general election would be in October along with the School Board
elections.


In new pilot law Cherie actually got the change for IRV elections to be run in November in part because hacks like me argued that IRV did not in itself increase turnout, and in fact many runoff constests have had higher turnout that orginal in no small part because race is in November, not October. In Raleigh, turnout increase when Swartzenagger was on the recall ballot in California at the same time, which garnered lots of national attention.

So in short, it was the intention to run IRV races in Novemeber. I need to go back and read legislation to see if an option to run in October still exits. I do not think so, but it could be. That would be ironic, since this change essentially came from the Wake BOE.

[WhalerCane]

IRV contests would be held in November too.


Where'd you get that from Perry? They were held in October in 2007, weren't they?

My impression was that they if the Council chooses ANY runoff method (as opposed to
plurality) that he general election would be in October along with the School Board
elections.


If instant runoff voting is used in place of the nonpartisan
election and runoff method as described in G.S. 163-293, the county board of elections,
with the approval of the local governing board, may hold the election on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

[WhalerCane]

IRV contests would be held in November too.


IRV can be used either in October or November.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1263v7.pdf


If instant runoff voting is used in place of the nonpartisan
election and runoff method as described in G.S. 163-293, the county board of elections,
with the approval of the local governing board, may hold the election on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

[chaboard]

IRV contests would be held in November too.


Where'd you get that from Perry? They were held in October in 2007, weren't they?

My impression was that they if the Council chooses ANY runoff method (as opposed to
plurality) that he general election would be in October along with the School Board
elections.


In new pilot law Cherie actually got the change for IRV elections to be run in November in part because hacks like me argued that IRV did not in itself increase turnout, and in fact many runoff constests have had higher turnout that orginal in no small part because race is in November, not October. In Raleigh, turnout increase when Swartzenagger was on the recall ballot in California at the same time, which garnered lots of national attention.

So in short, it was the intention to run IRV races in Novemeber. I need to go back and read legislation to see if an option to run in October still exits. I do not think so, but it could be. That would be ironic, since this change essentially came from the Wake BOE.

But if the intent is higher turnout then surely October makes more sense this year since - as Don noted earlier in the thread - the school board elections are higher profile than Council races this year.

[chaboard]

If instant runoff voting is used in place of the nonpartisan
election and runoff method as described in G.S. 163-293, the county board of elections,
with the approval of the local governing board, may hold the election on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in November.


So it sounds like there is a choice involved....given both the likelihood of higher interest in the School Board races (and thus higher turnout) and the fact that the polls must be open anyway in October but not necessarily in November wouldn't the choice of October be a no-brainer this time around?

[WhalerCane]

If instant runoff voting is used in place of the nonpartisan
election and runoff method as described in G.S. 163-293, the county board of elections,
with the approval of the local governing board, may hold the election on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in November.




So it sounds like there is a choice involved....given both the likelihood of higher interest in the School Board races (and thus higher turnout) and the fact that the polls must be open anyway in October but not necessarily in November wouldn't the choice of October be a no-brainer this time around?

Well, first your premise is flawed that because of interest in school board, turnout would be higher in october than november. Turnout is almost universally higher in a november election because that is when people are used to voting.

Second, I did not read that as a choice. It did not say 'may hold the election on the first tuesday after the first monday in October or November", it specifially says November.

[DarylB]

When you're dealing with election laws, it pays to get it right, and it can cost you bigtime to get it wrong!



Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:09 am EDT
Blues fan facing legal trouble after writing in Oshie for mayor (http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Blues-fan-facing-legal-trouble-after-writing-in-?urn=nhl,156798)

By Greg Wyshynski



http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_nhl_experts__28/ept_sports_nhl_experts-938070514-1239894310.jpg?ymm0NHBD61BXVRGj
At 22 years old, St. Louis Blues (http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/teams/stl/) rookie sensation T.J. Oshie (http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/3801/) doesn't meet the age requirements to be mayor of St. Louis. But that didn't stop a fan blog called Vote 4 Oshie (http://vote4oshie.blogspot.com/2009/04/time-to-vote.html) from organizing a hastily crafted campaign to have fans write in Oshie's name for last Tuesday's mayoral elections around Missouri. (http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2009/04/web-push-nets-blues-rookie-a-vote-for-mayor-in-ofallon-mo/)
Alas, it would appear that he fell a few votes short (http://vote4oshie.blogspot.com/2009/04/tj-loses-mayoral-election-next-up-goal.html). But the campaign was so inspirational that a Blues fan actually wrote Oshie's name on a ballot (http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/files/2009/04/oshievote.jpg) in last Tuesday's O'Fallon, Mo. mayoral election and then proudly photographed it before having the image posted on Vote 4 Oshie.
Surprise, surpise: This is all actually quite illegal, according to county election officials. From the Post-Dispatch: (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/B64040CF3635628B86257598007A99CB?OpenDocument)

The punishment is more than just a few minutes in the penalty box: Willfully sharing the contents of a completed ballot is a class-four election offense in Missouri, carrying up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.
The St. Charles County Election Authority is taking a hard stance against using the ballot box to display fan loyalty. The Oshie voter "violated the law, and I'm going to prosecute," county elections director Rich A. Chrismer said. "They may have thought the photo was cute, but it was very serious."
St. Louis County elections director Joseph Goeke told the Dispatch that the regulation was written back in 1977 to discourage the buying or selling of votes. County officials said they intended to contact Vote 4 Oshie's site administrator in an attempt to find out who photographed the O'Fallon mayoral ballot.
Write-in votes aren't usually counted unless an individual has declared his or her candidacy, but it would appear Oshie fell short in O'Fallon's election, too. (http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com/articles/2009/04/07/stcharles/news/doc49dc10e91aa98771446076.txt) Oshie was asked before last night's 2-1 loss to the Vancouver Canucks (http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/teams/van/) in Game 1 of the Western Conference quarterfinals what he thought about his political career back in St. Louis: (http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/morning-skate/uncategorized/2009/04/if-st-louis-blues-rookie-tj-oshie-runs-for-mayor-he-may-not-get-vancouvers-vote/)

"I haven't heard anything about (the election)," Oshie said. "I don't know how political I am, so I don't know how good I would be on making too many decisions. But I like the fan support."
With that, we begin the countdown to the Oshie 2012 political action committee. Thanks to Jeff and St. Louis Game Time (http://www.stlouisgametime.com/) for the tips.

[chaboard]

Second, I did not read that as a choice. It did not say 'may hold the election on the first tuesday after the first monday in October or November", it specifially says November.


Well I'm no lawyer but the use of "may" rather than "shall" makes it sound like a choice and the bit about "with the approval of the local governing board" sure sounds like a limitation on a choice.

Plus Don already said it could be either and I'm assuming the choices have been laid out pretty explicitly before Council. Maybe that's too much to assume.

[WhalerCane]

Second, I did not read that as a choice. It did not say 'may hold the election on the first tuesday after the first monday in October or November", it specifially says November.


Well I'm no lawyer but the use of "may" rather than "shall" makes it sound like a choice and the bit about "with the approval of the local governing board" sure sounds like a limitation on a choice.

Plus Don already said it could be either and I'm assuming the choices have been laid out pretty explicitly before Council. Maybe that's too much to assume.

LOL, Yes, it is too much to assume. You and I have likely thought about it more than even Council or BOE members. I'm not sure that question has even really been asked. And I repect Don too much to expect him to render a legal opinion, particularly on this topic. :blackeye:

Adding "with the approval of the local governing board,' was done to pilot legislation becuse previous pilot could be done with local BOE approval only. That was part of the reason there wasn't a hearing two years ago in Cary. It was implied that it could be done without their (council's) approval.

Wake BOE may try to do an October race, but that was not Legilature's intention, or even theirs before. Good lawsuits have spent a long time deciding "may' v "shall" I don't think we would ever get there, but an october IRV race would invite one. It is pretty clear intent that IRV races, since they are only one vote, are to be run in November, for the obvious reason is that is when most people are used to voting.

Probably moot regardless.

At this point, the only way likely for an October only race would be to keep current system and have no race reach a runoff. That's possible, but no garuntee.

[chaboard]

LOL, Yes, it is too much to assume. You and I have likely thought about it more than even Council or BOE members. I'm not sure that question has even really been asked. And I repect Don too much to expect him to render a legal opinion, particularly on this topic. :blackeye:


Well, we can let him reply. But as one who has never played a lawyer on TV OR the Internet I still say a plain English reading of the statute you posted can only be consistent with a choice. That may not have been the intent but it's sure how it reads. But then lawyers aren'yt much on plain English to begin with....



Adding "with the approval of the local governing board,' was done to pilot legislation becuse previous pilot could be done with local BOE approval only. That was part of the reason there wasn't a hearing two years ago in Cary. It was implied that it could be done without their (council's) approval.


But in this particular text the use of IRV is already assumed at the beginning...the talk of approval clearly refers to the date not the method.



Wake BOE may try to do an October race, but that was not Legilature's intention, or even theirs before. Good lawsuits have spent a long time deciding "may' v "shall" I don't think we would ever get there, but an october IRV race would invite one. It is pretty clear intent that IRV races, since they are only one vote, are to be run in November, for the obvious reason is that is when most people are used to voting.

Probably moot regardless.


Why would it be moot? It's a very important difference IF
- plurality FORCES a doubling of cost and effort by requiring polls be open in both Ocober and November
- traditional MIGHT create a situation where cost & effort are doubled by POSSIBLY requiring polls to be open in both October & November if there is a runoff
- IRV guarantees there is NOT a doubling by ensuring everything is done in one shot in October

I understand that you - and maybe even some of Council - don't see cost as THE paramount issue....but I don't see how it becomes MOOT!



At this point, the only way likely for an October only race would be to keep current system and have no race reach a runoff. That's possible, but no garuntee.

Well that's true if you assume that IRV has to be in November. I guess we need to see what the experts say, but in plain English I still say it sounds like a choice not a mandate - regardless of the intent. Guess we'll see at the April 30 meeting, huh?


Hey - can anyone summarize the public comment on plurality voting at last night's meeting?

[WhalerCane]

LOL, Yes, it is too much to assume. You and I have likely thought about it more than even Council or BOE members. I'm not sure that question has even really been asked. And I repect Don too much to expect him to render a legal opinion, particularly on this topic. :blackeye:


Well, we can let him reply. But as one who has never played a lawyer on TV OR the Internet I still say a plain English reading of the statute you posted can only be consistent with a choice. That may not have been the intent but it's sure how it reads. But then lawyers aren'yt much on plain English to begin with....



Adding "with the approval of the local governing board,' was done to pilot legislation becuse previous pilot could be done with local BOE approval only. That was part of the reason there wasn't a hearing two years ago in Cary. It was implied that it could be done without their (council's) approval.


But in this particular text the use of IRV is already assumed at the beginning...the talk of approval clearly refers to the date not the method.



Wake BOE may try to do an October race, but that was not Legilature's intention, or even theirs before. Good lawsuits have spent a long time deciding "may' v "shall" I don't think we would ever get there, but an october IRV race would invite one. It is pretty clear intent that IRV races, since they are only one vote, are to be run in November, for the obvious reason is that is when most people are used to voting.

Probably moot regardless.


Why would it be moot? It's a very important difference IF
- plurality FORCES a doubling of cost and effort by requiring polls be open in both Ocober and November
- traditional MIGHT create a situation where cost & effort are doubled by POSSIBLY requiring polls to be open in both October & November if there is a runoff
- IRV guarantees there is NOT a doubling by ensuring everything is done in one shot in October

I understand that you - and maybe even some of Council - don't see cost as THE paramount issue....but I don't see how it becomes MOOT!



At this point, the only way likely for an October only race would be to keep current system and have no race reach a runoff. That's possible, but no garuntee.

Well that's true if you assume that IRV has to be in November. I guess we need to see what the experts say, but in plain English I still say it sounds like a choice not a mandate - regardless of the intent. Guess we'll see at the April 30 meeting, huh?


Hey - can anyone summarize the public comment on plurality voting at last night's meeting?

Well, aside from the fact that costs associated with running an IRV race in November are higher than just a plurality race, to me it is moot because an October IRV race is not possible or likely. Even if you did have one then, there still are serious educational, extra poll worker, and independent reserch costs that go with utilization of the pilot that proponents seem to ignore. I do not see cost as paramount issue, but even if you do, this IRV pilot (even in October) is not the cheapest way to go.

As to plain english, that certainly isn't lawyers forte. :-) It was clear that the intention of the Legislature and Wake BOE for any IRV pilot to be in November. I guess we can go for legal opinions and down that path, and the Wake BOE may be willing to do something else now, but that would be ingnoring the legilature's and their own previous intentions. You are probably correct though that when it comes to intent, the law is often blind, but in navigating difficult issues, it is usually helpful to try and follow it.

I am also interested if anyone knows of public comment at last evenings meeting.

The 30th is on my calender, but I am not sure me being there is the best thing. ;-)