[EM] Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Garman
michael.garman at rankthevote.us
Sun Dec 17 16:05:42 PST 2023
Sanctimonious know-it-alls like you who let the perfect be the enemy of the
good are the greatest obstacle to any progress whatsoever.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I didn’t say that Successive-Topcount-Elimination (STE) is a fraud. I said
> that RCV is a fraud.
>
> RCV isn’t STE. RCV, what FairVote is selling, is promoted with the
> intentional lie your vote for Middle over Worst is guaranteed to help
> Middle against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
>
> i.e. FairVote is selling RCV as Condorcet. RCV is a nonexistent
> Condorcet-properties method being fraudulently sold by FairVote.
>
> Thus, RCV is a fraud.
>
> Sorry, but I can’t abide dishonesty. Fraud shouldn’t be supported.
>
> Don’t let a fraudulently-promoted product be successfully sold to the
> people of Oregon.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 15:39 Michael Garman <
> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> Oh come on Michael. You can’t claim the system itself is “fraud” because
>> you dislike one of the many organizations that advocate for it.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 6:37 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> ----
>>> 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/dae8a15a/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list