2012 NC Elections Comparison Table
Methodology Description
E-Voting E-Voting offers its
participants an electronic
platform to vote. Voting
could be extended beyond
one day.
E-Voting & E-Voting platform which
Physical Day of includes a physical “day-of”
Election with election site using
electronic voting computers/laptops to vote at
tools the site.
Pros Cons Cost Legal Issues
? Requires pre-registration ? Pre-registration could ? E-Voting ? Could require changes in the
of voters encouraging NC potentially be problematic in platform - existing ordinance and Plan
outreach areas of low civic prices vary ? E-Voting company and IEA’s
? Safe & secure voting participation depending agreements would be subject
online from any internet ? An IEA type figure would on the size to the City’s contracting
accessible location, still be needed to do the and requirements, e.g. competitive
including smart phones “human” aspect of the work experience of bidding.
? Could potentially (e.g. qualifying voters and the company
increase voter/candidate candidates) ranging from
participation because of ? NCs may still have to pay a few
convenience for any additional options to thousand
? Voter information can be tailor their own elections. dollars per
easily be provided to the ? May potentially disengage NC to
NC to add to daily communities who are not $450,000 for
outreach efforts. electronically savvy or a citywide
? Additional options trusting of this technology platform
(phone/paper voting) can ? Drafting & approval ? Costs for
be added to an election contract can take some time IEAs and
tailoring it to each NC ? Would need to develop a arbiters
challenge process or hire ? DONE -
arbiters $581k for
outreach
staffing and
mailers
? In addition to the Pros of ? Same Cons as above Same costs ? Could require changes in the
online voting above, adds ? More resources needed to as above in existing ordinance and Plan
opportunity for people to staff the election site addition to ? E-Voting company and IEA’s
vote in person on an voting agreements would be subject
election day location to the City’s contracting
? Introduces stakeholders costs and requirements, e.g. competitive
to a new concept of voting staffing bidding.
 Methodology Description Pros Cons Cost Legal Issues
IEA Model Independent Election ? A neutral 3rd party would ? If City Clerk is not IEA, ? IEAs - Cost ? Could require changes in the
Administrators (IEA) are be responsible to qualify IEAs would need to be would be existing ordinance and Plan
neutral third parties who candidates & voters identified and trained – driven by the ? Could require an RFQ or
qualify candidates and voters ? The IEA would remove process takes time number of RFP process for the E-Voting
and provide supervision and NCs from the role of ? This system relies IEAs needed. company and IEA’s
oversight at the elections site qualifying candidates and moderately on volunteers City Clerk ? Would require liability
on election day. The City voters ? Election results may not be stated insurance for IEA’s
Clerk could be the IEA, or ? Many NCs are familiar viewed as having the same $136,416 for
DONE could work with a with the IEA model credibility as those 9 regional
cadre of Independent conducted by the City Clerk IEA’s; DONE
Election Administrators ? Some NCs are wary of the spent
(IEA’s) to conduct elections. IEA model given the past $800/NC on
problems IEA’s
? Would need to develop a ? Potential
challenge process or hire costs for
arbiters arbiters
? Increased costs because a ? DONE – at
single IEA cannot conduct least $300k
more than 1 election per day for outreach
staffing and
related costs

Selection Per the Plan, NCs may hold ? Minimal costs ? No secret voting Any cost No changes need to be made
Process (Town a selection process if they do ? Good for an initial ? Not suitable for large associated in the ordinance or Plan for
Hall System) not opt to have an election. “getting off the ground” turnouts – could discourage with staff NCs to use the selection
boards, especially after outreach time prior, process. NCs only need to
certification ? Not suitable for during and change their bylaws.
? No secret voting contentious situations after the
? There are many styles of ? Would need to develop a process
selections processes (e.g. challenge process
pulling names out of a hat, ? Various selection styles
selection people at could affect uniformity within
random, etc.) the system and thus the
credibility of the process
Suspend Suspend the 2012 elections ? Cost savings of at least ? Attrition of Board members DONE staff - Would require ordinance and
elections for 1 until 2012/13 FY. NCs can $1.1 million who don’t want to serve $75k to Plan changes to suspend
fiscal year (FY) appoint vacancies or use a ? Provides time for the additional years support elections and extend Board
selection process. NCs and City to determine ? Could affect NC outreach if election terms.
a more sustainable Board members don’t feel planning and
election system the need to outreach selections
Suspend Suspend the 2012 elections ? Cost savings of at least ? Attrition of Board members DONE staff - Would require ordinance and
elections for 2 until 2013/14 FY. NCs can $2.2 million who don’t want to serve $75k to Plan changes to suspend
fiscal years (FY) appoint vacancies or use a ? Provides time for the additional years support elections and extend Board
selection process. NCs and City to determine ? Could affect NC outreach if election terms.
a more sustainable Board members don’t feel planning and
election system the need to outreach selections
This document was prepared by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment at the request of Neighborhood Council leaders. The Department has not taken a position on elections. The
Pro/Con lists are not exhaustive, but represent various statements made by Neighborhood Council stakeholders during discussions about the Neighborhood Council system.
Election Statistics: Self Affirmation – 48 Documentation – 45 Number of Ballot Styles: 1 – 48; 2 – 11; 3 – 2; 4 – 4; 5 – 4; 6 – 1; 7 – 4; 8 – 6; 9 – 3; 10 – 2; 11 – 1; 12 – 1; 13 – 2; 15 – 1; 17 – 1; 21 – 2