Congratulations, Irvine RCV Supporters! What a Landslide! Now, Where’s the Checkbook?

The lawn signs are coming down. The door-knockers can finally put their shoes away. The canvassers can take a well-deserved rest. And the RCV advocates can celebrate their victory. But before everyone heads home, there’s one little detail left: The taxpayers have to pay for this thing.

Congratulations, Irvine! Ranked-choice voting has passed. The campaign had lawn signs, volunteers, door-knockers, canvassers, organizational support, and a steady stream of promises about how this wonderful new voting system would transform local elections.  The opposition? There was no comparable organized campaign. And the result? A victory by 2,638 votes. Let’s hear it for the landslide!

The next phase of this adventure won’t involve campaign slogans, enthusiastic volunteers, or lawn signs. It will involve software contracts, County invoices, ballot redesigns, consultants, employee training, website upgrades, voter education, and taxpayer money. Lots of Irvine taxpayer money. And unlike the campaign promises, those invoices will be very real.

The landslide, by the numbers

Let’s start with the latest reported election figures.  As of the November 5, 2026, 5 p.m. update, the results for Irvine Measure D were:

That’s a victory margin of 2,638 votes.  From 63,638 votes cast.  But Irvine has approximately 167,000 registered voters. That means only about 38.1% of registered voters cast a ballot on Measure D. And the 33,138 YES votes represent approximately 19.8% of all registered voters. Read that again.

Fewer than one in five registered Irvine voters voted YES on RCV.

Of course, a ballot measure passes by the votes cast, not by the number of people who stayed home. The result is valid under the applicable election rules.  But perhaps the RCV advocates will forgive us if we don’t describe this as an overwhelming mandate from the entire Irvine electorate. A majority of ballots cast is a victory. It is not the same thing as majority support among registered voters. And now the entire city gets to live with the consequences of that decision.

The $710,440 question: Remember that little budget safeguard?

Before the election, Irvine residents were presented with implementation estimates ranging from $230,600 to $710,440.  The highest estimate was $710,440. So let’s use that number.

Why? Because taxpayers shouldn’t plan a major technology and election-administration project around the rosiest possible estimate. They should understand the potential high-end exposure. The final ordinance uses a cost limit of 0.23% of the City’s then-current General Fund budget. The calculation combines the average of the Orange County Registrar of Voters’ low and high additional-cost estimates with the City’s own estimated additional costs.

If the calculated cost exceeds that limit, the Council may defer the first RCV election by a two-thirds vote to a subsequent statewide general election.  Once RCV has been implemented, the cost-deferral provision applies only to the first use, not subsequent elections.  That distinction deserves attention.

The original fixed $710,440 figure was replaced with a percentage-based mechanism. So the $710,440 is an important historical high-end estimate, not a permanent dollar ceiling in the final ordinance.  In other words, the City’s financial safeguard is tied to a budget percentage, not a promise that RCV will never cost more than $710,440. Source: Adopted Irvine RCV ordinance, cost provisions

Here’s what we want the City Council to answer:

• Is the $710,440 high-end implementation estimate still realistic?
• What is the actual Orange County Registrar of Voters estimate?
• What is the City’s own additional-cost estimate?
• Which costs are one-time startup expenses?
• Which costs recur with every election?
• Which costs are annual?
• Which costs are excluded from the cost calculation?

And most importantly: What will RCV cost Irvine over five years and ten years?

A one-time software installation is one thing. An annual software license, maintenance contract, staff training program, and continuing voter education campaign are something else entirely.  The public deserves the whole bill.

The voter education bill: Up to $316,000. Just to explain how to vote?

Now let’s get to one of the most interesting estimates. According to the estimates reported by Voice of OC, voter education and outreach could cost as much as $316,000 for 2028. That’s the high-end estimate, and that’s the number taxpayers should be examining.  Think about it.  The RCV campaign spent considerable time telling voters that ranking candidates is easy; will the consultants for the RCV campaign be pocketing dough to teach us how to vote?

The City will need to explain:

• How to rank candidates.
• Whether voters must rank all candidates.
• What happens when a voter skips a ranking.
• What happens when someone ranks the same candidate more than once.
• What an overvote means.
• What an exhausted ballot means.
• How candidate elimination works.
• How votes transfer between candidates.
• Why the candidate leading in first-choice votes might not win.

And the education effort cannot simply consist of a brochure and a few posts on social media. Irvine has residents who speak different languages, voters with varying levels of familiarity with election procedures, and thousands of people who may not have participated in the previous municipal election. The City will need a serious outreach program.  And here’s the problem: voter education is not something that can be completed once and forgotten.  New residents arrive. Young people become eligible to vote. Voters skip elections. Others forget the procedures. The City will need to repeat the educational effort.

So let’s ask:

Is the $316,000 a one-time expenditure, an annual expenditure, or an election-cycle expenditure?

And if the first election reveals that voters are confused, what happens to the budget?  Will the City Council be asked for more money?  Will the RCV advocates argue that the educational program needs to be expanded?  Will consultants be brought in to explain why the first educational campaign wasn’t sufficient?  The $316,000 estimate deserves serious scrutiny.

And if the $710,440 implementation estimate and $316,000 education estimate are separate, non-overlapping amounts, the combined high-end illustration is: That’s more than one million dollars.

The City needs to explain whether those estimates overlap before anyone presents the combined figure as an actual projected bill.But even the possibility should get taxpayers’ attention.

4. What exactly will the Orange County Registrar of Voters have to do?

Here’s the part that seems to have gotten lost in all the campaign enthusiasm.  Orange County does not currently administer RCV municipal elections for Irvine or other Orange County cities.  Irvine is asking the County to support a new election procedure.  That means additional work, and additional work generally means additional charges.

The City’s own ordinance identifies the following categories of expenses.

RCV software and licensing

The County will need software capable of handling ranked-choice tabulation.

That involves:

• Acquiring or licensing the necessary RCV module.
• Configuring the software.
• Testing the software.
• Maintaining compatibility with the County’s existing election systems.
• Providing technical support.
• Updating the system when necessary.

Is the software a one-time purchase? Or is it an annual license?  Will Irvine pay the entire initial cost because it is the first Orange County city to use RCV?  If another Orange County city adopts RCV later, will it share the expense?  Those answers matter.

Voting equipment modifications

The County will need to determine whether its existing voting equipment can accommodate the new ballot and tabulation procedures.  That may involve hardware or software modifications, additional processing capabilities, and system testing. The County has acknowledged that estimating these expenses is challenging because it has not previously conducted an RCV election.

In other words, Irvine voters approved the change before the County had a firm price for making its election system accommodate it. That’s confidence!

Ballot redesign and additional materials

The Irvine ordinance requires voters to be able to rank at least five candidates for each single-winner office. That means redesigned ballots, additional ballot space, and potentially additional ballot cards and ink.  There will also be additional work in preparing and testing the ballot layout. The County will have to make sure the new ballots can be read and tabulated properly.

Who pays? Irvine taxpayers.

County employee training

Election personnel will need to understand the new system. That means training on ballot processing, tabulation, troubleshooting, reporting, and the procedures governing RCV.  The City’s ordinance specifically identifies training Orange County staff as an implementation expense.  And training isn’t necessarily a one-time event.  People retire. Employees change positions. Election procedures change.  Will Irvine be charged for refresher training?

City employee training

The City Clerk’s office and other municipal employees will need to understand the new system. They will be responsible for explaining procedures, communicating with candidates, responding to residents, and coordinating with the County.  More training means more staff time and potentially additional consulting expenses.

Additional ballot processing

The County will need to process and tabulate ballots according to the new procedures.  That includes handling skipped rankings, duplicate rankings, overvotes, undervotes, and exhausted ballots.  The City’s ordinance contains specific rules governing these situations. This is not simply a matter of changing a few lines on a ballot.  It is a change in how election results are calculated and reported.

Website and election-results upgrades

The City and County will need to make election results understandable to the public.  Instead of simply publishing first-choice totals and identifying the leading candidate, RCV reporting must accommodate successive counting rounds, eliminations, and vote transfers. That requires additional reporting capabilities and possibly website modifications.

Who builds those systems? Who maintains them?  Who pays for future upgrades?  The City should identify these expenses before implementation.  Candidate, campaign manager, and media training.  Yes, even candidates and the press will need training. The City’s ordinance specifically includes these expenses.  Candidates and campaign managers will need to understand the new procedures and explain them to voters.  The media will need to understand how to report results accurately. Apparently, the simple system needs a whole new educational industry built around it.

Consultants and contracts

The ordinance also includes consulting contracts and other transition-related expenses.  The City should disclose every consultant, contractor, and outside service provider involved in implementing RCV.  Taxpayers deserve to know what they are paying for, how much it costs, and whether the work is recurring.  No vague accounting categories, please.

Santa Clara County: The $87,000 annual reminder

Let’s look at another California county.  Santa Clara County has experience with the discussion and implementation of ranked-choice voting technology.  A January 2024 Sunnyvale City Council report discussed an estimated annual cost of approximately $87,000 for an RCV software module.

That’s an annual estimate.

Let’s do the arithmetic:

And that is just the estimated software module expense.

It does not establish what Orange County will charge Irvine. The two counties have different election systems and vendor arrangements. But it illustrates why Irvine should not treat the RCV project as a one-time purchase.

If Orange County develops or licenses a similar system, will Irvine face annual fees?  Will it pay for ongoing maintenance?  Will the County charge for each election?  Will other cities eventually share the cost?  These are questions the City should answer in writing.

The RCV advocates have been selling the benefits.  Now the County needs to provide the price.

The district election numbers: How many voters are we actually talking about?

Here’s another little reality check.  Irvine has six City Council districts, but only three district council contests were on the November 2026 ballot: Districts 1, 5, and 6.

The latest November 5 reported totals provide a useful snapshot:

These are votes in the individual council contests, not citywide Measure D votes.  Let’s put those numbers in perspective.

District 1 had approximately 10,992 votes counted.

District 5 had approximately 11,906.

District 6 had approximately 6,890.

And these are the contests for which Irvine is preparing to introduce an entirely new election system. Now, of course, the mayoral election is citywide, and the system also applies to that contest.  But the district figures still deserve consideration.

If the City spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on RCV implementation and potentially hundreds of thousands more on education, what measurable improvement will Irvine taxpayers receive?  Will RCV increase participation in these district contests?   Will it reduce exhausted ballots?  Will it produce more representative outcomes?  Will it reduce campaign negativity? Will it reduce vote splitting in every circumstance?

Those are measurable questions.  The City should establish baseline data from the current election system and compare the results after RCV is implemented.  Otherwise, Irvine could spend a great deal of money and end up with nothing more than a different way to count the same relatively small number of district ballots.  All because Branda Lin thinks if RCV was in action in 2022, she would have betaen Farrah Khan for Mayor.

Let’s go back to Santa Clara County for a minute — it’s about half the size of OC.  Here are costs associated with RCV there.

Honolulu voters just said NO to expanding RCV

And now for an interesting development that the Irvine RCV celebration might have overlooked.  Honolulu voters were also asked about expanding ranked-choice voting.  They rejected it.

On election day, Honolulu Question 5 asked voters whether the city should begin using RCV in 2032 for mayor, City Council, and prosecuting attorney elections, replacing the existing two-election approach with a single November election.

The results:

That’s a rejection by more than 20,000 votes.  Honolulu already has experience with RCV in certain limited elections. The proposal was to expand its use to major municipal offices.  Voters declined.  That’s worth remembering because RCV advocates often present the system as an obvious improvement that everyone should embrace.  Apparently, not everyone got the memo.  The Honolulu result doesn’t prove that RCV cannot work. It does demonstrate that voters can examine a proposed expansion and decide they don’t want it.

Irvine voters made one decision. Honolulu voters made another.  Both deserve to be respected.  But the Honolulu result should remind Irvine officials that RCV is not universally accepted and that the promised benefits should be evaluated against actual costs and election outcomes.

The promise that RCV eliminates vote splitting: Not so fast!

One of the selling points of RCV was that it would eliminate vote splitting.  Except it doesn’t eliminate vote splitting in every circumstance.  Alaska’s 2022 U.S. Senate election is an example frequently cited in discussions of the limitations of ranked-choice voting.  The system does not guarantee that every voter who prefers candidates from the same political grouping will have those preferences combined in a way that produces the outcome they expect.  And there is another important distinction.

RCV can produce a majority of continuing ballots without producing a majority of all ballots originally cast.

Why?

Because ballots can become exhausted when voters have no remaining continuing preference.  That means the denominator can shrink as candidates are eliminated.  Irvine’s ordinance itself defines a majority based on continuing ballots.  That’s an important detail that voters should understand.

The City should not promise that RCV automatically guarantees a winner supported by a majority of everyone who participated in the election.  It guarantees no such thing.  The City should explain the actual rules and publish the data after every election.

9. So, is this really the right time to spend the money?

Let’s remember Irvine’s financial situation.  Voice of OC reported that the City was dealing with a projected $6 million deficit for the current fiscal year and a $9 million deficit for the following fiscal year, with longer-term budget concerns.

The City’s financial outlook deserves attention.  At the same time, Irvine is preparing to undertake a substantial election-system transition.  The high-end implementation estimate is $710,440.  The high-end voter education estimate is $316,000.   The potential combined exposure, if those estimates are separate, is over $1 million.  And there may be recurring software, maintenance, staffing, and education expenses.

So let’s ask a simple question:

Does spending this money on RCV make sense right now?

That is not a question about whether RCV supporters are enthusiastic.  It’s not a question about whether the campaign had enough volunteers.  It’s not a question about whether the system sounds attractive in theory.  It’s a question about public priorities.

Irvine has roads to maintain, parks to operate, public safety services to fund, libraries to support, and infrastructure needs to address. The City Council should be able to explain why RCV deserves this expenditure and what measurable benefits taxpayers should expect in return.

Here’s what taxpayers should demand.

Before the first RCV election, the City should publish a comprehensive financial analysis that includes:

1. The highest current estimate from the Orange County Registrar of Voters.
2. The City’s highest projected internal implementation costs.
3. The cost of software acquisition and annual licensing.
4. Voting equipment modifications.
5. Ballot redesign and additional printing expenses.
6. County and City employee training.
7. Website and election-results upgrades.
8. Candidate, campaign manager, and media education.
9. Voter education and multilingual outreach.
10. Consulting and outside contractor fees.
11. Annual maintenance and technical support.
12. A five-year and ten-year total cost projection.

The City should also identify which costs are one-time expenses and which are recurring.  And if the initial estimates prove inadequate, the Council should hold a public hearing before authorizing additional spending.  The public should not discover the true cost of RCV through a series of budget adjustments and invoices after the fact.

A final word to the RCV victory celebration

Congratulations again, RCV supporters.  You won.  2,638 votes which might change before all is said and done.  You organized a campaign, put up the signs, knocked on doors, recruited volunteers, and persuaded enough voters to pass Measure D.  That’s a victory.

But the victory doesn’t settle the questions about cost, administrative complexity, or whether the promised benefits will materialize.  The City now has to implement the system, subject to the technical and financial conditions in the ordinance.  And that means the campaign slogans have to give way to actual numbers.

The Orange County Registrar of Voters needs to provide its estimates.  The City Clerk needs to prepare a realistic budget.  The Council needs to explain recurring costs.  And taxpayers need to know what they are getting for their money.  The $710,440 estimate deserves scrutiny.  The $316,000 voter education estimate deserves scrutiny.  The district election participation figures deserve scrutiny.

There is nothing wrong with asking whether a new election system delivers enough benefit to justify its cost.  In fact, that is exactly what responsible public budgeting is supposed to do.

So, to the RCV crowd:

You won the vote. Congratulations. Now let’s see whether you can win the budget hearing.

And to the Irvine City Council:  Please don’t confuse voter approval with a blank check.  The voters approved a change in how elections are conducted.  They did not authorize unlimited spending, automatic budget increases, or a permanent new expense without public accountability.  The lawn signs are gone.  The campaign volunteers have gone home.  Now comes the really interesting part.

Show us the invoices.