Misleading quote: "IRV is simple for voters to use."
Correction: Actually, when IRV was implemented in San Francisco 2004, not only did the tabulators fail to count the votes, but the voter "spoiled ballot" rate (ballots that had to be discarded due to voters filling them out in illegal ways) increased by a factor of 7. This suggests that actually, it is not quite as "simple" as the Vermont report makes it sound.
Misleading quote: "The voter education campaign necessary to ease the transition..."
Correction: The Vermont report is expressing the idea that IRV voting is simple for voters – but, just to be sure, maybe they have to be educated by a campaign of public service announcements and get experience using IRV, and then for sure it'll really be simple for voters. However, Australians have been using IRV for over 80 years and all their education and experience still has led them to have remarkably high ballot spoilage rates, considerably higher than in the USA. Again, this suggests that actually, it is not quite as "simple" as the Vermont report makes it sound.
It is easy to make arguments about simplicity if you never have to use an actual experimental fact in your argument...
Return to main page
Return to Vermont Report Table of Contents