Transcript Instant Runoff Voting Changing Current Systems IRV • Today’s discussion • We’ll discuss issues we’ve seen and heard using IRV • We’ll discuss what we’ve.

Instant Runoff Voting
Changing Current Systems
IRV
• Today’s discussion
• We’ll discuss issues we’ve seen and heard using
IRV
• We’ll discuss what we’ve done & can do
• We’ll discuss issues that should be considered
when moving into IRV type elections
• We’ll answer your questions, sent previously to us,
one by one
Current Limits &
Issues
• Model 100
– Today
• Does not currently store individual ballot images
• Current PCMCIA data bus does not write to separate cards
• Does not have the firmware to perform these tasks
• Depending on requirements, IRV can be limited to 3 choices (SF)
– Other
• There are currently no standards for testing IRV
• ES&S will need “Hard” requirements to begin development work
• ES&S has not started work on the M-100 for use with IRV
• Multiple language issues with IRV to watch for
• 2nd and 3rd place transfer actions to watch for.
• Voter notification messaging for undervotes.
Continued
– Being forced to provide two ballots due to constitutions
• Required more ballot layout work and obviously more ballot costs
– In practice, we’ve seen under vote notification issues
• Most voters do not fill out all choices, making systems reject
ballots for almost ALL voters using IRV (SF)
• In retrospect, notification of only the first choice would have
prevented this issue
– Early determination of rules
• Transferring votes from other candidates can cause confusion
• Make certain these rules are clear and fair to avoid possibilities of
lawsuits
• Education of the new system is absolutely necessary
What We’ve
Done
• San Fransisco
– Upgraded the Optech Eagle hardware with a new PC
board with PCMCIA card for capturing ballot images
– Upgraded Optech Eagle firmware to write out the ballot
image for the IRV contest selections
– Upgraded the EMS system to capture the IRV images
from the PCMCIA card
– Developed an IRV Module
• Captures the IRV images from the PCMCIA card
• Converts the IRV images for processing
• Performs the IRV algorithms on the images
• Produces the results of the IRV contest
Continued
• San Fransisco
– Limited themselves to three choices
• This was due to requiring the contests to be “Across” the ballot
• This limited it to the three columns/choices
What we can do
• What firmware and software upgrades would be required to
make the M100s capable of reading ranked ballots and
running a Ranked Choice Voting (specifically Single
Transferable Vote or STV) election?
• Model 100
– ES&S can modify the M-100 to capture IRV ballot records
• This is a firmware modification to the M-100
– We can modify the M-100 to utilize both PCMCIA card slots for
capturing IRV images to one, and using the other for the election
definition.
• This is not as easy a task as one might think. It involves deep diving into
the operating system to allow the unit to know which card is which.
(Probably one of the most difficult tasks of the project)
– We can modify the existing IRV module to work with the Model 100
formats and code.
• This is re-write modifications and not too complicated
Continued
– We can modify the Model 100 ballot layout system to
handle placing duplicate and triplicate contests on a ballot
• This is extensive work for the system, as it goes against all the
warning messages that we put in place to prevent this from
happening.
– We can modify the Election Definition System to add the
IRV contest type
• This is also extensive work for the system as this work affects all
down stream modules of the Unity Election System.
– The IRV Module can remain a separate module for
producing the desired results from the IRV contests.
– We can test the entire system upgrades for IRV, but we
cannot gain more than cursory testing from an ITA, nor
EAC numbers for the upgrades at this time.
Questions
• What would the estimated cost be to upgrade the M100 for
Minneapolis' 131 precincts?
– Per unit upgrade cost: ~$1500/unit
• Covers development of IRV for M-100s
– Per unit Firmware License increase: +$40/unit/year
• Covers on going maintenance & certifications
– Software Upgrade Package IRV: $350,000
• Costs to cover development of the software & initial certifications
• MN requires private security review. Last upgrade for Hennepin Cty cost
$200,000 for the code review.
– IRV yearly Software License $27,000
• Covers on going system maintenance/changes to IRV system
– NOTE: These cost figures are only for representational purposes and do not
reflect the true and final costs of the project. Accurate costs can only be
completed when the project is finalized including contractual negotiations
and commitments which are agreed upon by both parties.
Questions
• Could the upgrade be completed and certified for
Minneapolis' 2009 election?
– This can only be answered when we have the complete
set of requirements for the project. At that time, Software
Development staff will produce a timeline.
• Would modified M100s be capable of running nonRCV elections, or would this require additional
work? If so, how much would this cost?
– Yes, if the state would allow IRV to exist within the same
unit as the federal & state rules.
Questions
• According to documentation submitted to California,
it looks like ES&S has developed code for their
M100 election management system software that
would import data from M100s equipped with
PCMCIA cards and create a data file for Ranked
Choice Voting (RCV).
– The IRV work for CA was done solely for the Optech
Eagle product. Some facets may be re-used, but all of it
will have to be re-worked or developed from new.
Questions
• If true, the additional pieces needed to run RCV
elections with M100s would include the PCMCIA
cards added to the scanners (an inexpensive
computer component) and STV vote counting
software
– The M-100 Operating system firmware needs to be upgraded to allow
for multiple PC cards utilizing different data. This is no small task.
• (ChoicePlus Pro is available to anyone for free
including ES&S, who could then package it with
their program and sell it back to the city).
– Using ES&S IRV or ChoicePlus Pro, does not reduce the work
required for IRV. ChoicePlus would require reformatting of all the
data that comes from the M-100 into the IRV module whether you
used ChoicePlus or not.
Questions
• Is this true and has ES&S submitted an application
with this upgrade for federal certification? If not,
does it expect to do so this year or next?
– ES&S has not submitted an application including IRV to
the Federal certification. There are no Federal guidelines
currently for IRV.
• If not, does it expect to do so this year or next?
– ES&S would work with the State to determine HOW they
would certify the IRV upgrades. We cannot relay a
timeline on this as the work project has not started.
Questions
• What firmware and software upgrades would be
required to make the M650 capable of reading
ranked ballots and running a Ranked Choice Voting
(specifically Single Transferable Vote) election?
– The M-650 would require upgrading the firmware to allow
the system to capture the ballot image for IRV, much as
in the M-100 would require. This is not a small task.
• What would the cost be and could the upgrade be
completed and certified for Minneapolis' 2009
election?
– The cost would be close to the same as the M-100
upgrades for IRV. A timeframe could come as we receive
requirements for the development.
Questions
• Currently the M100 can read three columns and
can provide error notification for each column. If
these columns were three rankings on an RCV
ballot as they are in San Francisco, could the M100
then provide error notification for under-votes and
over-votes for each ranking without any
modification? If not, what modification would be
required to do this?
– Yes the M-100 could do this, however, refer to the earlier
point about the reality of doing so.
Questions
• Can the M100 or M650 machines be upgraded to
include more than three rankings?
– Yes, ES&S IRV can handle more than 3 rankings,
however, it has not been tested for more than 3 currently
• What have been the discussions in North Carolina
regarding upgrading M100s for its RCV elections?
– NC still has not given us the hard requirements for their
IRV elections. They are conducting their first election by
hand counting the ballots to see how the IRV should
really work. After they figure this out, they will pass us
the hard requirements as to how they wish the system to
work.
Questions
• What is the timeline and work plan for the next
generation of ES&S OCR machines and STV
software?
– The next generation Model 100, the DS200 is already
commercially available. We plan to bring the system into
MN next year for certification. We are currently in the
EAC process, which is still very gray at the moment and
they continue to change the process as we move forward
with this certification.
– The DS200 offers greater flexibility for IRV than the
Model 100. Flexible ballot formatting, better messaging,
and voter feedback make the DS200 an easier
implementation of IRV voting.
Cert Facts
• EAC certification process is still not clearly defined.
• Our first pass EAS certification testing cost $1MM.
• Our last MN certification upgrade cost $200K for
only a source code review.
• Timelines for a small change through the EAC
process now run ~12 months.
• Medium changes can take up to ~18 months
• Large scale changes can take up to ~24 months
• Costs have risen through the roof on the testing
processes.
Other Items
• Due to the EAC and 2005 standards being very
unsettled at this point, it is not clear as to the Model
100 fate for the EAC 2005 certification testing.
• The standards are still being interpreted by the EAC
panel of experts, and things are still being changed
• Single certification costs are born by the single
entities that require the changes
• Wholesale changes that follow in line with the
product directions, are included within the entirety
of the elections market.