On Monday I testified against five bills on Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and one on Risk Limiting Audits (RLAs),
As I said,
I am not opposed to the concepts of Risk Limiting Audits (RLAs) or Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) but I am opposed to all six of these bills as they are insufficiently detailed. They also provide no guarantees of transparency..
Both of these concepts involve detailed technical and computational issues. Neither are as simple as looking at marks on ballots and simply counting votes. Officials, candidates, the public, and the SEEC need to know exactly what is expected of officials, so they can perform as expected and such that all can determine if they are doing what is required, uniformly across the state.
Just like we need paper ballots to avoid trusting voting machines and software, we need transparency to judge all the counting and calculating required for RCV and RLAs.
In both RCV and RLAs the counting rules details are critical. Especially, in close contests, where the result is dependent on the nuances in the rules.
Here is a link to my complete testimony, also including a link to extensive comments on the RLA bill <read>
