Sponsored by: Ben Mynatt Nissan | Archive Search
Opinion

Editorial: Runoff sets costly record

E-mail to a friend



What if they held an election and nobody came? North Carolina almost answered that question with Tuesday's Democratic runoff for labor commissioner, and the results weren't exactly a rock-bottom bargain. The runoff between victor Mary Donnan and John Brooks may well have set two records — the lowest turnout ever for a statewide contest (less than 2 percent) and the highest cost per voter (an estimated $55 per ballot, with an overall tab of between $3.5 million and $5 million).

In Rowan County, the numbers were even scantier. Only 481 ballots were cast, slightly less than 1 percent of the 49,269 registered voters who either identify themselves as Democrats or are unaffiliated and picked that ballot in the May primary. It's estimated that our portion of this exercise cost about $25,000.

Was it worth it?

Well, you could say "yes" from the standpoint that labor commissioner is an important position, responsible for monitoring workplace safety around the state. It's a job that most of us probably don't give much thought to until farmworkers fall ill from heat exhaustion or pesticide poisoning, a construction trench caves in or poultry workers perish in a horrible fire. Then we want to know who's accountable.

You could also say "yes" from the standpoint that, whatever the above computations might say, you simply can't put a price on voting rights — no matter how few may actually think it worth their while to exercise that right on a down-ballot Council of State office.

But when you look at the costs involved and the abysmal turnout, the obvious question arises: Isn't there a better way?

One option is instant runoff voting. With this mechanism, which has been tried successfully in some N.C. municipal elections, voters don't just check off their top candidate for office; they also list their second and third choices. Then, if nobody gains the 40 percent of the vote required under current law, elections officials would tally which of the top two vote-getters received the most additional votes from those whose top choice had been eliminated.

Another option would be to either lower the percentage of the total vote required for victory or go to a winner-take-all format. Opponents of such changes worry that a candidate in a crowded field could win with a relatively small percentage of the overall vote. But a turnout of 2 percent hardly equates to a broad mandate, either.

Yet a third possibility would be to make labor commissioner and other Council of State appointive, rather than elective, which would not only reduce the potential for future costly runoffs but also simplify the ballot.

Of course, there's always the option of doing nothing. But before you check off on that one, reconsider the expense of this exercise — and who ultimately pays the bill. Although it's a statewide ballot, the costs are borne by individual counties that have to set up voting stations, print ballots (or program machines), staff the polls and count and verify the results. Nobody ever said democracy comes cheap, but $55 a vote? Surely we can find a more cost effective system than this.





What do you think? Post your comment below.

Comments

SalisburyPost.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse.

SalisburyPost.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not SalisburyPost.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please send us an email to webmaster@salisburypost.com with the article title and offensive post's contents and we will review it for possible removal.

Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.



Kathy Dopp
Executive Director, National Election Data Archive : Tuesday, July 01, 2008 3:30 PM

IRV is *not* fair or economical. Please read this research report on IRV: Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting - 17 Flaws and 3 Benefits, June 10, 2008, Version #2– updated June 25, 2008 http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf IRV sounds enticing to voters who can express their preferences, but IRV does *not* solve the problems it is promoted as solving and causes significant new problems. Instant runoff voting is a threat to the fairness, accuracy, timeliness, and economy of U.S. elections. The U.S. needs to solve its existing voting system problems and then carefully consider the options before adopting new voting methods. The report accurately rebuts all the claims by IRV proponents, including the misnomered "Fair Vote" organization.
Report Abuse

Instant Runoff Voting is Un-American : Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:51 PM

Even though it is likely to save money in the long run, IRV does not allow voters a second chance to elect their prefered candidate. It is a sad day when cost savings might trump the democratic process.
Report Abuse

Joyce McCloy NC Verified Voting
IRV is well intended but is too dangerous to use : Saturday, June 28, 2008 8:25 PM

The fact is that IRV is a well intentioned idea that produces unintended consequences, and fails to deliver as promised. It does not save money, is confusing and violates the KISS principle of elections (Keep it Simple). This is not a partisan issue, but about maintaining the integrity of our elections. Our equiptment currently can not handle IRV, and it woud lead to a push for more electionic voting machines, and we have seen the problem with those. In the Cary IRV experiment Oct 2007, 3,000 votes were miscounted when one small counting error cascaded into a miscount, requiring a full recount at another date. The winner of the District B contest took office with less than a majority of the votes. Hendersonville did not need an "instant runoff", but if they had, the state had provided an uncertified workaround to help the machines tabulate the 2nd and 3rd rounds. This would not be allowed except that this was an experiment. Some voters found the IRV election very confusing on the touchscreen machines. We don't know how well IRV went because neither county recorded or reported the raw vote data that would show how many voters actually ranked any choices, or how many undervotes or incorrect votes were cast. We cannot conduct another IRV experiment without gutting key standards from our verified voting law, putting all of our votes at risk.
Report Abuse

Joyce McCloy
Instant runoff voting is costly! : Friday, June 27, 2008 12:34 PM

The IRV proponents aren't pushing it because it will save you money. They want to change our way of voting - to proportional representation, which works if you have a parliament and are voting for a party ticket - just one item on the ballot. IRV can NOT be counted by our voting machines, and there aren't any in the country that can count IRV and that have been federally tested and certified. Since IRV is being touted as a cost saver, you can BET that the state and counties won't pay for the expensive voter education necessary to reduce the number of voters disenfranchised by the confusing ballots. Please see www.ncvoter.net for real facts on IRV.
Report Abuse

 

Other Headlines
Letters to the editor - Saturday (7-4-09)
Posted on Friday, July 03, 2009 3:36 PM

Letters to the editor - Friday (7-3-09)
Posted on Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:06 PM

D.G. Martin: Taking a hike serious business for some
Posted on Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:06 PM

Editorial: Protecting children
Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:51 PM

Editorial: Going over a cliff
Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:51 PM

Letters to the editor - Thursday (7-2-09)
Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:51 PM

Ellen Goodman: Unprepared for aging? Depend on it
Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:51 PM

Editorial: 'High hazard' for Spencer
Posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:51 PM

Letters to the editor - Wednesday (7-1-09)
Posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:51 PM

Commentary: A missed opportunity for special-needs education
Posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:35 AM

 




Today's Newspaper Ads

Announcements
Automotive & Vehicles
Community
Home Improvement & Gardening
Real Estate & Rentals
Services
Apparel & Jewelry
Business & Finance
Dining & Entertainment
Medical
Recreation
Shopping

Website Forms

Birth Announcement
Birthdays
Business News
Celebrations Forms
Employee News
Feedback
Graduations
Hold your paper delivery
Letter to the Editor
Mailing List
Sponsorship
Subscribe
Worship directory submission

Special Sections

A Day In The Life
Autos Only Baby of the Year
Biotech 101
Bridal Page
Celebrations
Explorer
Faith 4th
Living Here
NC Statewide Classified Line Ad Network
Pops at the Post
Prime Time
Shop Local
Spring Home Improvement
Summer Fun
Taste of Home
Worship Directory

View All