[EM] Legacy IRV limitations

[Michael Ossipoff]

Yes, many RCV opponents were formerly RCV advocates…until they found out
that they’d been lied to by FairVote.

As I often say, RCV’s worst problem is FairVote.

Lying to sell something is called fraud.

RCV is an intentional fraud, & yes, people don’t like that when they find
out.



On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:20 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/e8ef7ebb/attachment-0001.htm>