Nikki Fisher (SOS Civic and Education Director ) explains why we need a Mis, Dis and Mal Information monitoring program in Oregon. Disregards 1st amendment rights!
Mike Johnson on DHS Disinformation.
Since 2020 we see the monitoring of citizens and their speech has been a concern of the elections office. Here is SOS Bev Clarno in 2020 at the Election Security Symposium.
RANKED CHOICE VOTING THE DANGEROUS FACTS
Confusion, Complications, and Disenfranchisement
RCV is a confusing and opaque process that is prone to errors.
Alameda County, California officials admitted two months after a 2022 school
board election that they had incorrectly tabulated the RCV votes and had certified the wrong person as the winner. No election official noticed the mistake because of the overly complicated process of RCV vote counting until an outside advocacy group flagged the issue.
In the 2021 New York mayor’s race, it took eight rounds of vote counting of the 10 candidates during two weeks’ time before a final winner was announced. By the eighth round, the ballots of more 140,000 voters had been thrown out because they did not completely rank all candidate choices; they were effectively disenfranchised due the recognized problem of “ballot exhaustion,” which leads to disenfranchisement.
Nearly one in three voters do not rank multiple candidates in RCV elections. Thus, if a voter does not rank all the candidates in a race, that voter’s ballot may be thrown out in subsequent rounds of vote tabulation. Since RCV makes the voting process more complicated, it is also more likely that voters may make mistakes that will cause their ballots to not be counted.
RCV forces voters to vote for and rank candidates they do not support if they want to ensure that their ballots are not discarded in multiple rounds of vote tabulation.
In the 2022 U.S. House of Representatives general election in Alaska, one of the two states that has implemented RCV for federal elections, it took three rounds of vote-counting before the Democratic candidate was declared the winner over two Republican candidates—but not before more than 15,000 ballots were thrown out by the final round because those voters had not ranked all candidates in the race. In the August 2022 RCV special election for that seat, the two Republican candidates garnered 60 percent of the vote—yet the Democrat candidate was declared the winner after over 11,000 ballots were eliminated.
In the 2018 Maine U.S. House of Representatives general election, the incumbent Republican congressman who received the most first-choice votes was defeated by his Democratic challenger in a second round of ballot tabulation after the votes for two other third-party candidates were redistributed and the ballots of more than 8,000 voters were discarded.
Damaging the Democratic Process
The ultimate winner in RCV is often not the choice of a majority of voters who
participated in the election; instead, the candidate with an RCV “majority” may be the first, second, third, or last choice of only the voters whose ballots remained in the tabulation until the last count.
That also means that the winner of a multi-round, RCV election will not have a genuine mandate from a majority of voters, which should be an important consideration in a democratic system where more and more voters distrust government.
Eliminating the several weeks between a general election and a run-off election deprives voters of the opportunity to re-examine the top two candidates, and for the candidate to re-educate voters about his or her positions and stance on issues, thereby shortchanging voters from making a fully informed choice.
Using RCV to eliminate runoffs does not guarantee faster election results because the multiple rounds of vote tabulation can substantially delay the determination of a winner.
Conclusion
Voters and state legislators—no matter which political party they support or
with whom they are affiliated—should oppose RCV as an ill-advised, imprudent election “reform” that would confuse and hurt voters, unnecessarily complicate the election process, and result in marginal candidates winning elections.
10 Reasons to oppose RCV:
1) Minor parties candidates will not have a chance to succeed, their votes will be given to the bigger party candidates.
2) You can't vote against a candidate. You have to rank every candidate running. If you only rank one candidate your ballot will be thrown out in succeeding rounds of voting.
3) The voting is still strategic. It is not a "way to voice yourself more thoroughly" as it is advertised to be.
4) Extreme candidates manage to get voted in.
5) Moderate candidates are squeezed out. Redirection and redistribution of votes creates distrust.
6) Ballot exhaustion. If you don't rank all candidates, your vote is thrown out completely in future rounds so essentially your vote never counted. The number of ballots counted in the last round is less than the number of ballots counted in the first round.
7) Low participation. Voter turnout has been measured in places with RCV and it constantly gets lower. People are not enthused by RCV.
8) It is confusing to voters. Confusion leads to lower turnout.
9) It opens up the door for more fraud. It is difficult to track ballots and takes weeks to count them. This system requires more handling of ballots, more transportation of ballots, more chain of custody issues, and more adjudication issues.
10) Delays result from above issues. Ballots are practically inauditable because of the ballot exhaustion. Instead of providing more transparency in elections, RCV makes it even muddier.
HB 2004
Establishes ranked choice voting as voting method for selecting winner of nomination for and election to offices of President of United States, United States Senator, Representative in Congress, Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer and Attorney General https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB2004
HB 3509
Establishes ranked choice voting as voting method for selecting winner of nomination for and election to nonpartisan state offices and county and city offices except where home rule charter applies https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB3509
RANK CHOICE VOTING, will if offer more choice or limit the vote?
Dr. Douglas G. Frank was in Oregon to talk about the 2020 and 2022 election, May 24-June 1st, 2022. Here is a video of that presentation: https://rumble.com/embed/v19y5d9/!z
Dr. Frank is a world-renowned physicist with sixty peer-reviewed scientific publications, including cover and feature articles in the world’s leading scientific journals. His Ph.D. is in surface-electroanalytical chemistry, which combines chemistry and physics techniques for the manipulation and analysis of molecules on surfaces.
He left academics in 1996, and has since done extensive consulting, inventing, and technical manufacturing, building electron microscopes, laser scanners, and precision manufacturing and control devices.
He is internationally known for his contributions to the bowling ball industry, and he helped to establish a special school for extraordinarily gifted youngsters near Cincinnati, Ohio, where he served as the Math & Science department chair.
Recently, Dr. Frank was featured in two of Mike Lindell’s documentaries (“Scientific Proof” and “Absolute Interference”) because he discovered several of the algorithms being employed to manipulate our elections. Dr. Frank has been working with dozens of teams across the country for election reform.
Video of Dr. Frank from the Event below..
June 1st
Portland, OR, Shilo Inn at the Airport, 11707 NE Airport Way, Portland OR at 7PM.
Check back for new events.
Copyright © 2024 Clean Voter Rolls - All Rights Reserved.