Instant Runoff Voting

1. Instant Runoff Voting Changing Current Systems

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 non-RCV 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.