[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations

[Michael Ossipoff]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:20
Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
To: Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>


Alright, you must be kidding.

Intentionally lying to sell a product is fraud, by any definition.

I didn’t say that I don’t like STE. I like it.

What I don’t like is FairVote’s intentional use of a lie to sell their RCV.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:16 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:

> What, specifically, is the "fraud" of which you speak, Michael? Simply
> advocating for something that you don't think is perfect isn't fraud.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:15 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The falsity of FairVote’s lie is well-known among the electoral-reform
>> community.
>>
>> The term “Know-It-All” is properly used to refer to someone making
>> incorrect statements. Oops!!! You forgot to specify the incorrect statement.
>>
>> “The perfect is the enemy of the good”?
>>
>> You evidently think fraud is good.
>>
>> I wasn’t criticizing STE.  I was criticizing fraud.
>>
>> …intentional lying to sell a product.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:05 Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20231217/0f7031cb/attachment-0001.htm>