[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations
Michael Ossipoff
email9648742 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 17:15:41 PST 2023
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 17:12 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:
> I’m quite familiar with it…which is why I am skeptical of your claim…
>
Fine. I’ll paste here a copy of one of the innumerable instances of
FairVote’s repetition of that lie.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 8:11 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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/f7c9db72/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list