They say: “IRV systems are currently NOT LEGAL in California.”

The truth is: Charter cities and counties, such as San Francisco and Berkeley, are free under the government code and the elections code to use any voting method as long as it complies with the US and California constitutions. IRV qualifies.

They say: “The California Secretary of State did not allow San Francisco to use IRV in its November 2003 municipal elections.”

The truth is: The Secretary of State has no authority over whether or not a municipality can use IRV, and the Secretary of State did not prevent San Francisco from using IRV in 2003. The Secretary of State has authority over voting equipment, and the modifications to the voting equipment in San Francisco had not been approved in time for the election, so the Secretary of State forbid the use of particular voting equipment in 2003, not the use of IRV.

They say: “Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is very complicated and confusing.”

The truth is: Voters simply rank candidates in order of choice. 2nd graders can do this. Illiterate voters in Papau New Guineau successfully used IRV in the 1960s, and the country is preparing to return to IRV. The evidence from places that actually use IRV shows that it is not complicated and confusing to voters.

They say: “Spoiled ballots will be more common.”

The truth is: The electronic voting machines recently introduced in Alameda County prevent spoiled ballots, so the error rate will not change under IRV. It is no more difficult to fill out a valid absentee IRV ballot than a traditional one: you just have to indicate a valid first choice. However, IRV ballots are even more forgiving than traditional ballots, because if you fail to list a 1st choice but list a 2nd or 3rd choice, your vote will count. As an example, when Ann Arbor, Michigan used IRV to elect its mayor in 1975, the rate of spoiled ballots was 50% lower than the previous election.

They say: “The Alameda County Registrar of Voters has stated that: he cannot allow Berkeley to consolidate its general municipal election with the statewide election, if it uses an IRV system[.]”

The truth is: What the Registrar of Voters, Brad Clark actually said is that as a matter of policy, he is not willing to conduct such an election until there is state law that provides for the details. He recognizes that he would be both legally and technically able to conduct such an election, and it is the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, not Clark, that would decide whether or not to allow Berkeley to consolidate its municipal election.

They say: “The Alameda County Registrar of Voters has stated that: ... Neither current ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES nor ABSENTEE BALLOTS can handle both IRV and traditional elections on the same ballot.”

The truth is: In fact, the current equipment is capable of conducting IRV elections, both with and without traditional elections, but it is not currently certified to conduct IRV elections. However, when the vendor receives the certification, which has to happen before Berkeley can hold an IRV election, it will be able conduct both IRV and non-IRV elections at the same time.

They say: “An election utilizing two methods of voting (traditional and IRV) would result in massive voter confusion.”

The truth is: Current elections involve more than one method of voting: single winner and at-large elections. In fact, some ballots involve 3 types of election: single winner plurality, single winner runoff, and at-large plurality. Unless the Registrar thinks “massive voter confusion” currently reigns, it is a false statement that massive voter confusion would result from the combination of an IRV and a non-IRV ballot. The 1975 Ann Arbor ballot combined IRV with a vote-for-one ballot, and the rate of voter error went down by 50%.

They say: “IRV is more expensive because Berkeley’s municipal election cannot be consolidated with Alameda County.”

The truth is: Under the proposed charter amendment, Berkeley cannot use IRV until the city council determines that it is cheaper than the existing system. The city council also has to certify that the city will continue to be able to consolidate elections with the county.

They say: “The recently revealed flaws in electronic voting machines will be magnified with IRV.”

The truth is: The process of recording votes, tallying the votes and announcing the winners will be unchanged with IRV. The process of correcting the flaws in the current system is necessary, and identical, with or without IRV.

They say: “A paper trail may be impossible with the complicated transfer of votes between candidates.”

The truth is: The paper trail simply prints out each voter’s first, second, third, etc choice.

They say: “In most forms of IRV not all votes are counted.”

The truth is: In every IRV system, each voter has one vote, and every vote is counted, just like in any other election. Not all voters choose to indicate a preference between the top two candidates, but that is a very different statement than, “all votes are not counted.”

They say: “With IRV, a majority is not required to win.”

The truth is: In every IRV system that is or has been used in public elections, winning has required a majority of the valid votes. The system always reduces the field to the strongest two candidates, and the winner is the candidate who receives a majority of the valid votes.