[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations

[Michael Garman]

You forwarded that one already :)

On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:58 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:37
> Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
> To: Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:22 Michael Garman <
> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> 1. Which “lies”?
>>
>
> I told you:
>
> The lie that your vote for Compromise over Worst is guaranteed to help
> Compromise against Worst if Favorite doesn’t win.
>
>
>
>> 2. If you supported the reform, you wouldn’t be out to defeat it.
>>
>
> Incorrect. Though STE doesn’t reassure lesser-evil voters as much as I’d
> prefer, & though STE depends on the nature & attitude of the electorate
> more than I like, I’d have supported STE.
>
> But FairVote’s lying results in disillusionment & disappointment when
> people find out about the lie.
>
> Then people will bury their favorite under a lesser-evil, to try to
> achieve the protection that they’d been fraudulently promised.
>
> Or a disillusioned majority will repeal RCV.
>
> Yes, I don’t support a “reform” achieved by a lie.  …because, for one
> thing misrepresenting the method so badly ruins whatever chance there was
> that the method might have worked
> to people’s satisfaction.
>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:20 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----
> 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/b58cdd8f/attachment-0001.htm>