CRV correction to Vermont report's section 13 and 19

Misleading quote: "IRV will not create any increased burdens for local polling officials."
"IRV would add no significant cost to running elections."

Correction: Completely false:

1. According to the Australian analysts at http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/preferential.shtml (Australia has more experience with IRV than any other country) the "disadvantages of the Preferential [IRV] System" include "it is more complicated to administer and count."
2. IRV increases tie risk,
3. and that in combination with the hard-to-correct nature of IRV errors can lead to recount nightmares,
4. and consider the experience of San Francisco.
5. and consider the fact IRV will not run on many of today's voting machines, (but range voting will). How much "cost" is that?

Return to main page

Return to Vermont Report Table of Contents