[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 17:11:18 PST 2023
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:03 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:
> > " 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."
>
> Where does this claim appear from FairVote at all? Oops! Michael Ossipoff
> hasn't produced any evidence.
>
Only throughout FarVote’s promotional material.
“…hasn’t produced any evidence”?
I hadn’t yet been asked for it. I thought that you’d have already seen
FairVote’s promotional material.
But, since you evidently haven’t, then I’ll post an example here. …one of
many instances of FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
>
> I'd appreciate it if you at least did me the courtesy of spelling my
> surname correctly. I know it's hard to find -- not like it's in my
> email address, display name, or anything of the sort.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You might want to specify what you’re talking about.
>>
>> Oops!!! Michael Garmin forget to say what my unsupported claim was !
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:56 Michael Garman <
>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>
>>> You might wish to consider substantiating your claims instead of
>>> forwarding them to the list without backing.
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 7:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 16:14
>>>> Subject: Re: [EM] Legacy IRV limitations
>>>> To: Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/ea72ecd6/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list