[EM] Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Garman
michael.garman at rankthevote.us
Sun Dec 17 12:22:31 PST 2023
Appreciate the clarification and your support for the cause! Apologies for
the rant of my own. I always enjoy reading this list and learning from you
all :)
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 3:20 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods at votefair.org> wrote:
> My response to Michael's second paragraph below is admittedly a "rant"
> that's intended to reveal insights about what's going on under the
> surface of election-method reform in the U.S., especially in Oregon. In
> other words, what I've written in response to Michael's second paragraph
> is not directed at Michael.
>
> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the RCVRC.
>
> To Michael: Thank you for this clarification, and for taking time to
> educate me about the lack of official collaboration between RCVRC and
> FairVote. Also, I'm very pleased you are helping NYC to adopt ranked
> choice ballots!
>
> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep letting the perfect be the
> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a conspiracy instead of
> > offering constructive criticism to the most powerful election reformers
> > out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck with FPTP. You have no
> > evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion — because it doesn’t
> > exist.
>
> For those who don't know, here in Oregon a group of election-method
> reformers in the city of Eugene are strongly pushing STAR voting, with
> lots of financial assistance.
>
> One of their two valid criticisms of IRV is that current versions of IRV
> software do not allow giving the same preference level to two or more
> candidates. They push STAR voting by saying STAR ballots do allow this
> kind of marking. And they point to "spoiled ballots" in real IRV
> elections as evidence of the importance of this issue (even though an
> overvote is just one way in which a ranked choice ballot can be
> categorized as "spoiled").
>
> If the FairVote organization were more honest about the importance of
> being able to rank multiple candidates at the same preference level, the
> fans of STAR voting would not have been able to push IRV fans into
> becoming STAR fans.
>
> History: Interestingly the primary financial backer behind STAR voting
> started out as an IRV fan. I know this because about 20 years ago a
> friend in Eugene sent me a newspaper clipping from the Eugene newspaper
> in which that person, the son of a university president there, was
> promoting "instant runoff voting." The friend in Eugene had heard me
> promoting to her and other friends in Eugene what are now called "ranked
> choice ballots." Back then I lived in Corvallis, but traveled to
> dances, and to dates, in Eugene so often that some people in Eugene
> thought I lived there. FWIW, I also promoted "order-of-preference
> ballots" to friends and dancers in Corvallis, where IRV was adopted
> later after I moved away.
>
> My opposition is against the misinformation about so-called "overvotes."
>
> I'm not opposed to IRV. In fact I've helped to push IRV through the
> Oregon legislature.
>
> For about two decades I've been offering constructive criticism to IRV
> fans and the leader of FairVote, but my suggestions are regarded as not
> important enough for them to seriously consider.
>
> I've also taught lots of people in Oregon about the unfair results of
> IRV in Burlington VT and the recent special election in Alaska.
>
> Yet instead of trying to block IRV I'm promoting the idea of adopting
> IRV and then, later, improving the counting software.
>
> That weakness of IRV can be solved easily by eliminating "pairwise
> losing candidates" when they occur. I'm well aware that this refinement
> will take longer to remedy compared to correctly counting overvotes.
>
> In the meantime the Oregon fans of STAR voting criticize IRV as being
> vulnerable to the "center squeeze effect." Yet this effect will
> disappear from IRV when pairwise losing candidates are eliminated when
> they occur.
>
> So I find myself attacking misrepresentations -- basically "white lies"
> -- from both the FairVote organization and the fans of STAR voting (who
> loosely are affiliated with The Equal Vote Coalition), both of whom are
> well-funded. To be balanced here, The Election Science Foundation also
> promotes misrepresentations.
>
> To repeat, I'm not attacking the organizations. I'm attacking their
> misrepresentations.
>
> I realize that sometimes those organizations are trying to keep things
> simple when they talk to voters. Yet some of those simplifications
> become oversimplifications and misrepresentations.
>
> It's important to understand that the fans of STAR voting wouldn't be
> getting so many signatures on their current statewide petition to adopt
> STAR voting for all of Oregon if RCVRC and FairVote had not been so
> adamant that "overvotes" cannot be counted.
>
> And STAR fans wouldn't have been able to get enough signatures on their
> petition to adopt STAR voting for Eugene elections if they hadn't
> co-opted IRV fans (including promoting STAR as a "better kind of ranked
> choice voting"). That Eugene-specific petition-based referendum has
> already qualified to be on Eugene's spring 2024 ballot.
>
> To clarify, I'm not opposed to Eugene adopting STAR voting; rather I'm
> opposed to STAR fans trying to block the statewide ranked choice ballot
> initiative on the November 2024 ballot. They are doing this by pushing
> a separate statewide STAR petition.
>
> That's a misrepresentation because they criticize ranked choice voting
> as if overvotes cannot be counted, even though the already-scheduled
> November 2024 referendum avoids any mention of "overvotes" so that the
> wording is compatible with future software.
>
> FairVote's myth about overvotes not being countable has contributed to
> this attack against IRV.
>
> Yes, I'm frustrated. And I'm angry. I've been promoting ranked choice
> ballots for three decades, although previously under the names
> "order-of-preference ballots" and "1-2-3 ballots."
>
> Finally Portland Oregon has adopted IRV for the mayoral election and STV
> for city council elections. (In spite of opposition from a fan of STAR
> voting who was on the charter amendment committee.)
>
> And the Oregon state legislature has passed a ranked-choice-voting
> referendum that will appear statewide on the November ballot -- with no
> mention of the word "overvote" in the counting details, because of my
> influence. (Fans of STAR voting also testified against this bill.)
>
> The misinformation coming from FairVote, RCVRC, STAR fans, and the
> Election Science Foundation is undermining support for Portland's
> reforms and the statewide adoption of ranked choice ballots for electing
> our governor and our members of Congress.
>
> I'm not intending to suggest there is any conspiracy between the
> organizations. Yet I do suspect that some of the donations going to
> these organizations would decline if they were to increase cooperation
> and avoid misrepresentation.
>
> I continue to believe that the Oregon legislature being the first state
> legislature to vote in favor of allowing voters to adopt ranked choice
> ballots for key Oregon elections is a hugely beneficial tipping point
> for civilization! (Other states that have adopted ranked choice voting
> have had to do it by gathering signatures on petitions.)
>
> My anger is directed at the people who undermine this progress toward
> adopting IRV as a stepping stone to better software.
>
> That better software will correctly count mythical "overvotes."
>
> And eventually it will avoid easy-to-avoid IIA (independence of
> irrelevant alternatives) failures -- which get criticized as either
> Condorcet failures or "center squeeze effect" failures.
>
> My request to all election-method reform organizations and individuals
> is to please stop the misrepresentations, at least to Oregon voters, so
> the November 2024 ranked choice voting referendum passes with support
> from a majority of Oregon voters.
>
> To everyone still reading this far, thank you for reading my rant.
>
> Richard Fobes
> The VoteFair guy
>
>
> On 12/17/2023 9:50 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
> > I wouldn’t know as I’m not affiliated with the RCVRC.
> >
> > It’s extremely shortsighted of you to keep letting the perfect be the
> > enemy of the good. Attacking FairVote as part of a conspiracy instead of
> > offering constructive criticism to the most powerful election reformers
> > out there is going to ensure that we remain stuck with FPTP. You have no
> > evidence for your claims of any kind of collusion — because it doesn’t
> > exist.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:35 PM Richard, the VoteFair guy
> > <electionmethods at votefair.org <mailto:electionmethods at votefair.org>>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/16/2023 9:04 PM, Michael Garman wrote:
> > > The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center is an independent entity
> > fully
> > > unaffiliated with FairVote. Hope this helps!
> >
> > Thank you, Michael, for clarifying that the Ranked Choice Voting
> > Resource Center RCVRC is not officially(!) affiliated with FairVote.
> >
> > Then why does RCVRC have the same misunderstanding that the leader of
> > the FairVote organization has been pushing for decades?
> >
> > Especially, I'd like to understand why RCVRC pushed onto the Portland
> > Oregon election officials the idea that skipping(!) "overvotes" was a
> > recommended option. That's worse than ignoring the remaining
> rankings!
> >
> > That skipping option works in Australia where a voter hand-writes a
> > number next to each candidate's name. (They don't have to worry
> about
> > "ballot real estate" because there is just one box for each
> candidate.)
> > But it doesn't make sense here in the U.S. where we mark ovals in
> > "choice" columns. And where ballot real estate is very important.
> >
> > (In fact, the upcoming statewide referendum for Oregon adopts RCV for
> > just a limited number of contests because election officials were
> > concerned that adopting it would cause Oregon ballots to require more
> > than one sheet of paper.)
> >
> > I see that your website -- RankTheVoteNYC.org -- shows that in your
> NYC
> > elections "The scanner will reject any ballot where you mark more
> than
> > one candidate for the same rank – in other words, if you fill in
> more
> > than one oval in the same column."
> >
> > Does RCVRC not know that it's easy to correctly count those marks?
> > (Just pair up equivalent ballots and allocate those "paired" ballots
> in
> > equal numbers to those same-ranked candidates.)
> >
> > Richard Fobes
> > The VoteFair guy
> >
> > ----
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em
> > <https://electorama.com/em> for list info
> >
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20231217/428c58d6/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list